Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Foxface Aug 30, 2014 18:49:28	A perusal of various boards, this one included, has led me to believe that the ranger is considered overall the weakest and/or least satisfying class in the game presently.    Why do you think this is so (and please note: even if you don't agree, I'd like to hear why you think other people find the ranger weak), and what would you do to fix it?
#2 DemoMonkey Aug 30, 2014 19:08:11	My 4E group found the ranger to be one of the strongest classes in that edition. Perhaps it's partly a matter of people feeling like it's a major step downwards to be reduced to "only" on par with other classes in this one?.
#3 demon_idol Aug 31, 2014 8:17:24	I really liked the idea of the 5e ranger. It seems like it should have an extra ability boost, perhaps at 6th level., or perhaps 10th level Then a person could take a two weapon fighting feat, archery feat, or the like.
#4 sugar_high Aug 30, 2014 19:43:51	I think a lot of it is that the ranger's class features are extremely confined.  Where a bard or rogue chooses a few skills to get an additional bonus with, the ranger chooses a terrain or enemy with which to get a bonus with specific skills.  If the ranger doesn't have the specific skills trained, then the bonus means little to nothing.  If the ranger has the skills trained but doesn't happen to be interacting with the right enemy or terrain, then once again the bonus is not in play.   Aside from this, the ranger's damage lacks scaling and burst capability at higher levels.  At low levels, the ranger is a single target powerhouse with Hunter's Mark, two-weapon fighting style, and Colossus Slayer.  Unfortunately, none of these options scale beyond the level at which you acquire them.  As a result, from levels 5-19 the ranger is doing the same damage outside of ability score scaling, while the Paladin is getting divine damage on every attack, the rogue's sneak attack damage is increasing, and the fighter and warlock are getting more attacks.  Some people enjoy the ranger's combat spells, but I've not been overly impressed with them outside of the aforementioned Hunter's Mark and the fifth level spell Swift Quiver (available twice per day at max).  Your milage may vary.   The hunter ranger's level 11 feature is essentially a low damage, at will aoe.  It's my experience that you're usually better off concentrating fire in order to take down an opponent rather than doing less damage to multiple opponents, and I think that most people who dislike this feature tend to be of the same mindset.  How it is in practice depends largely on the types of games that you play in.   The beastmaster ranger looks underwhelming at first glance, having to give up your own actions to command the beast, but I haven't seen it in play (no one I've played with so far has wanted to try one).  Whether it is as mechanically weak as it looks is something that I'm not qualified to say.   As far as fixes go, Dracones suggested in one of the other ranger discussions that a ranger be allowed to use downtime to train additional favored enemies and terrains, which would help the skill section.  For combat, one fix would be to allow the ranger to prepare spells like a paladin rather than having the very limited list of spells known and create some combat spells similar to the paladin's smites.  Something else that might help would be to implement some scaling for the level 3 hunter features, or possibly allow the ranger to attack twice with his off-hand using a bonus action starting at level 11 rather than just once.   Ultimately, I think the problem is inherent with the class's design as a whole, rather than any particular feature, so fixes are more stop-gap than anything else, in my opinion.
#5 2Chlorobutanal Aug 30, 2014 22:06:21	I'm actually quite intrigued by the Ranger class in 5E.   Beast Master Rangers get the second-most attacks per action of any class, behind Fighters, and they keep pace with fighters until level 20.  Whereas a Fighter gets Extra Attack (2) at level 11, a Beast Master receives two beast attacks and a ranger attack in one attack action.  Granted, these aren't exactly the same as 3 PC attacks, but it's still interesting to me.  They also can receive an addition reaction per round in the form of an animal companion reaction.  Many animal companions can inflict bonus damage (poison) or conditions (prone,grappled) on their melee attacks, including attacks of opportunity.   Hunter Rangers get interesting combat options for extra attacks such as reaction counter-attacks or Hordebreaker, which works well with both Extra Attack or Mutliattack whenever there are groups of enemies in an encounter, which should be fairly frequent.  They also get useful defensive powers such as Evasion or Uncanny Dodge.   The swift quiver spell certainly seems stronger than most other bonus action attack options.  Many ranger spells can provide buffs, perform AoE damage, or provide some form of movement control, such as creating difficult terain or restraining foes.   This is outside of the Ranger's unparalleled abilities as a tracker, hunter, or forager outside of combat.
#6 UngeheuerLich Aug 30, 2014 22:23:38	I don´t like his inflexibity. Even his spells are locked.   I would like to at least allow him to cast his ritual spells by spending ten minutes and a spell slot, so he can cast alarm around his friends... Maybe minor ritual casting or something like that.   I believe downtime system in the DMG may have an option to retrain class features. So that may help with favoured terrain and enemies becoming easily useless.
#7 Chaosmancer Aug 30, 2014 22:30:28	I think the biggest things are as follows   One, quite a lot of the people who dislike the ranger the most point out that most groups gloss over the exploration pillar, hand-waving food and water and difficult terrain in favor of "moving at plot". Those that don't move at plot still point out that the ranger bonuses aren't as useful if you have a pack mule and enough supplies. Since exploration is the ranger's strongest area this makes them seem weaker.   Something not often considered is that a Ranger can very often find themselves in their favored terrain. For example a Dark Sun ranger will obviouslytake Desert and be in their favored terrain a majority of the time. Most games involve forests to some degree or another and while I dislike the ability being reliant on knowledge of the game world and the party being in a certain area it is still going to come into play more often than not I think.   Another is that Ranger's seem to be the first class I've ever seen with at least one ability that specifically calls out ambush tactics. Their camo ability takes a minute to set-up and only works as long as they don't move. This shines when setting up an ambush along a path or stake-outs. Powerful but situational. A lot of their best combat situations also come from finding the enemy and picking when the fight starts, and they are built for this to occur. Ranger's are the best trackers, even if Rogues with Expertise can get higher numbers Ranger's can track while moving normal speed which is huge. It might be limited to terrain (can't remeber) but even so they are just as good as most classes at their worst.   Also as pointed out, Ranger's are built towards AOE damage and people don't like that, prefering high single target damage. I think Ranger's do have fairly decent single target damage, but they are outshone by fighter's and paladins who just deal overwhelming damage by high-levels   A lot of people also prefer not to consider spells, some because they do not find them impressive or as useful and some people because they would prefer ranger's wtih no spells at all.   Their capstone is also not as impressive on the damage front as it should be, a max of +5 damage versus a pool of creatures is not a level 20 ability. However, I think it is overlooked that Ranger's can also add +5 to hit, and depending on the other abilities a ranger has (such as an archer with sharpshooter or if the Ranger is attempting a crazy stunt that gives them disadvantage) this can be very powerful. It raises them to a +16 to hit against their creatures and all but guarentees a succesful strike.   So really, I think a lot of it is the situational nature of the ranger. In an urban sprawl setting, or a setting where exploration is waved, or a game where the ranger isn't trying to set-up ambushes for their foes, Rangers are less powerful. A forest ranger tracking their enemy through the woods and setting up an ambush for them is all of the ranger's abilities working in harmony. I don't think most other classes are so obvious in this situational gap in power, and also people compare the ranger to the wrong classes most of the time. Let's compare them to Barbarians and Rogues not Fighters and Paladins and see f they eel a little more powerful that way
#8 Yuukale_Narmo Aug 31, 2014 1:24:33	What kind of advantage does an ambushing ranger has over a class with a nice stealth score? (high dex, advantage and possibly bard or rogue expertise) ?   How does, again, a Ranger's favored enemy bonuses give him an edge over his favored enemies that a rogue or bard wouldn't have ? (I'm aware that we're talking about skills here). Also, even though a fighter will have a harder time coming up with creative (skill-using) solution for finishing his enemies, past 11 he has amazing monster-killing potential.   What I've come to think is that rangers are only worth it in pre-10 campaigns. Which is fine with most groups, but shows how much this class is scales poorly. Also, his capstone is laughable, really.   Solutions:   Hunter's Mark becomes part of Favored Enemy mechanics and scales with level. Either the Ranger recharges his spells on short rests just like the warlock or he gets more spell slots (also, swift quiver gets moved to 3rd level spells, so the ranger actually can compete with other damage dealers more efficiently). Favored Terrain training on downtime.   There, easy fixes to make the ranger actually believable as a "Hunter of enemies"
#9 2Chlorobutanal Aug 31, 2014 5:20:17	Instead of third attack, the Ranger gets Multiattack at 11, or, alternatively, a second beast attack (bringing the total to 3).  If you want 3 iterative attacks on one target, maybe Hunter Ranger isn't for you.  I'd reckon that Multiattack and/or Hordebreaker can keep pace with Extra Attack in a lot of encounters.
#10 Zardnaar Aug 31, 2014 5:48:22	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
#11 Lady_Auralla Aug 31, 2014 6:03:43	The Ranger is main expertise is in the Exploration pillar first and combat second. Unfortunately it is underdeveloped in both areas.   For exploration I would give them Nature and Survival skill + 3 others off the  Ranger skill list. I would also give them 3more skills at a higher level. I would also give them epertise for 2 skills then another 2 at mid levels and again at higher levels. Next would be an increase in overland speed over a day that does not reduce awareness. Primal awareness should be 1/rest and not burn a spell slot.
#12 h347h50 Aug 31, 2014 8:24:03	So, who has actually had a ranger in their group?   Ranger is fine. People need to understand that most of the potential for ranger is stored in thier spell lists. Granted some people hate that and some want a simple ranger like there is a simple fighter. Thats cool you can player a fighter take a slightly fluffed outlander background and just call your character a ranger.
#13 Mistwell Aug 31, 2014 9:06:28	I think Beastmaster has some issues, but I don't think Hunter has any problems really.  It's a pretty awesome class as it is.
#14 Grifford Aug 31, 2014 9:14:06	I think if people try to "fix" every class they think is the "weakest", we may as well reduce the game to one class so we can stop suffering from our own failure to understand the basics of compare-and-contrast.
(Reply to #12) Orzel	h347h50 wrote:
#16 Brock_Landers Aug 31, 2014 9:35:26	At this point, I want a return of the 1st Ed Ranger (but double HD should at 1st level should be available to everyone!), which the 5th Ed sort of delivers, but I will definitely want a hybrid, certainly for proper Greyhawk campaigns where Rangers are human and some type of good.
#17 masterfat78 Aug 31, 2014 9:48:27	I personally DM most of the time and I do take into consideration what my players are going to be when I make my campaigns so for me that isnt the bad part of the ranger. I think favored terrains and enemies could have been done a little better, and feel tha capstone should have been expertise to attack or damage instead of wis bonus because theres a good chance rangers havent maxed wis. The hunter subclass seems alot better than the beastmaster to me. I know the beastmaster gets more attacks, but they are shitty attacks and its possible to loose them if your beast dies. Since its a ritual binds the beast(nowhere did it say how you find the beast or summon it that I saw). You could loose your beast in the first encounter of the day in a heavy cobatday and be totally ****ed. Im not much of a ranger player but if I was to play one I would go hunter ten times out of ten and I dont think I could say that for any other subclass and that means there is a problem.
#18 Iorwerth Aug 31, 2014 10:40:44	I think the Natural Explorer has too many different types of terrain. I might just split it into Temperate, Tropical, etc. Might then still allow them to pick a specific type of terrain in each, where they are more effective e.g. advantage on stealth roles, or on tracking roles etc.
#19 Brock_Landers Aug 31, 2014 10:44:49	Iorwerth wrote:
(Reply to #15) Chaosmancer	Orzel wrote:
#21 arderkrag Aug 31, 2014 11:22:23	Foxface wrote:
#22 Jell_Moo Aug 31, 2014 16:45:12	Honestly, I just think that the Ranger is functionally different than the other classes. For a class like the Barbarian, Paladin and to a lesser extent the Fighter, the path is a little more straightforward. Class abilities to pump up your damage level. Rangers seem to require more out of the box thinking to achieve similar results. Their spells have some surprisingly versatile choices which helps.    I'm still trying to figure out how the Beastmaster actually fares. My instinct tells me great at low level and problematic at high levels. My one worry with it is that an early pet death will leave the Ranger feeling relatively useless for the rest of the day.   I think that combat wise the Ranger is okay. Not a powerhouse, but not as dire as some think. I do wish that they had better skill options so that they could at least be competitive with either the Bard or Rogue though. I think that there was missed opportunity in Natural Explorer to really help shore this up (and I agree with others that there are too many terrain options).
#23 demon_idol Aug 31, 2014 18:42:01	It would make beast masters a bit better if the DC of their animal companions special attacks (e.g. the DC to avoid being knocked prone by the wolf or panther) increased by the ranger's proficiency modifier. SInce the beast's damage increases, a higher save DC vs. trip, poison, etc. make sense.
(Reply to #23) 2Chlorobutanal	demon_idol wrote:
#25 Chameleon-X Aug 31, 2014 20:05:57	Alternate Feature: Hunter's Quarry At Level 2, you may choose this feature in place of spellcasting. Once per turn as a bonus action you may designate the closest enemy you can see as your quarry. When you make an attack against that creature, you may deal 1d6 extra damage. You may apply this extra damage only once per turn. The damage increases as you gain levels (2d6 at level 4, 3d6 at level 8, 4d6 at level 12, and 5d6 at level 16). Only one creature can be designated as your quarry at a time, and a creature remains your quarry until it is slain, or until you designate another creature as your quarry. While a creature is your quarry, you may treat that creature as if it were your favored enemy.   Alternate Feature: Combat Mastery At level 2, you may choose this feature in place of Fighting Style. Choose Archery, Two-Weapon Fighting, or another option available to you, and gain the listed benefit. You gain additional benefits as you gain levels;   Archery   Level 2: You gain the Twin Strike feature; once per turn when you make a ranged attack with a weapon, you may make a second attack as a bonus action on the same turn. The attack may be against the same creature, or a different one. You do not apply any bonuses to the damage of the second attack.   Level 9: You gain the Triple Shot feature; you may make three ranged attacks with a weapon as part of the same action, and each of these attacks deals 1[W] extra damage if the target is your favored enemy. Once you use this freature, you may not do so again until you have taken a long or short rest.   Level 17: You gain the Evasive Strike feature; any time you hit a creature which is your favored enemy with a ranged attack using a weapon, you may move up to a number of feet equal to five times your wisdom modifier without provoking opportunity attacks.   Two-Weapon Fighting   Level 2: You may use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding are not light. In addition, you may add your ability modifier to the damage of the second attack if the target is your favored enemy.   Level 9: You gain the Off-Hand Attack feature; once per turn when you use the Extra Attack class feature, you may make one additional attack with your off-hand weapon as a bonus weapon. This attack may be either melee or ranged (such as from a thrown weapon). If the target is your favored enemy, it also grants advantage until the end of your next turn.   Level 17: You gain the Primal Resilience feature; as a bonus action when you move at least 10 feet, you may spend a number of hit dice equal to your wisdom modifier to regain hit points. If you end your movement next to your favored enemy, you also have advantage on your next attack against it. Once you use this feature you can't do so again until you take a long or short rest.
#26 The_Jester Aug 31, 2014 20:20:49	I think the best fix would be to give all rangers hunter's mark for free, not letting it count against their spells known.  First, it draws attention to that spell, but also doesn't penalize rangers for wanting to take other spells.
(Reply to #26) 2Chlorobutanal	Chameleon-X wrote:
#28 Chameleon-X Sep 01, 2014 16:53:38	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
#29 Odin06 Oct 26, 2014 12:17:02	The new edition of D&D fixed many problems, and brought many good ideas. The bard, for example, was a broken class in D&D 3, but is amazing now. But even so, I agree with most people here. The ranger is (again) in a bad shape.    If we talk about skills, even in his environment, he is inferior to a rogue or a bard. In combat, he can´t keep up with fighters, barbarians and paladins after level 10, because his damaging abilities for a very strange reason don´t scale like, for example, the paladin´s. The basic abilities don´t scale and most of the (few) combat spells don´t scale and/or deal too little damage. The hunter specialization is interesting and useful in the right situations, but is nothing compared to the warmaster fighter in terms of combat power. The beastmaster is easy to use, but requires you to give up one attack action in the beginning of each combat to order your companion to attack (completely unnecessary in my opinion), and if the animal dies (which is very likey to happen, since it has too few hit points) the specialization is completely broken until you find a new companion, which is very strange in terms of rolepalying, since the ranger really bounds with his animal. And honestly speaking: The Favorite Enemy feature is only really useful in the 20th level.   In my opinion, the entire class needs a reformulation. What can be done right now is try to think about small changes that fix this problems.   One simple way to solve this is to give the proficiency bonus as a damage bonus when you face favorite enemies and make the spell Hunter´s Mark damage scale to 2d6 if used with a 3rd level spell slot and 3d6 if used with a 5th level spell slot. This is much less than the damage bonus a paladin gains by sacrificing spells, but would solve the ranger problem in my opinion. Since you can apply the speel´s effects to you animal companion if you are a beastmaster of high level, it can be a very powerful combination. And if you choose the Hunter specialization and are using two weapons, Hunter´s mark would be a very powerful feature too.   Another thing that I was thinking about is that the creatures a ranger can summon can make up for the lack of combat power. Using this idea to be in pair with fighters, barbarians and paladins makes the class very spell dependent (which I don´t personally like), but can work. Has anyone tried to do this?
#30 pauln6 Oct 26, 2014 12:27:38	Would giving the ranger a jack-of-all trades type half proficiency bonus to some or all of the other terrains cover off the shortcomings?
#31 GladiusLegis Oct 26, 2014 12:44:45	So you necro-ed a thread about how the Ranger is weak, precisely about two months after actual play has determined that it's actually not that weak.   I still have issues with the Ranger's design philosophy (and its capstone is butt, to be sure), but overall it holds up performance-wise.