A lot of people are bringing up issues with rangers being underpowered. In my opinion, they're not. The real problem I see with them is one that has been a problem in previous incarnations of them and one that I really hoped would be avoided in this edition given that it's a well-known issue and one that I had thought would be at the top of their list of "dont's".
That is that it's so damned specific.
You create this awesome arctic tundra ranger who specialises in hunting and killing elementals and the DM's all, "Yeah, we'll totally be adventuring in the northern reaches and seeing loads of ice elementals so that'll be cool!" only to have four out of the five players decide to follow a side-quest down into the underdark where your entire character concept is nullified and you get to respond to the DM's, "So, what are you doing now?" with, "Umm... I guess I do the same thing I've done every other combat round and just do a basic, vanilla attack."
Awesome.
Not.
And this vein runs through the entire class. Unless the DM goes out of his way to give you opportunities to use your class features, then you'll most likely be sidelined for a good portion of every session. And even when your little perks do come into consideration they're, quite frankly, still a bit... "meh".
Combat-wise I don't see them having much to offer that the fighter can't do significantly better. Even spell-wise they get nothing particularly interesting or special. It is, by far, the most underwhelming class of the edition to date. What's worse is that the core problems inherent in its design are ones that have been repeated in previous editions and therefore were well known and easily avoidable in this one.
All up, very disappointing.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be specifically talking about Favored Enemy. If that is the case, I completely agree that the feature makes Rangers far too limited. Mechanically, you are either gimped against anything other than your Favored Enemy, or overpowered against said FE. Fluff-wise, why the hell can't I just be a warrior who knows a lot of wilderness magic/lore? Why am I REQUIRED to be racist? Not every Ranger had their family and hometown destroyed by <insert creature type here>.
Unfortunately, this feature seems to be the one that everyone and their mother demand to be present and core to the Ranger class, so it's back. However, it has thankfully been reduced to a minor, strictly skill-check based feature with minimal application in combat. Balance isn't affected overmuch.
I don't parse numbers and I haven't read the Ranger class section too thoroughly, so I can't say for certain if the final version is as underpowered as everyone has claimed its previous versions have been, but at least in this way WotC seems to have found a happy middle-ground between building a balanced class and honoring its traditional identity.
No, not just favoured enemy. Most of the class features will be redundant or unused for most of the player's time in game unless the DM specifically caters to that one player.
I think you're exagerating. I'm looking at the book now and most of this stuff seems about as versatile as the features of other classes.
Natural Explorer is essentially Favored Terrain (says so in the description :P) which sucks, but again not too critical and has little to no effect in combat.
Spellcasting is great; the spells themselves might be weaker than Paladin spells perhaps, but it's essentially the same feature as Paladins.
Primeval Awareness is again a mirror to the Paladin ability Divine Sense.
Extra Attack; Paladin mirror.
Land's Stride grants mobility in combat regardless of Favored Terrain/Enemy, so nothing wrong there; small fluff nod in the advantage against plants bit, but strictly a plus.
Hide In Plain Sight is a Stealth buff for setting up ambushes, which is not great but nice.
Vanish is a partial Cunning Action, pretty sweet.
Feral Senses is great against invisibility; situaitonal, but nice.
Foe Slayer... well f**k, they brought back the Favored Enemy bulls**t. That's a serious point to your position, gotta admit.
The Archetypes don't seem any more limiting than Martial Archetypes or Paladin Oaths to me.
Rangers are, as they always have been, an alternate version of a Paladin ie a half-fighter half-divine spellcaster, but focusing more on stealth and hunting rather than healing and leading.
Except they can also heal and lead here. They just aren't good at defending others and soaking up damage, doing more of the stealthy stuff.
Also, don't they gain more favoured terrains over time? I haven't gotten the book yet, so this is an honest question (the comment I made above is based on their spell lists; they get a good handful of useful leadery-heally spells).
Problem with rangers ,at least for me, is that they are not location neutral. They are cool if you are runing around most of the adventure in their natural enviorment,but if you remove them,some of their features become next to useless. They are wilderness warriors. That's their thing. If you strip them of that,they are still ok fighters (but worse than fighter) and have some usefull spells (they can heal,which is always nice). They become the poor man's paladin. I haven't played the phb ranger,but i did play last pack playtest one and they are fun class to play. If they still have hordeslayer feature,two weapon fighting ranger is good against multiple opponents that tend to gang up on pcs (kobolds,goblins and such). But,as OP has stated,if you create ranger for specific enviorment and you end up in different one,you get the short end.
Haytam wrote:
Perhaps a simple fix would be to allow the player of the ranger to swap favored enemy/terrain, should it be a problem. If they've built a woodland-based ranger who ends up in a big city, let them spend a bit of time reattuning their senses, as it were, and next time they level up, they can get rid of the woodland-based stuff and replace it with more urban-based stuff ~ just like how spellcasters can swap out spells when they level up. The other option, of course, is to wait until you get a new favored enemy/terrain when you level up and just add the new enemy/terrain to your list.
That's the dilemma of ALL classes, though.
No Undead? Guess my Cleric is nerfed! Out in the Wilderness/in the dungeons, with no social encounter? But I wanted to play a Bard! All social encounters? But then my Fighter is useless! Game involving Good vs Good? My Paladin is stuck unable to do anything!
The Dungeon Master and the Players should be working together, so that the game can highlight both strengths and weaknesses for the characters. Taking a Ranger out of his or her element isn't a problem, at long as you let the Ranger use those abilities more often than not as well.
Marandahir wrote:
Marandahir wrote:
I still don't see the problem. This is like the non-issue of the Quantum Ogres: in the cases you're raising, the DM and the Players haven't discussed beforehand what sort of game they want to play.
In an ideal game, the players have a general idea of what the theme is and what's going to happen, so the Ranger is going to know which Featured enemies to add.
And that's HARDLY 50% of the class features.
Marandahir wrote:
Isn't Favored Enemy just some skill bonuses now?
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Every class has situations where they shine, and sitations where they do poorly.
Rangers have a bigger gap then most classes. But it's not an infinite gap.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
Orzel wrote:
What happened to my post? I definitely posted here a response about how all of those features are usable in cities and dungeons.
Basically, I said that a living, well designed city has plenty of animals and plants, as does a dungeon. Fungi or kelp definitely count for things that hit plants, even though they're not categorized as plants by modern science. It's VERY HARD to find a city that is so well maintained or built from materials so perfectly smooth that there's no room for plants to take root. And where there are peole, there are animals.
Not to mention gardens and green spaces, slaughterhouses, etc. Goblin carrells, bats in the caves, natural animals that inhabit caves like bears, wolves, etc. And insects. Insects everywhere. Birds too.
Also, natural explorer should ping whether you're in a dungeon or a city or in the wilderness, if you're in that environ. An ice cave in the arctic shouldn't suddenly shut down your use of natural explorer because you're INSIDE the cave and not outside. Same thing with Primal awareness. And most cities take advantage of the landscape they're built on – take Saltmarsh, from the 3.5e PHB II, for example.
Finally, there are plenty of large creatures for Giant killer to ping against. You don't need to be fighting a Giant for it to be used. Also, it's a Hunter feature, and one of a choice of several hunter features, and Hunters that took one of the other choices, as well as Beastmasters, care not for issues with it.
mellored wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
I think it's a stretch to say that the DM has to cater to the Ranger, as I lined out in my shorter version of my ethered post. All the Ranger has to say is, "are there are any pigs in the town?" or "are there any fungi growing in the goblin warrens?" And the spells ping. The Natural Explorer feature shouldn't be a problem if the Ranger knows what landscape the campaign is going to be in – which should happen, because presumably your Ranger is FROM that area. Primal Awareness is useful regardless. Again, I really don't see the problem with the Ranger.
Orzel wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
Huh. I had a thought just now that I wish I'd come up with during the playtest.
Basically... ranger picks a favored terrain like they do already. But each terrain has three descriptors - one for temperature (hot, temperate, cold), one for precipitation (wet, moist, dry), and one for growth (forested, scrubby, bare). You get your favored terrain bonuses anywhere that shares at least one descriptor with the terrain you picked - so, for example, I pick rainforest (hot, wet, forested). I'd get my terrain bonuses in a desert (hot, dry, bare), a wetland (temperate, wet, scrubby), or an alpine wood (cold, moist, forested), but not a tundra (cold, dry, bare). Sometime in late tier 2 or early tier 3, the character could pick a second terrain.
Two other things needed to make this work: Define urban spaces as part of the surrounding terrain, and have multiple types of underground terrain (which a game that spends as much time underground as D&D does really ought to do anyway).
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Swift Quiver is nice, as is Hunter's Mark is going to get constant use. Too bad Barkskin got nerf batted to uselessness and the conjure spells suck pretty hard. If they had a decent balanced spell list there wouldn't be any problems.
Something tells me that making the ranger more varied and flexible would end up with complaints about not being all favoring key terrains or enemies.
And if they had all terrains favoured, people would complain that the class was rote – that you never got to roll skills, because you just auto-won all the time.
The point is to make SOME environments rote while you have proficiency with skill checks in all environments, or at the very least, good abilities for surviving in all of them. The Ranger is a skillful class.
We had the same underpowered complaints when the fighter was first previewed. It took several weeks before people accepted that they were actually a pretty powerful class.
Same will happen with rangers when people realize that Sharpshooter hunters can clear out entire packs of monsters via Horde Breaker and Volley without even burning a spell slot.
Rangers need some kind of attack or damage bonus against their favoured enemy (such as advantage on attack rolls.) Right now they are the absoloute lest useful character in combat. Their closest cousin for being a 1/2 divine caster, the Paladin, gets Divine Smite at level 2, which works on ANY foe, as well as lay on hands. Not to mention that the Paladin can usually prepare more spells than the Ranger, because for some reason they made the Ranger 'spells known' rather than preparation-based. (I wouldn't be opposed to that if they did it to both the Ranger and the Paladin - but they just did it to the Ranger.)
My DM style, and my player's preferences, are focused on combat heavy tactical encounters - we usually gloss over skill stuff. Thus, in my campaign, Rangers are sub-par compared to every other class even if I'm throwing their favoured terrain and creatures at them. A Fighter with a naturey background is more useful.
Rangers get nothing from their core class that is combat useful until level 8 - except a combat style and a feat (both of which the Paladin and Fighter also get.). Granted, they do get some useful stuff at 3 and 7 from their Archetype - but then so do the Paladin and the Fighter.
At my (Non-AL) tables, I plan on giving ranger advantage on attack rolls on their favoured enemy, and a +5 movement bonus while in their favoured terrain. I think that strikes a good balance.
If you make the ranger too varied then you essentially will have a fighter with a few spells. That is the trouble with not settling for anything below your maximum potential. These things happen and if your not happy, play a fighter who has some wilderness knowledges or something else.
I agree that there are points where the ranger will shine vs points where some class features aren't useful, but I also think that some of the people have overblown the whole thing. Dracones brings up a good point about Volley and Whirlwind Attack ( the melee counterpart ).
Orzel wrote:
I tend to agree that favored enemy and favored terrain are poor mechanics, but I think it was handled fairly well this time around
Favored Enemy: You an choose one type or two humanoids. Honestly, picing two humanoids is probably the best option at level 1-3 because you are very likely to run into orcs and goblins in the early levels of a game. You get two more, one at lv 6 and one at lv 14. The benefits are Advantage on Tracking them and Advantage on Intelligence checks to know something about the creature. You also gain a free language spoken by your enemies. This does still work best if you collaborate with the DM, but the language is always useful and just because you don't have advantage doesn't mean you can't track or remember information on creatures you encounter. Honestly, if you pick dragons and never runn into dragons, it's disappointing but not devastating to your effectiveness
Natural Explorer(Favored Terrain): Pick one, if you are using a proficient skill in a Int or Wis check related to your terrain double your bonus... that's actually awesome (double prof for hiding in forest). If you travel for at least an hour in the terrain the following apply: Ignore difficult terrain, you can't be lost except by magic, even if you are engaged in something else, like tracking, you are alert for danger, If you are alone you can be stealthy at a normal pace, you can find double the amount of nrmal food while foraging, while tracking you get specific detailed information on the enemy. You get two more faovred terrains, one at 6ht and one at 10th. Again, a little DM collaboration goes a long way, but you don't suddenly become useless in a terrain not on your list, you are just super awesome while in your home turf. Also, terrain is one of the easiest things to collaborate about (we're going to focus on the Underdark, this is a game about desert tribes, we're exploring the frozen north, ect)
Fighting style is the same as other martial classes, spellcasting gives you both cool utility abilities and combat options and you have spell swapping so you can switch out things as you go. Extra attack at 5th
Everything that follows doesn't require your terrain or enemy unless otherwise noted
Primeval Awareness: Spend a spell slot 1 minute sense the prescence of the following creatures: Aberrations, Celestials, Dragons, Elementals, Fey, Fiends, and Undead. You do not need to pick X number of these, it detects all of them at once in a mile radius (6 miles in favored terrain). It doesn't reveal location or number, but I might allow direction.
Land's Stride: You always ignore difficult terrain, unless it is magic, nonmagic dangerous plants, like thron bushes, don't effect you and you have advantage on saves against magic that uses plants to slow or restrain you
Hide in Plain Sight: 1 minute to create camo, needs access to natural components to use, then press yourself against a tree or wall and get +10 to stealth checks if you don't move or take actions. (archer rangers[high dex] in terrain and proficient in stealth would get +22/+23 on a stealth check this way, without terrain it drops to +18/+19 at level 10)
Vanish: Bonus action to hide in combat and you can't be tracked by nonmagic means unless you want to be
Feral Senses: No penalty for fighting invisible creatures, and you know where invisible creatures are within 30 ft of you unless they are hidden or you are blind or deaf. So invisbile assassin's have a nasty surprise
Foe Slayer: Now we come back to favored enemies. When fighting them you can add Wis to either the attack or the damage. Obviously useless if you aren't fighting your enemy, but you've got a few high level favored enemies at this point. And adding to your attack roll could be awesome (+6 from prof, +5 from primary stat, +2/+3/+4 from wisdom which is your spellcasting stat too so it should be high, and archer's have another +2 so between +15/+16/+17 on an attack roll, you probably won't miss anything even with disadvantage)
I'll also throw in the Hunter abilities (which I find way better than having an animal companion, but I've never liked animal companions)
Choose one from the following
Colossus Slayer: once per turn add 1d8 when you use a weapon attack against an enemy not at full health
Giant Killer: Large or larger creature next to you attacks you can use your reaction to attack them (this seems to be a "full attack" meaning 2 hits at 5th level)
Horde Breaker: once per turn you can attack an enemy within 5ft of an enemy you used a weapon attack against (and in range of you), this brings you to 3 attacks at level 5 with proper enemy placement
Choose another of the following
Escape Horde: Opportunity Attacks against you have Disadvantage
Multiattack Defense: +4 AC against subsequent attacks made by the same creature ths turn
Steel Will: Advantage against being frightened
Choose one of these
Volley: Instead of doing a normal attack you can choose to make a ranged attack against all enemies within 10 ft of a spot in your range, each attack is a seperate roll, and you need enough ammo to make each attack
Whirlwind Attack: Instead of doing a normal attack you can choose to make a melee attack against each enemy within 5ft of you, each attack is seperate
Important note about these two, they are not limited per day or anything else, only limit is ammo for the volley
And Finally choose one of these
Evasion: Half damage on failed dex saves no damage on successful dex saves
Stand against Tide: When a creature misses you with a melee attack you can use your reaction to force it to make that attack against another target of your choice
Uncanny Dodge: When hit with attack from someone you can see you can use your reaction to half the damage
So, with only 1 combat ability based off of favored enemy it really doesn't affect your combat abilities, everything else is utility based or neat flavor. Also, ranger's don't do as well in fighting single enemies like fighter's do, but put them against a group? Rangers can hit an obscene number of enemies in one turn, depending on how closely they are packed together
mellored wrote:
Marandahir wrote:
Orzel wrote:
My friend who is a RAnger would disagree that the ranger is useless. He has participated in 24 rounds of combat. He has yet to take damage and basically killed everything with his bow. He is so veristile in combat it's disgusting. Once he gets his other abilities he is going to destroy. Looking everything over the Ranger is pretty strong. It may feel like that for your play styles or DM's you guys play with but at my table and style it's by far one of the best classes.
Okay, I stand correted after looking at their spells. At level 2 Hunter's Mark give them an extra 1d6 against their quarry for 1 hour. As a concentration spell, it's iffy (you can lose it if you take damage), but it makes them not totally useless.
I still think they should get advantage on attack rolls against their favoured enemy.
He has participated in 24 rounds of combat. He has yet to take damage and basically killed everything with his bow.
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
shivafang wrote:
CVB wrote:
Thought of a few more points
First, all of the Favored Enemy and terrain abilities make you better than average in those areas. So yes, a fighter with survival can track as well as a ranger who isn't tracking a favored enemy or in their favored terrain.
Also, the groupings are rather big. Getting bonuses against all abominations, undead, and fiends is pretty nice. Also, favored terrains can be a little more flexible. If you are in a pine forest in the frozen north I'd allow both Artic and Forest terrains to count.
Second, comparing a ranger to a fighter and comparing the damage is a little false, because fighter's are damage masters with the correct builds, and very very good without them. I'm not as familiar with Paladins damage, but they seem to be very single target focused and Rangers are defintely focused on multi-targeting abilities.
This compounds with my third point, archer rangers seem to be the damage build because Voley is a weapon attack.
So let's say 5 orcs and an ogre. Ranger has swift quiver active. Volley effects a 4x4 square at minimum (I think 5x5 because I play with a grid and a point usually equals a square), so it is likely that all the enemies are in the volley. Ranger volleys, hits every enemy for 1d8+4, then swift quiver for two additional attacks. If you are a Hordebreaker you get a third attack if two enemies are next to each other, if you are a colossus slayer you can deal an extra 1d8. So Volley, horde the ogre, swift quiver the ogre twice more and you've got 4d8+16 against the ogre (about the same as an archer fighter could pull off) and also you've hit all the orcs for 1d8+4. Or you could decide to use those three extra attacks to hit the orcs a second time and quite possibly kill three of them leaving the ogre and 2 orcs with 1d8+4 damage on them (which a fighter can't match without action surge). Or Volley, swift quiver the ogre twice, and collossus for 4d8+12 on the ogre, but one of those hits was bigger damage if it critted.
But swift quiver is a big spell, maybe something smaller? Since volley is a weapon attack you could Hail of thorns, letting your first arrow be a burst damage for 1d10 (after it hits for the 1d8+4) and then follow with the volley, adding horde or collosus as appropriate. This could potentially kill all 5 orcs and leave the ogre alone.
All from a single turn.
That's where they shine, and they are nothing to sneeze at with big , single creatures either when combining hunter's mark, collosus, and 2 attacks
The reason a melee build seems to fall behind is that the spells which a ranger uses to increase their damage don't all work with melee, while they all work with archery
Ashrym wrote:
Expertise is thieves tools. diplomacy, or any other skill (or language) requires just as much pandering as expertise in forests.
shivafang wrote:
shivafang wrote:
shivafang wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
Orzel wrote:
RKVM wrote:
shivafang wrote:
GladiusLegis wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Why don't you play Rangers like Scouts/Hunters ?
Scouts to explore and unveil unknown terrain ( then perhaps the Ranger would do better job in a solo adventure )
Hunter like an Assassin in wilderness
Do keep in mind that it can be switched to a new target once the original target is dead. That's freakin' phenomenal!
Are you guys even playing a Ranger? I am, and the role I play in the group is as a scout. My damage output is low, but my ability to lower damage incoming by providing intel to the group is quite valuable. So I will ask again: are you people speaking from experience, or just adding damage output numbers from what it says in some paragraph in a book (no practical experience)?
Orzel wrote:
shivafang wrote:
GladiusLegis wrote:
The best level 1 is the war cleric.
Ashrym wrote:
RKVM wrote:
Yeah, Rangers are like squishing Rogue, Fighter, and Druid all into one class. They're pretty awesome, and measuring parts without looking at the whole will always make you come up short – it's the whole picture that makes it a great class.
Orzel wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
Orzel wrote:
mellored wrote:
moving between attacks is allowed, in other words things like "extra attacks" are multiple actions within one action.
whirlwind attack is one action for all the attacks, not multiple attacks broken up into muliple actions.
so to me whirlwind attack means, i use my whirlwind attack to make one action of attacking eveyone within 5'
then i can move, and if i have the extra attack feature, based on how thats worded i could use my extra attack action to use the whirlwind attack feature again to hit anyone within 5' as one action.
what it doesnt say to me is you could say our whirlwinding and hit someone within 5, then move and hit another within 5 intil you run out of movement as one action.
Ashrym wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
shivafang wrote:
I think the ranger works great. His low level spell hail of thorns is an awesome aoe. Hit enemy with bow for bow damage + D10xspell slot and all enemies in 5 feet of foe take D10xspell slot. This is a concentration spell and I do not see where its effects rule that this is once per round so a ranger at level 5 should be able to have this effect go off twice. That is extremely potent. Much better than the mark spell if you need AOE.
The terrain feature is perfect. You get enough time in between terrain advancements to get a feel like your character learns something new. If you start as an artic ranger your performance in deserts should not be as good if you are a lowbie. You barely know enough to get by in artic situations. Colossus slayers gives you an extra D8 per turn dmg and horde breaker gives you an extra attack without using a bonus action. Escape the Horde and Multiattack Defense are great powers as is Evasion and Uncanny Dodge. Yeah the paladin may do a little bit more DPS in certain situations bu the ranger more than holds his own.
Firstly, 5e has been the best D&D experience thus far, that being said.
The ranger was probably the class I was looking forward to playing the most prior to getting the PHB, now after trying it out... it feels like the developers couldn't quite decide on what features a ranger should get.
In my opinion, If you're going to make the ranger "the wilderness warrior", then give the class flat bonuses to all natural terrain, and throw out this specific terrain nonsense. It will make it easier on the both the player and the DM.
Next the Favoured Enemy concept also needs to be much broader if the benefits are going to be so few, something like creature packages that incorporate several different monster types together, for example;
Planes Hunter: Aberrations, Celestials, Devils & Demons.
Wild Stalker: Dragons, Beasts & Monstrosities.
Marshall: Humanoids & Giants
etc.
Personally I probably would have renamed Favoured Enemy as well, something like Creature Lore to get away from the notion that all rangers just naturally hate other beings.
Finally, I think I would have made Primeval Awareness a spell instead of a class feature, seems out of place when the creatures on it's list have no connection to a player's character concept.
Anyway, I hope Wizards of the Coast releases a variant Ranger class.
Fenstrider wrote:
So I've decided to do something a little silly and write out a comparison between Paladins and Rangers, they are the only half-casters and are traditionally thought to be similiar concepts (half fighter half "divine" spellcaster X). However, I'm much to lazy for a full breakdown, so let's just do a classic Pally (sword and board with protection style and oath of Devotion) and our Ranger (archer and collossus hunter). No race, primary ability assume +3 spells assumed +2, no feats.
So, Level one
Paladin gets d10 health, 2 skills, chainmail, shield, and longsword (AC 18 and 1d8+3 damage). 3 times a day( 1 + 2 cha mod) they can use Divine Sense to locate any fiend, celestial, or undead within 60ft and the effects of a Hallow spell on an area or object. They then get Lay on Hands, with a pool of 5 hp. Best single turn Damage 1d8+3 (single target). Best consistent damage 1d8+3(single target)
Ranger gets d10 health, 3 skills, leather and longbow (AC 14 and 1d8+3 damage). They get to pick favored enemy (one from a list or two humanoids), gain a language and skills bonuses, also get a favored terrain with a pack of skill bonuses, these bonuses only apply when dealing with the proper subject. Best single turn Damage 1d8+3 (single target). Best Consistent damage 1d8+3 (single target)
So, tied for damage, paladin has better defense but ranger has better range and is sneakier (focusing on dex and in light armor so no disadvantage on stealth)
Level 2
Paladin picks a Fighting Style, they have a choice between defense, protection, dueling, and great weapon. Classic Pally could go with dueling or great weapon, but Archer ranger doesn't get damage benfit so I'll avoid the damage boost of great weapon and pick the protection style. This shouldn't make a massive difference in the numbers. Paladin also gains spells and the ability to burn these spells for a Divine Smite (+2d8 damage with our lv 1 slot) this is more effective against undead or fiends, but we're going to avoid specific enemy types for damage purposes. Looking through the smite spells, none of them deal more pure damage than the Divine smite, but for longer term damage we get Divine Favor, bonus action concetration for 1 min for a +1d4 damage on every strike. Best single turn Damage 3d8+3+1d4 (single target). Best Consistent damage 1d8+3+1d4 (single target).
Ranger gets a Fighting Style, archery as we've already said, but they could pick Defense, Dueling, or two-weapon fighting if they wanted instead. They also get their spells. Looking through the ranger spells we also have two different damage options that seem best. Hail of Thorns is a bonus action concetration to take the next arrow and after it hits it explodes for 1d10 against the target of the attack and everyone adjacent, dex save for 1/2 damage. Then we have Hunter's Mark, bonus action, concentration for an hour, +1d6 against the target from any weapon attack. Best single turn Damage 1d8+3 (single target) and the 1d10 (multiple targets). Best Consistent damage 1d8+3+1d6 (single target)
So single target nova goes to paladin, while multi-target damage(or total damage done to the goup of monsters) and best consistent belong to the ranger. Also important, the paladin is a melee fighter with concetration, while the ranger is at range, so it is more likely for the rangers spell to outlast the paladins as well
Level 3
Paladins get immunity to disease and their oath. Oath of Devotion gives us some additional spells (no damage though) and channel divinity which can be used to increase your accuracy or turn undead and fiends. Best single turn Damage 3d8+3+1d4 (single target). Best Consistent damage 1d8+3+1d4 (single target).
Rangers get Primeval Awareness, very similiar to a paladins Divine sense but bigger range, and wider scope of creatures for the cost of not knowing exact location and a spell slot. They also get their archetype. Going with Hunter and collossus slayer as it is the most consistent and probably biggest damage. Colossus allows an extra 1d8 against any target below full health, once per turn. Best single turn Damage 2d8+3 (single target) and the 1d10 (multiple targets). Best Consistent damage 2d8+3+1d6 (single target)
Ranger is now fully ahead of our paladin friend. I will note here that a Avneger Paladin with great weapon gives completely different numbers at this point because the Avenger is a much more focused on single target damage, but most of that is the bigger weapon (great sword is a 2d6 after all)
Level 4 skipping because I don't want to change the ability numbers and feats add too much variability. Suffice to say nothing changes unless they went for an awesome feat
Level 5
Paladins gain an extra attack and 2nd level spells which greatly boost damage. Burn both 2nd level slots in a single turn and novaing is scary high (+3d8 per slot). Best single turn Damage 8d8+3+1d4 (single target) or 4d8+3+1d4 on two seperate targets. Best Consistent damage 2d8+3+1d4 (single target).
Ranger's also get their extra attack and new spells. Unfortuantely tey don't get too much extra damage, Cordon of Arrows is nice as a trap for anything coming close (non concentration, bundle of 4 1d6 attacksagainst anything entering zone) but it is inconsistent enough to not count in our damage. Best single turn Damage 3d8+3 (single target) and the 1d10 (multiple targets). Best Consistent damage 3d8+3+1d6 (single target)
Ranger still leads in consistency but single turn is solidly a paladins game.
Level 6
Paladins get aura of protection, bonus to saving throws, but otherwise no change. Best single turn Damage 8d8+3+1d4 (single target) or 4d8+3+1d4 on two seperate targets. Best Consistent damage 2d8+3+1d4 (single target).
Ranger's get a second enemy and terrain, no change otherwise. Best single turn Damage 3d8+3 (single target) and the 1d10 (multiple targets). Best Consistent damage 3d8+3+1d6 (single target)
no change
Level 7
Devotion paladin adds Aura of Devotion, which blocks charm effects. No change otherwise. Best single turn Damage 8d8+3+1d4 (single target) or 4d8+3+1d4 on two seperate targets. Best Consistent damage 2d8+3+1d4 (single target).
Ranger's get a defensive tactic, so no change on the damage front. Best single turn Damage 3d8+3 (single target) and the 1d10 (multiple targets). Best Consistent damage 3d8+3+1d6 (single target)
no change on damage
level 8
Ability scores for paladin. Skipping
Ranger's get ability scores, but they also get Land's Stride which helps with mobility in natural settings
no damage change
Level 9
Paladins get 3rd level slots, for another massive damage boost Divine smite is now +4d8 per slot and again no paladin spell matches that devastation. Best single turn Damage 10d8+3+1d4 (single target) or 5d8+3+1d4 on two seperate targets. Best Consistent damage 2d8+3+1d4 (single target).
Ranger's get 3rd level as well, but unlike paladins there are some nice damage options here. Lightning arrow is a bonus concetration that is amazing. Your next arrow is instead a lighting bolt 4d8 damage and then every creature within 10 ft of the target takes 2d8 (save for 1/2 on all this). They also get conjure barrage, an action for a 60 ft cone of 3d8. The choice between them I guess is how many creatures in the cone, 60 ft is 12 squares, so 12 out, 12 at widest point... we're looking at over 50 squares aren't we? A party won't face those kinds of odds unless it is a war setting, so that blistering option will be set aside for the lightning arrow. Best single turn Damage 6d8+3 (single target) and then 2d8 (multiple targets). Best Consistent damage 3d8+3+1d6 (single target).
Paladin still has single target consistent done, but multi target and consistent are back with the ranger
Level 10
Paladin gets Aura of courage, no damage change. Best single turn Damage 10d8+3+1d4 (single target) or 5d8+3+1d4 on two seperate targets. Best Consistent damage 2d8+3+1d4 (single target).
Rangers get camo ability, so no damage change. Best single turn Damage 6d8+3 (single target) and then 2d8 (multiple targets). Best Consistent damage 3d8+3+1d6 (single target).
no change on damage
Level 11 (and last level I'm doing because I'm exhausted)
Paladins get improved divine smiting, +1d8 to all attacks. Best single turn Damage 12d8+3+1d4 (single target) or 6d8+3+1d4 on two seperate targets. Best Consistent damage 4d8+3+1d4 (single target).
Our archer Ranger gets Volley, rannged attack against targets in radius of 10 ft. Best single turn Damage 6d8+3 (single target) and then 2d8 (multiple targets) or 5d8+3 (single target) and 3d8+3 (multiple targets). Best Consistent damage 3d8+3+1d6 (single target) or 2d8+3+1d6 (single) and 1d8+3 multi target.
Just realized I didn't double mods for multiple attacks, but I did it consitently so I'm not going to go and fix it
So, yeah Paladins smite things so hard it hurts the guys ancestors. I'm actually going to do a just because of 11th fighters and barbarians really quick to see how on par that paladin is. Despite that though, our ranger isn't slacking too much. Until the improved smiting he had better consistent damage. So late half is harder for the ranger to keep up, but his ability to hit a group is still unparalled by our pally, hitting a single foe for 5d8+3 and then all his buddies within 10 ft (thats close to 20 enemies at max) for 3d8+3 is very impressive. Also to note, I did not calculate crits into this
11th Berserker Barbarian quick single turn 3d12+3+3
11th Champion fighter quick single turn 6d12+3
So a paldins best nova turn is better than everybody else, just from a quick glance through
No they don't. They're one of the few classes with 3 attacks per round before level 11.
The problem with your comparison is that it favors the Paladin because he's a single target damage machine while the ranger is multiple targets. Sharpshooter vastly favors multiple attacks, so if you're going to compare optimal builds you really need to go in on that feat at 4th level if you Horde Break or in the very least pick it up by 11 when you can Volley.
Level 4 paladin GWM feat: 2d6 + 2d8+13+1d4 (32.8 single target). Best Consistent damage 2d6+13+1d4 (23.8 single target)
Level 4 ranger Horde Break Sharpshooter: 1d8+13+1d10 and 1d8+13+1d10(Horde Breaker) is 46 damage that round(38.5 using Hunter Mark instead of thorns).
So the ranger can easily sustain more damage per round than the paladin can burst as long as Volley and Horde fire off.
The same goes for fighters. They deal so much damage because they have multiple attacks. The +15 from feat and stat adds up fast.
In reading over this thread, I have to wonder how many GMs and/or players enforce ammunition usage and encumberance for a bow wielding ranger.
Have you considered the ramifications on playing a Drow that doesn't spend 90% of his/her time underground?
That being said, I think 5E has gone a long way so far to normalize a lot of these niche rolls while still keeping the flavor and feel of class abilities so that no one is overly hindered mechanically... but you still get certain moments where players of all classes get their, "Ah HAH!" moments.
If all else fails... there's inspiration.
mellored wrote:
Fenstrider wrote:
I would like to see a non-magical ranger as a fighter-subclass.
But the ranger is an AoE fighter.
The limited favored enemy and natural explorer features pretty much mean I'd never play this class. It's 3e legacy mechanics and class building at its worst. Having class features that might not activate for 5 or 10 sessions at a time (or more) is just awful. What's worse is that the mechanics force backstory on your character that you may not want ("But I don't want my family to have been murdered by orcs, prompting a campaign of vengeance against them!").
I can't comment on the combat comparisons.
Also: Colossus Slayer and Giant Killer? Did they have to pick synoymous terms for two out of three hunter's prey choices? Colossus slayer doesn't even have anything to do with colossal opponents. Couldn't they have gone with Vicious Predator or something?
It shouldn't matter, though. I'd probably play 5B if anything.
draegn wrote:
As a frequent Ranger, my characters often carry two fully loaded quivers into combat, with 100 arrows in their backpack and an archery skill to make more on the road.
BecDeCorbin wrote:
mellored wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Dracones wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Dracones wrote:
Orzel wrote:
My one problem with the ranger is that if you pick beasts as your favoured enemy, what language are you supposed to get? Most beasts can't talk, after all ...
pukunui wrote:
mellored wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
I posted a lot of this on the other ranger conversation as well, but there are a few points that I think are worth repeating. To preface this, I will state that all of the below doesn't take multi-classing into account, due to the sheer amount of combinations possible. Ranger melee single target damage is actually quite good up until level 11, being capable of some of the highest sustained damage per round of any of the physical primary classes. This is a combination of the two-weapon fighting style, Colossus Slayer, and Hunter's Mark. At these early levels they only really lack in burst damage potential. Ranged single target damage is not quite as good at early levels (Sharpshooter improves it, but the added variance due to the increased chance to miss makes it a situational boost), but gains increased utility due to range and special archery only spells.
At level 11, the other classes start to surpass the ranger in single target capability with extra attacks, bonus damage per attack, or whatever. The ranger is still competetive for single target damage at these levels, but other classes will routinely outdamage him. The ranger only really starts to hurt in terms of single target damage output at the higher levels (roughly 16-20).
A lot of people are bringing up the ranger's multi-target capabilities. Admittedly, I haven't seen high level play so I may be off base on this one, but at level 11 when a ranger gets his multi-attack feature, he can multi-attack a large group for 1d8+5+1d6 (avg damage 13) with Hunter's Mark, attack one target for 4d8 (avg damage 18) and the creatures surrounding it for 2d8 (avg damage 9) with Lightning Arrow (the text of the spell reads that you replace the weapon's normal damage) and surrounding targets for an additional 1d8+5 (avg damage 9.5) for the rest of the volley attack, or 1d8+5+3d10 (avg damage 26.5) by using Hail of Thorns in a 3rd level spell slot. The 1st option is honestly pretty meager damage, and I wouldn't expect that to be any more effective than just hammering a single target for greater damage, thus removing a source of incoming damage and increasing overall survivability. The last two are better, but require a third level spell slot (the highest you have available at that class level). Meanwhile, using the same spell slot, a wizard has been able to do 8d6 damage (avg damage 28) with a base level Fireball spell since level 5 and has more devestating spells available still. If said wizard is specialized in evocation, he'll be adding his intelligence modifier to the damage as well.
With regards to the much touted exploration pillar, my only response to this really is that rogues are an exploration primary class (and bards can be as well if they spend their skill expertise to do so) that don't lose out on combat effectiveness at higher levels. Furthermore, rogues (and bards) can choose which skills they specialize in with skill expertise and tend to be more effective in general as they aren't restricted to skills using a particular stat (rangers only get the Natural Explorer bonus to intelligence and wisdom skills). In my experience, having anyone with survival training is enough to get you from point A to point B in the wilderness, but having a rogue to deal with traps is almost mandatory in most dungeons. It's possible that a ranger's abilities would function in certain dungeons, but the wording of the Natural Explorer ability refers to 'natural environments' which would lead me to believe that in most dungeons of worked stone the ability would not work.
Perhaps it's the types of campaigns in which I've participated. In my experience, much more time is spent in dungeons than the wilderness, and an equal amount of time has been spent in cities. We tend to fight hordes of monsters at lower levels (when the multi-attack feature is unavailable) and more skirmishes against small groups of more powerful foes (against which the multi-attack feature is less useful) at higher levels (usually culminating in fights with a single 'boss' type monster that's usually some sort of demon, dragon, or what have you). It's quite likely that there are groups out there that play a lot of wilderness campaigns where survival against nature is a big theme and hordes of orcs, goblinoids, and so on are the primary enemies faced, playing perfectly to the strengths of the ranger as presented, but that is not my experience.
The features that a ranger gets aren't useless, in my opinion at least, and I think that most players would agree with that. They are, however, a bit lackluster when compared with the capabilities of other classes. I think that melee rangers tend to suffer the most, as range has a higher survival rate and tends to mesh a bit better with the ranger's class features and spell list, but that's debatable (and I'm a bit biased as I've always preferred melee to ranged combat). Perhaps all of this is coming from an unreasonable expectation from earlier editions (primarily 2nd and 4th) that rangers should be capable fighters as well as survivalists, and all of us would be happier if we just accepted a diminished combat role in favor of being a scout, but that's not my preference.
Ashrym wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
Interesting debates on the thread. The way I'd put it simply is that the 5E ranger is underwhelming. Perhaps the strangest aspect of this is that the class's "ultimate" power at level 20 is pretty much a weakened version of what the class in earlier editions got at very low levels (a small combat bonus against a type of opponent).
But the worst aspect of the ranger, in my view, is the animal companion. While mounts and pets are (thankfully, in my view) less powerful and present in 5E than in most other editions, the ranger's beast just seems dubious because, as written, you have to give up your action each round to get it to do anything. Eventually you can just sacrifice one of your attacks in order to command the beast, leaving you one single strike--but would it ever actually be wise for a ranger not to attack (or attack twice) so that his pet could bite something? It seems to me the ranger's attack is almost always going to be superior to most beast attacks in most circumstances. Furthermore, the need for the ranger to command his beast with an action each round leaves hanging the curious question of what the beast is doing if the ranger is unwilling or unable to give it a command. Does it just hang out? Will it try to defend itself or attack back if attacked? Technically as written, all of these things require a command from the ranger, so the beast should just stand there and take any attacks dished out against it.
It seems to me there is a reinterpretation of the animal companion that makes is less ambiguous and maybe more helpful, but I'm not sure if it would conflict with other rules or parallel abilities elsewhere. But the idea would be to make it an action to command the beast to behave in a particular way using certain tactics, and thereafter the pet would continue to do so to the best of its ability without requiring the ranger to spend an action each round. The ranger only would need to give up an action once to issues initial commands, and he would just give up another action if it later becomes necessary to change the commands (like selecting a different opponent or guarding a different ally). Then at 7th level, Exceptional Training can reduce giving the beast commands to a bonus action. Furthermore, this reinterpretation could clarify that an uncommanded beast will still defend itself, attack back if attacked, or stay close to the ranger until given specific commands.
Not sure this one reinterpretation would completely make the 5E ranger more desirable (as it does nothing for the Hunter archetype), but at least it makes the Beast Master a somewhat more compelling choice.
Comparing nova damage or base attack is a bad way to compare classes, you want to compare DPAD.Has anyone here actually played a 5e ranger and found them problematic yet? Or is this all theorycrafting?
Mephi1234 wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Dracones wrote:
I think I may just allow rangers to change their favored terrain and favored enemy during any long rest.
Scottomir wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Dracones wrote:
Maybe. Either way increasing their adaptablity is key.
Dracones wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
Scottomir wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Dracones wrote:
Dracones wrote:
sugar_high wrote:
Dracones wrote:
sugar_high wrote:
Dracones wrote:
sugar_high wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Got my book today, and while I can't say definitively whether or not all Ranger builds are weak right now, I'm going to have to say that I'm pretty damn sure Beast Masters are. I can't begin to understand how they thought it was a good idea to have to use your action to get your animal companion to attack or how they thought ranger level x 4 was enough hit points to last in any kind of fight. That is some really bad design right there, and I'll be houseruling something much better if one of my players wants to play that type of character.
Atheosis wrote:
Simple homebrew Ranger fixes:
- Let the Favored Enemy and Terrain bonuses apply to all enemies and terrains, all the time. They're cool and fluffy and I'd love to play a character that can have them. But they seem like they're nearly impossible to really abuse, and in general they feel far less useful then most Ritual magic for overcoming exploration and roleplaying challenges, so there's no balance/gamist reason they shouldn't have access to them all the time.
- If the player feels like they're falling behind in combat, let them addd some new spells to their spells known. This helps break up the repetition of constantly taking the same attack routine option over and over and over again, and gives the player some potent new options. But since the Ranger's number of spells per day are so limited, and they're limited to low level spells, its highly unlikely to ever be game breaking. If they continue to consistently fall behind in combat, add more spell slots.
- If you're playing a mid-high level game with full casters and the Ranger feels totally left behind because they're limited to low level spells, let them have a cooler and more powerful Companion, and/or unchain the Animal Companion from the Ranger's Actions earlier in their progression. At very high levels, you could have the Ranger gain the most useful and/or interesting abilities of their Companion (like Share Spells in reverse). For example, I'd love to play a stealth/ambush focused Ranger with a Diplacer Beast companion. If you're worried that the new Companion may be too powerful, have it be a temporary Companion for a few sessions, talk about how it impacted the group with all your players, and then change back the default rules if needed.
These rules would be "broken" if written into RAW, but relatively easy to adjudicare and balance as a DM on a case by case, trial and error basis according to the overall power level of the party.
GladiusLegis wrote:
I also would like to know what a legendary bow is.
The legendary bows that Dracones mentioned are purely theoretical at this point. He is extrapolating on the legendary sword found in the Hoard of the Dragon Queen module. The idea is that if a legendary sword exists, then other legendary weapons, including bows, should also exist, presumably with comparable abilities. At this point in time, there haven't been any such items printed outside of the singular sword in Hoard of the Dragon Queen. Of course, nothing is stopping anyone from homebrewing such an item in their own games or simply houseruling the sword to change forms to whatever weapon a character prefers upon acquiring it.
The Legendary Military Fork!
I deserve a legendary abacus.
Having read (but not played) the ranger, it seems to be the least appealing class in the book. I don't think the issue is one of mechanics. I think it's conceptual. The ranger just seems to be a grab bag of class features that are highly situational. Frankly, I would feel comfortable giving a player all the features of both the Hunter and the Beast Master without fear of becoming overpowered. If it were up to me, I would have removed spellcasting from the core class and replaced it with pretty much all the features of the Hunter subclass. I would have then created two subclasses--the Beast Master and a spellcasting ranger (basically an arcane archer or seeker...or even a warden). In other words, the core class would provide combat effectiveness, while the subclass provides utility. YMMV.
Yet, despite all this I have chosen to play a ranger for my first 5e character (well first non-playtest 5e character). Since someone had to fall on the healer grenade what I am doing is playing a human ranger with the Healer feat (playing him as a combat medic). Turns a single healing kit into 10 uses of d6 + 4 + 1hp per HD (scales with level) healing. My ranger carries 3 healing kits. You can also spend 1 use to replicate Spare the Dying with the added bonus of regaining 1 hp (which the spell does not do). This seems like a lot of effective healing at low levels. Utlimately I will be MCing him with druid and/or fighter levels.
THEMNGMNT wrote:
Einlanzer wrote:
Lharn wrote:
Rise from the grave, dead thread!
I'm currently playing a multiclass ranger/rogue. The party recently hit 11th level, and I took my 6th level of ranger, which just gave me a second favored enemy and favored terrain. Unfortunately, the single-class druid in the party also got access to 6th level spells. When we were due to travel somewhere, I was all like, "Well if we're going to be passing through grasslands, my ranger has all these benefits ..." but the druid was just like, "I cast wind walk." Sigh ...
Yeah, I know not all high-level parties will have a druid but there are other spells that render Natural Explorer more or less useless as well. Teleport, anyone? Create Food and Water? I'm sure there are others.
If I was a single-class ranger, I'd have three favored terrains by now. Wooo ...
pukunui wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
pukunui wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
pukunui wrote:
I will admit this, i did not read all the pages in this form, but I will post my few thoughts on this, and I'm sorry if I over lap with other peoples veiws. Ive always been a little confused with the Ranger. Druids do nature better, by not being tied to just a few landscapes. Even current Circle of the Land subclass still works great outside of their land territory. Fighters are, well....better fighters. By simplying taking nature and/or survival, they easily take on wilderness fighting. Ranger is the one of the two classes i think that still need major overhauls. (the other is the monk, but for totally different reasons).
Have to admit, Hunters Mark and several of the range attack spells that involves pieces of ammunition are a really, really nice addition, but still does not revolve the two other issues I have with the class. I feel like the class is stuck inside the old rut that previous editions. It can be a fun class, but it requires very good communication between player and DM. And while the best games will have that anyways, it could be diffucult for new players and/or new dm's. How ever this is much smaller complaint then that the major themes of the class are so easily recreated in other classes. Anyways, sorry for any terrible spelling i might have in this.
Just seems to be a slight disconnect from what people expect of the Ranger. From what I have seen it is a very powerful class, does a lot of damage has great skjills. It does have a niche aspect with favored enemy but thats fine as well as to me the Ranger has always been niche specifically the woilderness warrior with a side dash of situational striker.
If you think the 4E ranger which was the best striker which also lost all ofthe usual ranger stuff I can see why the 5E one may be regarded as weak. I put it in the same class as wizard players who think the 5E wizard is weak because its not as powerful as the 3.5 one.
If you do not want a stiker ranger you select different class features. If you do you take colossus slayer and hunters mark (and probably sharp shooter+archery style).
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Downtime Activity to train/learn a new environment for the purposes of Favoured Terrain. Favoured Enemy can get the same treatment, or have something like "After 3 Critical Hits against 1 type of enemy, you add them to your list of Favoured Enemy." Or just replace the Favoured Enemy list with more generic types.
pukunui wrote:
iserith wrote:
I'm not sure I understand this complaint. You are given the option of selecting two creatures for your favored enemey. You are not forced to select an entire type of creature.
Favored enemey is a specialization, which means it shouldn't always be effective.
The DM is not required to let you fight ice elementals in his desert campaign.
Reminds me of the time a player created a Beguiler and then complained that he didn't have any high damage dealing spells. Give me a break.
pukunui wrote:
pukunui wrote:
autolycus wrote:
pukunui wrote:
autolycus wrote:
pukunui wrote:
The casting time a and action restrictions limit the wind walk spell rather significantly. The druid used one of his most powerful resources for travel, which carried an opportunity cost on combat and forced the group to flee encounters. The ranger still has bonuses while in that gaseous state for important skills while scanning terrain below so I don't see the spell replacing all the benefits.
Also if you bypass encounters that is less xp as well.
iserith wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
pukunui wrote:
pukunui wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
iserith wrote:
pukunui wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
pukunui wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
pukunui wrote:
I know you don't think the utility of Natural Explorer is a problem, as you've said so before in this very thread. However, plenty of other people do, and so I was adding to the conversation based on my experiences of Natural Explorer at mid-levels, when other classes get access to spells that can render it useless. That's all. I don't know how this turned into a discussion about the effectiveness of my character overall.
pukunui wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
I would have liked to have seen an option where the Ranger could have traded in his spell list for fighter manuevers, but that's just me.
SirUrza wrote:
A preliminary fix for Natural Explorer in my game is to make it work for all wilderness environments, not just one. It's such a minor ability that the extra level of granularity is simply not needed. I still haven't figured out what to replace the higher level NE improvements with, but I've got time to figure it out.
SailingPirateRyan wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
pukunui wrote:
CCS wrote:
I'm not sure about it's actual power vs. other classes, however I will say that having abilities that are only useful in certain terrain types, and against cerrtain enemy types, is infuriatingly bad game design in this kind of RPG. Yes a good DM or good table can compensate, but the fact is that those kinds of abilities are very difficult to price because they are so much more dependent on the DM throwing those types of situations at the player, admittedly energy resistance has a similar problem but to a far lesser degree. So either the class is underpowered because it doesn't have the bonuses, or over powered because it does. Now the favored terrain stuff doesn't have a lot of combat applications so it's not as bad as the way foe slayer requires favored enemies which can really be frustrating given how little time you're generally given to play with your capstone powers. A superior approach is the so called orzel method where instead of getting abilities specific to terrains/targets you gain abilities based on those terrains/targets. So a ranger with desert as the favored terrain would have desert themed abilities rather than abilities that only work in deserts, or a ranger with the favored enemy of orc would have abilities that work well against the typical tactics and attacks of orcs rather than powers that only work on orcs.
That said the 5e ranger is far less messed up than the 3e ranger. Favored enemy is a minor ability, until the capstone, as is the terrain thing, so just remember to splash a few levels in a different class because your capstone isn't worth it.
Not as good as the 4e ranger though, mostly because 5e's ranger spell list seems to lack cool melee boost to match lightning arrow and swiftquiver.
rampant wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
I think part of the problem lies in presentation and expectation, people expect the ranger's features to do the heavy combat lifitng, when in fact it seems like it's oriented towards using magic to maximize it's combat presence. That said the ranger has some really iffy features and a lot of them are so situational as to be useless, and I don't just mean in a DPR sense.
rampant wrote:
Erroneous maybe, but not unexpected given the way the weapon using classes have been protrayed. The ranger breaks a pattern and doens't call attention to this fact very well, so it looks weaker than it is, at least with regards to ranged and magical combat, it's still an iffy choice for a melee specialist, and those favored x abilities are still crap.
Most of the discussion in this thread seems to indicate that most folks think the Ranger is underpowered. In my campaign, he's a damage beast. Here's the player's build:
Level 5 (+3 proficiency bonus, 2 attacks)
Archery Fighting Style (+2 to hit)
Dex 18 (+4 to hit and damage)
Here's how it breaks down in combat:
- Cast Hunter's Mark (bonus action)
- Attack #1 (longbow) - +9 to hit, 1d8 longbow damage, 1d6 Hunter's Mark damage, +4 ability bonus damage = range of 6-18 damage (11 average)
- Attack #2 (longbow) - +9 to hit, 1d8 longbow damage, 1d6 Hunter's Mark damage, 1d8 Colossus Slayer damage, +4 ability bonus damage = range of 7-26 damage (15 average)
Round #1 total - range of 13-44 (26 average)
With a +9 to hit, the ranger's going to hit the majority of the time against most creatures from the Monster's Manual.
Let me know if I did any of the above incorrectly.
If everything correct, then I don't care what you say about the rest of the Ranger's abilities... That damage potential is impressive. The fact that Hunter's Mark lasts an hour and can be transferred from foe to foe isn't to be underestimated, either. Thrown in some healing and lesser restoration at level 5 and our Ranger is outpacing the monk and the fighter. The only character that rivals his power is the wizard but the wizard wears down quickly while the ranger can pluck arrows away all day long.
Thoughts? Am I wrong?
Damage output is great, but you have to look at everything. Beast Master overall is weak, period. The non combative abilities is less than desired. Natural explorer should include 50% of the terrain, meaning 4/8 not 3/8. Primeval Awareness doesn't offer general direction or approximate number. Casting it in a 6 mile (Favored Terrain) and then exploring it is cumbersome. Vanish is Cunning action taken very late. For Bow Rangers, it is ok. For sword melee Rangers, not great. Offering Dash as bonus action would be helpful. And Foe Slayer is weak in my opinion. And limiting spells to 11 is a huge hindrance for a class that is supposed to be versatile. It should be all encompassing, not limited to.
My 2 weapon Ranger does great damage as well, but I look at the entire character development, at some of their abilities are restrictive.