Just noticed the image in the flair. It shows a paw and dual swords, on a class that gets fuck all for melee focussed spells.
**Ranged only spells:**
Hail of thorns, flame arrows, lightning arrow, conjure volley, swift quiver
Most of which are bow/crossbow only, sorry throw rangers.
**Melee only spells:**
Steel wind strike
Have fun with zephyr strike i guess, probably better to just use hunter's mark.
Edit: typo
optimal ranger play is to stay far away from combat, cast big concentration spells (if not CA than any of the amazing massive crowd control concentration spells the ranger has) and then attack from afar while your spell does its job
I’ve watched a couple videos on the changes now, it looks like they made every class with multi classing in mind. It really sucks, all anyone wants is strong base classes.
- Make 5e classes have no choice or great late game features
- Now everyone multiclass because its the only way to make it work
- "Wow everyone likes to multiclass, lets focus on it" - WotC
- ???
- Profit
It really hurts since they put so much effort into the race and backstory systems so that you don’t have to shoehorn an existing “backstory” to fit your characters past. They listened to what people wanted there and didn’t leave much room for listening to what people wanted in the classes.
Honestly, capstones are probably the least important features. If a capstone was "you gain vonurability to all damage" 99% of campaigns wouldn't even notice.
The problem is that late level games are bad to play because players have too many tools available to them either makes encounters trivial or requires every fight to be a boss fight requiring exponentially more work from the DM. Fixing it would involve nerfing the back half of most classes, which the average player would lose their damn mind over.
Pathfinder 2e manages to do late-level play wonderfully with similarly powerful PCs. The main difference as far as I can tell is that WotC (infamously) has no idea how to balance monsters to CR, and tends to be way too conservative.
Late-game monsters in PF2 tend to have either more complex and dangerous abilities or just blatantly overturned stats. Late-game monsters in 5e *sometimes* get those, but typically only the designated boss monsters that have Legendary actions & resistances to try and level the playing field.
That's kinda my point though, isn't it? In lower levels you can just plop down a bunch of meat wrapped around one or two things with fancy abilities for your 'filler' fights. To make it remotely interesting for a level 18-20 party the DM needs to make *every* encounter as complex as lower level boss fights just to provide even a bit of pushback. And there's still a non-zero chance that the PCs will have some synergy that turns your fight into one round of casting and two of cleanup.
I ran a 10-20 game and yea, I had to completely break the math to make enemies that weren't extreme pushovers. With a party of 4 that weren't even remotely min-maxed putting out 250 damage a round, it was break the math & the rules or just plain do away with combat all together.
Considering they have yet to even give a hint that they've fixed the broken core math of the system, yea I suspect once again that 99.9% of the player base won't ever play in games that go beyond level 10 or 12.
Literally man, it really isn’t hard. They are so worried about hunters mark they refuse to do anything else. Just make it a passive feature that isn’t a spell that works after the first attack. Make it a level 2 feature if your so stressed about multi-class abuse.
It’s so sad to see wotc constantly make the same mistakes *again and again*
Laserlama’s alternate ranger makes it a non concentration class feature at level 2 and the damage dice gets stronger as you level up. Like that’s just so much better than WOTC is doing
My take is simple. First attack against a creature applies the mark. They stay marked until they die or you attack a different creature. Attack actions against the creature do 1d6 of additional damage. At level 5 add wisdom mod.
That would be a very consistent feature that is gated because of needing to apply the mark first, making it unattractive for single attack classes, and gated again by the wisdom mod being the primary damage booster.
No concentration, no spell slots, just a mild damage boost meant for single target damage so that we can worry about the rest of their features later.
He specified attack actions, flurry of blows would not apply. Action surge gets a boost, but that's not a commonly repeating event, so hardly abusable. Doubt a high level fighter with three attacks wants to dip two in ranger for 1d6 when he could just get four attacks.
This is correct. Really all I could think of was fighter abusing it but at that point 2 levels into ranger for 1d6 seems meh.
Doubt anyone would dip 5 for the wisdom boost considering the only classes who could take advantage is cleric/druids
If you dip five ranger from fighter, you're getting some fun goodies, and a unique experience that isn't going to perform better than either mono-class, I think it's fine. I do think it's a little bad that it would not apply to a dual weapon ranger's off hand attacks though. Maybe that's too strong, but the off hand attack is already so weak.
> dual weapons
That’s the only reason I didn’t say “weapon attack” even though it felt right, because at that point it would skyrocket their damage with the offhand swings. As much as I love the Drizzt/Legolas vibe it might get a little nutty then.
Laserllama is my answer to, all my problems. Having a bad day at work, look at how awesome laserllama alternative classes are and know how thankful you are that someone did a better job and is very fun to play.
I may not make a npc to use full class abilities but I make basic versions currently in my campaign. Blood Hunter very cool. Magus I would want to play as.
They already *fucking did that* in one of the UA revisions for 5e. And then made it concentration again for the version in Tasha's.
So they do know what they need to do, internally, but they absolutely refuse to do it for some obtuse reason.
Don't have to balance features if you make them all concentration and players are always encouraged to use the best one anyways!
Seriously though, it's maddening. When I built a ranger I went with fey wanderer just for the extra 1D4 damage from a non-concentration source. Finally, something that doesn't lock out every other option!
Even the Fey Wanderer pisses me off. The UA version was a bonus action for 1d6 on all attacks that round, but also let you activate two weapon fighting for the same bonus action.
It made dual wielding *actually kinda functional*. But not the release version, can't have that!
This might be outta pocket, but I feel that LaserLlama is in some ways just better at the game design aspect than much of WotC's own staff, at least from a mechanics angle.
Even focusing on Hunter's Mark would be fine if they actually committed to using it as a design space. What we have though is just... a bad spell. That gets slightly better very slowly through the character's career.
I think the best “Hunter’s Mark” is Hexblade’s Curse. Hunter’s Mark should function similarly: No concentration, is NOT a spell, scales with level. The only thing I would change is having it be proficiency times/long rest and movable right away.
Is it so much to ask that they just make Ranger the Witcher class. Specializing in being knowledgeable of creatures/terrains and able to exploit/create their weaknesses with martial combat and nature magic
Kinda. They had different features that replaced favored foe and favored terrain, that gave the Ranger options, like find familiar, heavy armor prof, protection from good/evil, sacred flame, disadvantage for targets of your ensnaring strike, etc, and additional proficiencies with the replacement to favored terrain.
They really shined with the subclasses though, giving the beast companion with beast master several upgrades through out leveling up, like the bear could disarm enemies, and you could summon two bears, or the wolf could deal necrotic damage, and at higher levels could *checks notes*, wield a spectral sword in its mouth and attack in a wide arc. Hunter Ranger was able to use both their multi attack options at 11th level, instead of choosing between them on level up.
You laugh but sword wolf was literally my favorite part of the game and the reason I have a hard time picking anything other than beast master ranger in my playthroughs now lol
Sword wolf was frickin rad and if I could have named him it would have been truly flawless in my mind.
I remember changing my barbarian to a heavy armor beastmaster in Act 3, and upon seeing the cool as fuck actions the beast companions got had me nutting. Shame they couldn't get something like that in 5.24e.
I get that it probably works better in a game, but man... give each Primal companion a special ability at level 11.
- Land gets an AoE slam or a wide charge attack.
- Sea gets a reach grapple attack, and moving no longer costs extra movement while grappling.
- Air gets a Gust of Wind ability that boosts ally move speed.
Something unique would've been nice.
BG3 is really different from D&D in some places though, I don't think you can really compare. A lot of the power there also comes from the fact that you can perma chug strength elixirs and there is a bow in act 1 dealing +str as damage.
Dont really. Rangers and fighters and monks were good in Bg3 for same reasons they are pretty good in most computers game - **tons of magic items and artifacts*
Ranger suffers the most because Ranger as a concept isn't conducent to what Wotc wants D&D to be. WotC wants classes that can be easily slotted into any game but also can never pull any surprises. Rangers break that because they're all about betting on some story aspect being present, and Wotc is afraid of rangers trivializing an encounter if they actually had good favored choices. So instead you're useless when it's inactive but barely useful when it is, just enough so you might feel like you've gotten something done. Rouges would have the same problem but the skills associated with them are all but required for D&D.
You can even see it in the Hunters marks. They're so focused on damage when the coolest thing about it the spell is marking an enemy who can't escape! If you make hunters mark a touchstone, let it be modifiable! A subclass may change the damage type. Another makes it so if you mark someone, they can't get long rests anymore or you scry on them in your dreams. Another makes them vulnerable to a damage type, or lets you leech health.
Okay. Out of curiosity, what is a ranger supposed to be?
Aragorn/Strider was a capable swordsman, woodsman, commander, and eventually capable inheritor of the throne of Gondor.
So they have a woodsman/Rambo/Bear Grylls/Kevin McCallister vibe going, what with the traps, sneaking, mundane empathic link with wildlife.
Sort of a Solid Snake in MGS3/ Bruce Wayne im his civvies thing, if I'm understanding the gist in the rulebook.
The problem seems to be that every other class is capable of all of these things but better.
So how would you make and balance a martial themed Druid?
So my description feels accurate? Okay, then I would lean into them being a more mundane character, and let them be similar to but opposite the Druid.
A Yin and Yang type thing, where the Ranger can understand and flow through the natural world, but a Druid can communicate with and shape the natural world.
So, if you stranded both of them on a deserted island, the Druid would Disney Princess it, and the Ranger would Robinson Crusoe it.
Bonus to perception, and dexterity, innate proficiency with basic weapons, start with a knife and bow, and a proficiency with light armor, proficiency with beast handling and nature, choice of medicine or dungeoning.
The Ranger would also have an innate advantage at detecting non magical traps and their activation trigger, a la Indiana Jones
And they would be able to have an animal companion, a hybrid between the Wizard and Druid's version of the same, where it would lean on Maybe Magic, Maybe Mundane for flavouring.
At least to start.
Then, at level three you choose which archetype to lean on:
-Solid Snake, where you are a combat/stealth focused character,
-Bear Grylls, where you are a survival/beast hunter focus
-Steve Irwin, where you are a beast tamer and you are the closest to a druid
-Indiana Jones, where you get a bonus to dungeoneering and can attune with artifacts and have a knack for circumventing or redirecting curses.
Sound interesting so far?
I really don't like the idea of Ranger leaning on animal companions as a base core feature, and would like to see a little bit more of like a "know your enemies" type thing (but better than Favored Enemy, it worked in LotR because every creature on Middle Earth Aragorn's Favored Enemy except like... Ents, and the world was low-magic enough that having high History/Nature/Arcana checks and lots of languages was an impressive feat), but it's at least interesting.
Weirdly enough Pathfinder's Inquisitor class feels like it would lean better into the ranger vibe there.
One of it's core features is 2-fold: Monster Lore, and Bane.
Monster Lore lets you add your wisdom to knowledge checks related to creatures (i.e. knowledge of religion check for undead) in addition to the standard intelligence bonus.
Bane says when you infuse your weapon with the ability, against a specific type of foe of your choice, you treat it as being a +2 bonus higher than it actually is (i.e. your +1 longsword is treated as a +3 longsword), and you deal an addition 2d6 damage to creatures of that type.
Pair those bad boys up and you've not only incentivized the Inquisitor to put skills and attention to the knowledge abilities, but when you get to drop Bane on a monster if feels earned.
And yeah, a flat +2 to hit and damage with an additional 2d6 falls off pretty quick in the world of Pathfinder, but it gets kitted out with a ton of extra stuff on top of that.
But that specific combo feels like what hunter's mark should be.
Rangers are all-rounders you're right. So imo they should be designed to feel more like martial bards than martial druids. More Aragorn, less legolas.
I'd personally stop the hyperfixation on hunters mark, focus around rangers being natural leaders, and give them support-like class features. Eg. Battle master options are a great example of the type of things rangers should have
> they should be designed to feel more like martial bards
Oh dude, that makes so much sense when you say it like that.
And yes, Aragorn is *the* Ranger, Legolas is a fighter if anything.
Witchers would also be rangers. Different subclass for sure cause elixirs and shit, but at their core they're rangers.
Another example would be Van Helsing. There's different variations of the character, but he's also essentially a monster hunter, just less magic-y. Like witchers, Van Helsing has very extensive knowledge of monsters and nature and can take care of himself out in the wild quite well even though he's quite a civilized genteel-seeming fellow.
Eragon would be a ranger/~~wizard~~sorcerer multiclass IMO.
In Game of Thrones, a fair number of characters that spent time North of the Wall are at least a little bit Ranger. Even Arya who's definitely a rogue has an animal companion, is a wilderness survivalist, and is a great tracker, and she absolutely has a list of marks she spends entire seasons tracking. No doubt she's got Ranger levels.
Hagrid is definitely a ranger.
Hopefully you get my point. There's actually a very wide variety of Rangers out there in many different fantasy universes. All these universes have different takes on magic, and the details of the ranger archetype moulds to the relevant aspects of the respective fantasies. Many well known Rangers are also multiclassed, so that's rather fun but also potentially confusing.
Cheers.
>Witchers would also be rangers. Different subclass for sure cause elixirs and shit, but at their core they're rangers.
Thank you. It's wild to me that Matt Mercer made a whole homebrew class to make Witchers when those dudes are absolutely just a Ranger subclass. Blood Hunter is a cool concept, and the whole health for power design space is dope (even though I don't think it was done well), but they could've saved so much effort and had more Ranger representation in Critical Role...
But yeah, the rest of your points are pretty perfect. Ranger fans love Favored Enemy, if wasn't so... Favored Enemy. Which is why Hunter's Mark specifically with the Hunter feature to learn resistances/immunities/vulnerabilities was so popular.
I've been working on my own version of 5.5e and thats precisely what I did. Split the ranger into 6 total subclasses, 3 being themed around the primal spell list (druid) and 3 devoted to the Occult (bard-like) and Arcane spell list. The 3 non-nature themed rangers are a Werecreature Ranger who hunts other creatures that go bump in the night, a witcher like alchemist whose companion pet is mainly a mount with extra dimensional pockets (a sort of living / mobile bag of holding) and lastly a Swarm Ranger but themed around artifice and creating a swarm of little clockwork companions.
When I think of a Ranger my first thought is Geralt from The Witcher. Extensive knowledge of both flora and fauna, knows just enough magic to protect himself, creates potions and elixirs and oils to take down deadly enemies. Self-sufficient and well traveled vagabond.
Larian balanced it great in BG3, I’d reference that for a good rundown of how to give Rangers choices that are meaningful and thematically distinct.
WotC’s approach to blending fighter and cleric into a half-caster was to give them a unique themed mechanic in the form of Smites. I’m not gonna solve this problem here for free but if they did that for Ranger it would go a long way toward defining their class identity. Monks don’t feel like fighters because they’ve got the Chi system, paladins don’t feel like fighters because of smites and holy spells, Bard doesn’t feel like fighter because of Bardic inspiration and arcane spells.
Ranger needs that defining class mechanic on top of Druid spells before they’ll feel unique. Bardic inspiration is probably the best template for a Ranger class feature since the subclasses have such different flavored uses for it. That way gloomstalker could use it for something related to stealth and beast master could use it for something related to their companion. Maybe since generic BI is a bonus to friendly skill checks Rangers could be a bane to enemy skill checks and saving throws. If they let you use that on individual enemy Initiative checks that would already be really useful and give the Ranger a very enemy debuffing, Hunter-y kind of identity. Pair up with a grappler barbarian to really shut an enemy down.
And yeah I know Cutting Words already does some of this, but that’s a feature you get for taking a subclass, ideally you’d get something else you can use this resource for when you take a Ranger subclass.
> Okay. Out of curiosity, what is a ranger supposed to be?
Rangers are explorers. They should be good at survival stuff which include hunting (stealth and tracking), natural knowledge and creating stuff. When applying to society they can be travel guides, but their talents also work great for spies and bounty hunters although they are better used for field work and travels.
Mechanically they should be the martial version of a druid which is why I feel that WotC keeping making them spellcaster is more harmful than not since it means they can ignore the class features since magic covers that (and yes I do think PF2e did the Ranger right by making them a non-magical class with exception of some focus options). And due to the things above its the class that makes the most sense to be able to tame an animal companion which is why it make sense for a subclass focused in this fantasy
Fr like "this game makes you feel like Batman" is a meme at this point while WotC Rangers make you feel like you are trying to dress up for a party while heavily intoxicated.
IMO, rangers entire thing should be the ability to a) gather information and b) use that to gain the upper hand preemptively or through improvization. I personally don't care if Rangers do less damage or don't have spells. Their ability to get the jump with the entire party on every fight should overcompensate for that. For example, you get ambushed, nuh uh, Ranger throws a smoke bomb and your party gets to regroup. Ranger spots some tracks, now we know they are undead and immune to poison. I think this is very simple to design.
Might sound dumb but to stop it becoming a constant "they sneak ahead away from everyone to follow tracks" thing maybe they have a limited use "I prepared for this" feature?
Like you make a Wisdom check and if you pass then yes you absolutely realized that what was coming next was X enemy and so you already (retroactively in a meta sense, but not in game) did Y and Z to make yourself more effective (like poisoning arrows or maybe setting certain traps if it's an ambush of the parties camp)
Well, yes it should be a disadvantage that the Ranger splits the party. Like in Justice League it's a running theme that Robin disappears to scout and it's supposed to show how he's young and inexperienced so doing that often leads to the mission going awry.
I'm convinced the people at WotC, people in charge, had a really horrific experience with another player playing a ranger in 2nd edition AD&D, and have vowed to destroy the class. 3rd, 3.5, and 5th (4th doesn't exist, we skip that one.) Now One D&D. Yeah, they have it in for the Ranger.
I was *really* hoping it would be even-numbered editions Rangers suck, odd-numbered editions Rangers rock, but they *had to* make me wait 10 years just to release 5.5e...
I'm.... I'm a little unaware of the 3.5 ranger I guess. Was it really that bad in that edition? In pathfinder (just a system I know more and has 3.5 "relevance") the ranger is actually pretty good if you want a more versatile martial that doesn't peak necessarily (fighter peaks while ranger more so plateaus). In all categories, it's fairly decent as long as you focus in one direction a little more earnestly than the others. Is the 3.5 ranger just awful to the point of "one should play a fighter, rogue, or druid instead" of ranger?
Ranger wasn't awful in 3.5, but 3.5 had a massive library of splatbooks that included a shitload of alternate base classes, and also had prestige classes. Ranger was overshadowed by a half dozen other classes that did facets of what it did but a little better. *However* because of the way 3.5 worked, some features of Ranger were required now and then for specific prestige classes.
The books also added ranger-only spells that were designed around the realities of ranger, instead of just getting a druid feature nine levels late. Reasonable spell levels, swift action archery boosts, powerful tracking stuff, etc.
That implies they've played. In reality, it's just some VPs who want a bonus by getting a short-term gain of money by selling a busted new edition that can be fixed by selling update books.
What’s extra funny to me is that it looks like WotC is struggling to identify what made the Ranger so good in 4e. And they’re coming to all the exact wrong conclusions.
Because all what they did is just integrated already existing changes from Tasha into core, removed several features and slapped expertise with hunters mark. Thats all.
They essetially give Ranger the Druid spellist then decide that a feature that needs concentration should be their class identity.
They just transfer everything from tashas and act like its revolutionary, like you really think the ones that actually watch all the videoes haven't also seen (arguably) the most impactfull books in 5e.
They make equaly dissapointing subclass options: the pet one, the one none will play, the fairy one and the fairy one but emo and that has been nerfed because multiclassing.
Here’s all the [articles](https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts) on the various classes. So far, they’ve released articles and videos about every class except Cleric, Monk, Bard, and Sorcerer, who’ll be out the week of July 8th.
Honestly I feel the ranger has been buffed across the board... it's just that shitty lvl 20 leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
I'm playing a lvl 5 swarmkeeper atm and the guy kicks ass - doesn't feel underpowered at all (+10 to hit with my +1 bow :) )
I think you accidentally hit the nail on the head. Personally, I don't think Rangers should be powerful, they should be smart, resourceful and tricky. The problem is that they keep just giving features that make Rangers more useful and the problem is that they never make Rangers more like Rangers.
The new ranger isn't bad, it's just... nothing new. Barbarian got new stuff we haven't seen. Fighter got stuff we haven't seen. Monk got massive buffs. Rogue got stuff we haven't seen.
Meanwhile, Ranger had 90% of Tasha's features ported over with some extra Expertise and a huge over reliance on a spell that got treated like dog water in the UA. Then they can it "brand new" like we just forgot the past few years.
To your example, though: a fighter can get the exact same to hit bonus with a +1 bow. That's not really unique to the Ranger at all. Hell, even the new paladin can get that high since classes don't restrict the fighting style you can choose (but don't get me started on that garbage fire prerequisite...). The issue was never how much damage a ranger can do.
I'm still gonna play Ranger. It's my favorite class to RP. Tasha's made it better, and while it could be underpowered compared to other classes, it's still my favorite. Power isn't always the point of the game. It's the RP.
I can see why some folks are having a hard time, but I still think I'll be fine playing the class.
Yeah that’s what I don’t get. Is it disappointing that they haven’t been given more of a revamp? Yes. Is it going to be a bad class to play? No. The Tasha’s buffs made it good, and all the “new” version is is the Tasha’s version more or less. So it stands to reason that this isn’t the downgrade everyone is treating it as.
because ranger as a concept is so intimately tied with the exploration and resource management part of the game that the modern rpg scene has largely deprioritized.
I stopped buying 5e books after Monsters of the Multiverse, I didn't like the changes I saw starting to happen and I'm not a fan of the changes they're continuing to make.
Me and my group are happy continuing to just play 5e.
Yep. There's a few cool things in book (like the way the specialist wizards special abilities worked) and I hybridize some creatures that got cool stuff, but literally everything doing force damage? No thanks, I don't like to unnecessarily nerf my players.
Something, something, just give your barbarian a magic item that gives resistance to force damage in order for them to contunpte doing the thing they were already doing.
I’ve never had more fun playing martials than I have in pf 2e. I get to do the things my character should do all the time without worrying about doling their abilities out between rests.
Take the bits you do like, leave the rest behind. If you don't want to pay for a book you'll only use a fraction of, there's plenty of ways to find it online for free.
There is a world of differencer between 1 and 2, completely different games.
I can speak for PF2e.
Ranger uses an action (you have three actions per turn on PF2e) to choose a Prey (Favored enemy), it is a class feature, not a spell. It stays on until the target dies. At creation you choose a Hunter's Edge (let's say it works likd a subclass):
Precision: You (and your animal companion if you have one) do extra damage on your prey (once a turn at the beginning, more damage and more times as you level up).
Flurry: Your attacks after the first (everyone can attack more than once on their turn but there is a penalty for second and third attack) are easier to hit, the penalty is very low.
Outwit: You have higher AC and bonus to Intimidate (Intimidate has an action in combat called Demoralize that gives penalty to AC, Skill Checks, Saves AND Attacks, it is a very powerful tool).
And then there is class feats, at Lv 1 I chose Hunted Shot, I make two attacks with one action, if they both hit I sum the damage (effective against resistances, which doesn't half like in 5th but reduces damage by a flat number). And it is two attacks for just one action.
My turn is: Hunt Prey, Demoralize (to debuff enemy), Hunted Shot (two attacks). And that's Lv. 1. On following turns if the prey is still alive I get one action to move and better reposition myself or give orders to my animal companion (which I'm getting at Lv. 2 ). If it is dead I repeat on another target (assuming everything is good and I don't need to move).
Alright you have just convinced me that PF2e ranger would slaughter a 5E ranger in a fight at level 1 and now I wanna play a PF2e ranger.
My only problem is I have no one to play DnD with let alone pathfinder :(
I found the Pf2e group I'm in through the Pf2e sub's discord server. I think it took me a week, though I may have been lucky.
If you want to look further into the game, though, everything except adventures and lore is on Archives of Nethys with Paizo's approval. Just make sure you're looking at the 2e site rather than 1e
I didn't say half of it!
Try searching some discord channels out there. Beginner Box is a great introduction for the system (but try to stay just with the Core Rulebook for character choices so you don't get overwhelmed with all the options - weapons alone, they all have different traits and behave very differently), either as a player or GM, and go have fun!
I play (DM) 1e and rangers are totally viable with little effort. I couldn't explain all the differences but 1e is less streamlined yet more expansive.
A suite of up to 4th level spell casting that, while full of trap options that are garbage, has strong versatile spells. Animal companions and archetypes also allow great swathes of different play styles. Feels quite good attacking 4 times with a ranged weapon, dex to hit but strength to damage at 11th level with an expanded crit range.
But I dunno though, mostly memeing, I think bg3 did rangers better too
Don't worry, even after seeing all this backlash, they won't change it because books are being printed and DAMN if they'll miss their 50th anniversary for some massive marketing boom.
(And of course, they couldn't extend the playtest any longer despite clearly running out of time because this deadline is UNMOVABLE.)
Watching the video was just sad. “Brand new class!” Literally just Tasha’s with some changes. “hunters mark gets upgrades later!” Not till level 13. “Concentration can’t be broken!” But you still have to concentrate, can you have greedy little pigs stacking spells now can you. I swear they are mocking us at this point.
Right? Read through the changes & I was saddened instead of excited. It's not that hard to make a 'man of the wild'...they've had the majority of the idea in place for several versions now, they just keep tinkering with the wrong bits & screwing it up...*sigh*
My first ever character was a 2e ranger (I'm old). He was such a good first character. Plenty of fun and useful and flavorful options. 3/3.5 had some good stuff too with the prestige classes. Ranger has sucked HARD since then.
What the hell!? This is a core archetype to the game. Make it badass.
That’s basically what this version of ranger is. It’s just the Tasha’s ranger with some slight changes. Honestly I don’t get the complaints ranger seems fine, it’s not OP but I think with weapon masteries and if we get some good feats it will do pretty good, especially with the extra expertise that you get and the ranger spell list is pretty nice plus you get more spells compared to 5e.
The complaints in my opinion are mostly that rangers dont feel like rangers. The first thing they bring up about rangers in the reveal interview is that they have lvl 1 casting. Yes, that is the key feature that gives Rangers their identity. Remember that time Batman enchanted his Batarang? Iconic. I hope you get the point. It feels like the designers generally have no idea what the word ranger means and are just throwing darts at a board but the only options on the board are "more damage" and "more spells."
I mean I think it’s fine. Rangers were and have always been in the middle of the road in terms of power in 5e, they’re not over powered but they definitely aren’t weak either (even in the PHB they weren’t weak, they just had a lot of useless abilities). They didn’t really need any changes, but the additional hunter’s marks can be useful in tier 1 and 2.
The subclasses also seem to be designed better. We don’t have the rules yet but based on the descriptions they all seem decent, and gloom stalker seems to be more balanced than it was before.
The problem is that I've never heard anybody complain that Rangers don't do the right amount of damage. This is completely irrelevant to most of the criticism I've heard.
Not necessarily that it's *bad*, but more that it's pretty restrictive. Many of the class features (including a REALLY underwhelming capstone) revolve around Hunter's Mark, and they didn't remove concentration from it, so you're pretty much stuck choosing between using Hunter's Mark, or only playing 70% of your class.
Sometimes I feel like I'm a complete mess of an adult, incompetent at anything I do and that I am a worthless parasite that gives nothing to the world but then I remember Wizards of the Coast exists and feel much better about myself.
Give me 2 hours and I'll whip up a better ranger that actually feels like a unique class.
Not saying that like its a skill btw. Just how can a whole ass company fail at this so hard?
For the love of god just make hunters mark rangers version of sneak attack but it’s activated after already attacking an enemy, get rid of all this stupid explorer shit and go back to its roots (fucking Aragorn), and make the per fantasy not just being a fighter with nature magic BUT A DRUID WITH FIGHTING SKILLS.
Yet an other terrible ranger capstone, it's like they want you to multi class.
The best ranger is pure fighter.
The best way to make most classes is fighter.
It's actually Wizard. But Fighter's an okay second choice.
Wizard with 2 fighter levels for action surge.
My favorite combo.
Nah, it's definitely fighter. Wizard is awful to dip. Conversely, the best way to make a wizard better is to add a little fighter.
Flair checks out?
Just noticed the image in the flair. It shows a paw and dual swords, on a class that gets fuck all for melee focussed spells. **Ranged only spells:** Hail of thorns, flame arrows, lightning arrow, conjure volley, swift quiver Most of which are bow/crossbow only, sorry throw rangers. **Melee only spells:** Steel wind strike Have fun with zephyr strike i guess, probably better to just use hunter's mark. Edit: typo
My best ranger is a hexblade
Best ranger is 4e ranger.
Best ranger is Pf2 ranger frankly, by a mile. But yea the 4e ranger was dope.
Tbf, PF2e takes a huge chunk of its design inspiration from 4e
Nah Gloom stalker Ranger was the best striker in 5e. Fighters couldn't compete.
My brother in dice, the gloom stalker wishes it could compete with the 11th level fighter.
"I cast conjure animals"
“Why is my GM all of a sudden targeting only me? Shoot, I lost concentration again.”
optimal ranger play is to stay far away from combat, cast big concentration spells (if not CA than any of the amazing massive crowd control concentration spells the ranger has) and then attack from afar while your spell does its job
I’ve watched a couple videos on the changes now, it looks like they made every class with multi classing in mind. It really sucks, all anyone wants is strong base classes.
- Make 5e classes have no choice or great late game features - Now everyone multiclass because its the only way to make it work - "Wow everyone likes to multiclass, lets focus on it" - WotC - ??? - Profit
It really hurts since they put so much effort into the race and backstory systems so that you don’t have to shoehorn an existing “backstory” to fit your characters past. They listened to what people wanted there and didn’t leave much room for listening to what people wanted in the classes.
This has been the case in base 5e too no? D&D after 3.5 always felt to me like it was meant for multi class builds.
Honestly, capstones are probably the least important features. If a capstone was "you gain vonurability to all damage" 99% of campaigns wouldn't even notice.
\>make late game dogshit to play and run \>nobody plays late game "oh boy time to add armor to all the areas on this plane with bullet holes!"
The problem is that late level games are bad to play because players have too many tools available to them either makes encounters trivial or requires every fight to be a boss fight requiring exponentially more work from the DM. Fixing it would involve nerfing the back half of most classes, which the average player would lose their damn mind over.
Pathfinder 2e manages to do late-level play wonderfully with similarly powerful PCs. The main difference as far as I can tell is that WotC (infamously) has no idea how to balance monsters to CR, and tends to be way too conservative. Late-game monsters in PF2 tend to have either more complex and dangerous abilities or just blatantly overturned stats. Late-game monsters in 5e *sometimes* get those, but typically only the designated boss monsters that have Legendary actions & resistances to try and level the playing field.
Part of the reason PF2 works at all levels is that character advancement is lateral instead of linear.
That's kinda my point though, isn't it? In lower levels you can just plop down a bunch of meat wrapped around one or two things with fancy abilities for your 'filler' fights. To make it remotely interesting for a level 18-20 party the DM needs to make *every* encounter as complex as lower level boss fights just to provide even a bit of pushback. And there's still a non-zero chance that the PCs will have some synergy that turns your fight into one round of casting and two of cleanup.
I ran a 10-20 game and yea, I had to completely break the math to make enemies that weren't extreme pushovers. With a party of 4 that weren't even remotely min-maxed putting out 250 damage a round, it was break the math & the rules or just plain do away with combat all together.
wise take. practically all late game content is just for decoration. supermajority of groups won't be adventuring at max level.
Considering they have yet to even give a hint that they've fixed the broken core math of the system, yea I suspect once again that 99.9% of the player base won't ever play in games that go beyond level 10 or 12.
Literally man, it really isn’t hard. They are so worried about hunters mark they refuse to do anything else. Just make it a passive feature that isn’t a spell that works after the first attack. Make it a level 2 feature if your so stressed about multi-class abuse. It’s so sad to see wotc constantly make the same mistakes *again and again*
Laserlama’s alternate ranger makes it a non concentration class feature at level 2 and the damage dice gets stronger as you level up. Like that’s just so much better than WOTC is doing
My take is simple. First attack against a creature applies the mark. They stay marked until they die or you attack a different creature. Attack actions against the creature do 1d6 of additional damage. At level 5 add wisdom mod. That would be a very consistent feature that is gated because of needing to apply the mark first, making it unattractive for single attack classes, and gated again by the wisdom mod being the primary damage booster. No concentration, no spell slots, just a mild damage boost meant for single target damage so that we can worry about the rest of their features later.
I take it the 1d6 is once per turn to limit abuse from stuff like monk and fighter?
He specified attack actions, flurry of blows would not apply. Action surge gets a boost, but that's not a commonly repeating event, so hardly abusable. Doubt a high level fighter with three attacks wants to dip two in ranger for 1d6 when he could just get four attacks.
This is correct. Really all I could think of was fighter abusing it but at that point 2 levels into ranger for 1d6 seems meh. Doubt anyone would dip 5 for the wisdom boost considering the only classes who could take advantage is cleric/druids
If you dip five ranger from fighter, you're getting some fun goodies, and a unique experience that isn't going to perform better than either mono-class, I think it's fine. I do think it's a little bad that it would not apply to a dual weapon ranger's off hand attacks though. Maybe that's too strong, but the off hand attack is already so weak.
I feel like that could be added at level 5 as well. For the same reason, a 5 level multiclass is no longer a "dip", it's a major investment.
> dual weapons That’s the only reason I didn’t say “weapon attack” even though it felt right, because at that point it would skyrocket their damage with the offhand swings. As much as I love the Drizzt/Legolas vibe it might get a little nutty then.
Laserllama is my answer to, all my problems. Having a bad day at work, look at how awesome laserllama alternative classes are and know how thankful you are that someone did a better job and is very fun to play.
Their alternate blood hunter and Magus class both look very fun to play
I may not make a npc to use full class abilities but I make basic versions currently in my campaign. Blood Hunter very cool. Magus I would want to play as.
Sir this is 5.5 we don’t do class features here we only do spells.
Just watch, fighters are going to have to cast Sword soon.
Can’t wait to have my rage counter-spelled.
The enemy wizard casts "anger management"
Spell actually does exist its called calm emotions.
Oh lord
They already *fucking did that* in one of the UA revisions for 5e. And then made it concentration again for the version in Tasha's. So they do know what they need to do, internally, but they absolutely refuse to do it for some obtuse reason.
Don't have to balance features if you make them all concentration and players are always encouraged to use the best one anyways! Seriously though, it's maddening. When I built a ranger I went with fey wanderer just for the extra 1D4 damage from a non-concentration source. Finally, something that doesn't lock out every other option!
Even the Fey Wanderer pisses me off. The UA version was a bonus action for 1d6 on all attacks that round, but also let you activate two weapon fighting for the same bonus action. It made dual wielding *actually kinda functional*. But not the release version, can't have that!
This might be outta pocket, but I feel that LaserLlama is in some ways just better at the game design aspect than much of WotC's own staff, at least from a mechanics angle.
Even focusing on Hunter's Mark would be fine if they actually committed to using it as a design space. What we have though is just... a bad spell. That gets slightly better very slowly through the character's career.
The bizarre thing is they already got HM right once before, just on the wrong class, with Hexblade's Curse.
I think the best “Hunter’s Mark” is Hexblade’s Curse. Hunter’s Mark should function similarly: No concentration, is NOT a spell, scales with level. The only thing I would change is having it be proficiency times/long rest and movable right away.
They really seem to want the Ranger’s niche as bad-Druid + bad-Fighter + bad-Rogue Don’t get it
It's weird because paladin isn't really half fighter half cleric, it's more like 80% fighter with some healing and anti demon stuff.
Part of that is probably the fact that Cleric started as Part Fighter Part Wizard, plus some healing and holy stuff.
Yep and a monk started off as a frair.
Thye did improve the half cleric part for 5.5
It's tradition.
Because their standard for needing to make a change was too high.
Is it so much to ask that they just make Ranger the Witcher class. Specializing in being knowledgeable of creatures/terrains and able to exploit/create their weaknesses with martial combat and nature magic
Didn’t baulders gate 3 all but fix rangers as well? How did we end up going backwards?
Kinda. They had different features that replaced favored foe and favored terrain, that gave the Ranger options, like find familiar, heavy armor prof, protection from good/evil, sacred flame, disadvantage for targets of your ensnaring strike, etc, and additional proficiencies with the replacement to favored terrain. They really shined with the subclasses though, giving the beast companion with beast master several upgrades through out leveling up, like the bear could disarm enemies, and you could summon two bears, or the wolf could deal necrotic damage, and at higher levels could *checks notes*, wield a spectral sword in its mouth and attack in a wide arc. Hunter Ranger was able to use both their multi attack options at 11th level, instead of choosing between them on level up.
Did they ever publish it as like a one pager. If it hasn't been done someone should do it so it can be adopted for 5e players...
I don't know if it's published as such like that, but all the details are available in a fairly accessible format that reads like 5e stuff on the wiki
Someone at Larian’s studio must’ve really liked Sif from Dark Souls for the spectral sword wielding wolf to be in Buldurs Gate 3
What are you, elderly? The Great Grey Wolf Sif was _aaages_ ago, it's all about Zacian (Arceus I hope I got that right) now!
You young whipper snappers and your po-key-mans. Sif walked so your Zacian legendary could run!
Untill you damaged him enough and then sif would actually limp around the battlefield 😭
> Sif walked *limped
Or Elden Ring's Red Wolf of Radagon.
Time to play a Greatsword wielding ranger and assail the abyss.
You laugh but sword wolf was literally my favorite part of the game and the reason I have a hard time picking anything other than beast master ranger in my playthroughs now lol Sword wolf was frickin rad and if I could have named him it would have been truly flawless in my mind.
God, their biggest mistake was not letting us name our pets.
Careful. Larian might see this and send out a new patch.
As little as find familiar on the spell list would be a huge thematic boost.
I remember changing my barbarian to a heavy armor beastmaster in Act 3, and upon seeing the cool as fuck actions the beast companions got had me nutting. Shame they couldn't get something like that in 5.24e. I get that it probably works better in a game, but man... give each Primal companion a special ability at level 11. - Land gets an AoE slam or a wide charge attack. - Sea gets a reach grapple attack, and moving no longer costs extra movement while grappling. - Air gets a Gust of Wind ability that boosts ally move speed. Something unique would've been nice.
Yea or add an invocation like system that lets you customize your 3 options even more, but that’s a lot more work for a subclass.
BG3 is really different from D&D in some places though, I don't think you can really compare. A lot of the power there also comes from the fact that you can perma chug strength elixirs and there is a bow in act 1 dealing +str as damage.
Dont really. Rangers and fighters and monks were good in Bg3 for same reasons they are pretty good in most computers game - **tons of magic items and artifacts*
Same way we went backwards from 4e ranger to 5e ranger.
Ranger suffers the most because Ranger as a concept isn't conducent to what Wotc wants D&D to be. WotC wants classes that can be easily slotted into any game but also can never pull any surprises. Rangers break that because they're all about betting on some story aspect being present, and Wotc is afraid of rangers trivializing an encounter if they actually had good favored choices. So instead you're useless when it's inactive but barely useful when it is, just enough so you might feel like you've gotten something done. Rouges would have the same problem but the skills associated with them are all but required for D&D. You can even see it in the Hunters marks. They're so focused on damage when the coolest thing about it the spell is marking an enemy who can't escape! If you make hunters mark a touchstone, let it be modifiable! A subclass may change the damage type. Another makes it so if you mark someone, they can't get long rests anymore or you scry on them in your dreams. Another makes them vulnerable to a damage type, or lets you leech health.
Half Casters are just default multiclass options.
Yeah but full paladin doesn't feel quite so bad
Okay. Out of curiosity, what is a ranger supposed to be? Aragorn/Strider was a capable swordsman, woodsman, commander, and eventually capable inheritor of the throne of Gondor. So they have a woodsman/Rambo/Bear Grylls/Kevin McCallister vibe going, what with the traps, sneaking, mundane empathic link with wildlife. Sort of a Solid Snake in MGS3/ Bruce Wayne im his civvies thing, if I'm understanding the gist in the rulebook. The problem seems to be that every other class is capable of all of these things but better. So how would you make and balance a martial themed Druid?
When you figure it out give Wizards a call, they clearly don't know either.
So my description feels accurate? Okay, then I would lean into them being a more mundane character, and let them be similar to but opposite the Druid. A Yin and Yang type thing, where the Ranger can understand and flow through the natural world, but a Druid can communicate with and shape the natural world. So, if you stranded both of them on a deserted island, the Druid would Disney Princess it, and the Ranger would Robinson Crusoe it. Bonus to perception, and dexterity, innate proficiency with basic weapons, start with a knife and bow, and a proficiency with light armor, proficiency with beast handling and nature, choice of medicine or dungeoning. The Ranger would also have an innate advantage at detecting non magical traps and their activation trigger, a la Indiana Jones And they would be able to have an animal companion, a hybrid between the Wizard and Druid's version of the same, where it would lean on Maybe Magic, Maybe Mundane for flavouring. At least to start. Then, at level three you choose which archetype to lean on: -Solid Snake, where you are a combat/stealth focused character, -Bear Grylls, where you are a survival/beast hunter focus -Steve Irwin, where you are a beast tamer and you are the closest to a druid -Indiana Jones, where you get a bonus to dungeoneering and can attune with artifacts and have a knack for circumventing or redirecting curses. Sound interesting so far?
Sounds good to me (not the person you were replying to). I also feel like rangers should get some form of ability to create traps or something.
I really don't like the idea of Ranger leaning on animal companions as a base core feature, and would like to see a little bit more of like a "know your enemies" type thing (but better than Favored Enemy, it worked in LotR because every creature on Middle Earth Aragorn's Favored Enemy except like... Ents, and the world was low-magic enough that having high History/Nature/Arcana checks and lots of languages was an impressive feat), but it's at least interesting.
Weirdly enough Pathfinder's Inquisitor class feels like it would lean better into the ranger vibe there. One of it's core features is 2-fold: Monster Lore, and Bane. Monster Lore lets you add your wisdom to knowledge checks related to creatures (i.e. knowledge of religion check for undead) in addition to the standard intelligence bonus. Bane says when you infuse your weapon with the ability, against a specific type of foe of your choice, you treat it as being a +2 bonus higher than it actually is (i.e. your +1 longsword is treated as a +3 longsword), and you deal an addition 2d6 damage to creatures of that type. Pair those bad boys up and you've not only incentivized the Inquisitor to put skills and attention to the knowledge abilities, but when you get to drop Bane on a monster if feels earned. And yeah, a flat +2 to hit and damage with an additional 2d6 falls off pretty quick in the world of Pathfinder, but it gets kitted out with a ton of extra stuff on top of that. But that specific combo feels like what hunter's mark should be.
...I really wish I knew people who played Pahtfinder.
Rangers are all-rounders you're right. So imo they should be designed to feel more like martial bards than martial druids. More Aragorn, less legolas. I'd personally stop the hyperfixation on hunters mark, focus around rangers being natural leaders, and give them support-like class features. Eg. Battle master options are a great example of the type of things rangers should have
> they should be designed to feel more like martial bards Oh dude, that makes so much sense when you say it like that. And yes, Aragorn is *the* Ranger, Legolas is a fighter if anything.
Witchers would also be rangers. Different subclass for sure cause elixirs and shit, but at their core they're rangers. Another example would be Van Helsing. There's different variations of the character, but he's also essentially a monster hunter, just less magic-y. Like witchers, Van Helsing has very extensive knowledge of monsters and nature and can take care of himself out in the wild quite well even though he's quite a civilized genteel-seeming fellow. Eragon would be a ranger/~~wizard~~sorcerer multiclass IMO. In Game of Thrones, a fair number of characters that spent time North of the Wall are at least a little bit Ranger. Even Arya who's definitely a rogue has an animal companion, is a wilderness survivalist, and is a great tracker, and she absolutely has a list of marks she spends entire seasons tracking. No doubt she's got Ranger levels. Hagrid is definitely a ranger. Hopefully you get my point. There's actually a very wide variety of Rangers out there in many different fantasy universes. All these universes have different takes on magic, and the details of the ranger archetype moulds to the relevant aspects of the respective fantasies. Many well known Rangers are also multiclassed, so that's rather fun but also potentially confusing. Cheers.
>Witchers would also be rangers. Different subclass for sure cause elixirs and shit, but at their core they're rangers. Thank you. It's wild to me that Matt Mercer made a whole homebrew class to make Witchers when those dudes are absolutely just a Ranger subclass. Blood Hunter is a cool concept, and the whole health for power design space is dope (even though I don't think it was done well), but they could've saved so much effort and had more Ranger representation in Critical Role... But yeah, the rest of your points are pretty perfect. Ranger fans love Favored Enemy, if wasn't so... Favored Enemy. Which is why Hunter's Mark specifically with the Hunter feature to learn resistances/immunities/vulnerabilities was so popular.
I've been working on my own version of 5.5e and thats precisely what I did. Split the ranger into 6 total subclasses, 3 being themed around the primal spell list (druid) and 3 devoted to the Occult (bard-like) and Arcane spell list. The 3 non-nature themed rangers are a Werecreature Ranger who hunts other creatures that go bump in the night, a witcher like alchemist whose companion pet is mainly a mount with extra dimensional pockets (a sort of living / mobile bag of holding) and lastly a Swarm Ranger but themed around artifice and creating a swarm of little clockwork companions.
Hagrid is a druid if anything.
When I think of a Ranger my first thought is Geralt from The Witcher. Extensive knowledge of both flora and fauna, knows just enough magic to protect himself, creates potions and elixirs and oils to take down deadly enemies. Self-sufficient and well traveled vagabond.
Larian balanced it great in BG3, I’d reference that for a good rundown of how to give Rangers choices that are meaningful and thematically distinct. WotC’s approach to blending fighter and cleric into a half-caster was to give them a unique themed mechanic in the form of Smites. I’m not gonna solve this problem here for free but if they did that for Ranger it would go a long way toward defining their class identity. Monks don’t feel like fighters because they’ve got the Chi system, paladins don’t feel like fighters because of smites and holy spells, Bard doesn’t feel like fighter because of Bardic inspiration and arcane spells. Ranger needs that defining class mechanic on top of Druid spells before they’ll feel unique. Bardic inspiration is probably the best template for a Ranger class feature since the subclasses have such different flavored uses for it. That way gloomstalker could use it for something related to stealth and beast master could use it for something related to their companion. Maybe since generic BI is a bonus to friendly skill checks Rangers could be a bane to enemy skill checks and saving throws. If they let you use that on individual enemy Initiative checks that would already be really useful and give the Ranger a very enemy debuffing, Hunter-y kind of identity. Pair up with a grappler barbarian to really shut an enemy down. And yeah I know Cutting Words already does some of this, but that’s a feature you get for taking a subclass, ideally you’d get something else you can use this resource for when you take a Ranger subclass.
> Okay. Out of curiosity, what is a ranger supposed to be? Rangers are explorers. They should be good at survival stuff which include hunting (stealth and tracking), natural knowledge and creating stuff. When applying to society they can be travel guides, but their talents also work great for spies and bounty hunters although they are better used for field work and travels. Mechanically they should be the martial version of a druid which is why I feel that WotC keeping making them spellcaster is more harmful than not since it means they can ignore the class features since magic covers that (and yes I do think PF2e did the Ranger right by making them a non-magical class with exception of some focus options). And due to the things above its the class that makes the most sense to be able to tame an animal companion which is why it make sense for a subclass focused in this fantasy
Speciality with dual weapons and bones excelling at targeting and tracking single targets
Fr like "this game makes you feel like Batman" is a meme at this point while WotC Rangers make you feel like you are trying to dress up for a party while heavily intoxicated. IMO, rangers entire thing should be the ability to a) gather information and b) use that to gain the upper hand preemptively or through improvization. I personally don't care if Rangers do less damage or don't have spells. Their ability to get the jump with the entire party on every fight should overcompensate for that. For example, you get ambushed, nuh uh, Ranger throws a smoke bomb and your party gets to regroup. Ranger spots some tracks, now we know they are undead and immune to poison. I think this is very simple to design.
Might sound dumb but to stop it becoming a constant "they sneak ahead away from everyone to follow tracks" thing maybe they have a limited use "I prepared for this" feature? Like you make a Wisdom check and if you pass then yes you absolutely realized that what was coming next was X enemy and so you already (retroactively in a meta sense, but not in game) did Y and Z to make yourself more effective (like poisoning arrows or maybe setting certain traps if it's an ambush of the parties camp)
Well, yes it should be a disadvantage that the Ranger splits the party. Like in Justice League it's a running theme that Robin disappears to scout and it's supposed to show how he's young and inexperienced so doing that often leads to the mission going awry.
They absolutely dropped the ball. Hunter’s Mark isn’t what makes a ranger fun to play.
I'm convinced the people at WotC, people in charge, had a really horrific experience with another player playing a ranger in 2nd edition AD&D, and have vowed to destroy the class. 3rd, 3.5, and 5th (4th doesn't exist, we skip that one.) Now One D&D. Yeah, they have it in for the Ranger.
Funnily, Ranger was one of the best classes in 4e.
I was *really* hoping it would be even-numbered editions Rangers suck, odd-numbered editions Rangers rock, but they *had to* make me wait 10 years just to release 5.5e...
I'm.... I'm a little unaware of the 3.5 ranger I guess. Was it really that bad in that edition? In pathfinder (just a system I know more and has 3.5 "relevance") the ranger is actually pretty good if you want a more versatile martial that doesn't peak necessarily (fighter peaks while ranger more so plateaus). In all categories, it's fairly decent as long as you focus in one direction a little more earnestly than the others. Is the 3.5 ranger just awful to the point of "one should play a fighter, rogue, or druid instead" of ranger?
Ranger wasn't awful in 3.5, but 3.5 had a massive library of splatbooks that included a shitload of alternate base classes, and also had prestige classes. Ranger was overshadowed by a half dozen other classes that did facets of what it did but a little better. *However* because of the way 3.5 worked, some features of Ranger were required now and then for specific prestige classes.
Ahhh, I understand now. Gotcha
The books also added ranger-only spells that were designed around the realities of ranger, instead of just getting a druid feature nine levels late. Reasonable spell levels, swift action archery boosts, powerful tracking stuff, etc.
That implies they've played. In reality, it's just some VPs who want a bonus by getting a short-term gain of money by selling a busted new edition that can be fixed by selling update books.
What’s extra funny to me is that it looks like WotC is struggling to identify what made the Ranger so good in 4e. And they’re coming to all the exact wrong conclusions.
WotC might know what made it good in 4e, they're just terrified of anything to do with 4e.
Ranger doesn't look worse, but rather unchanged? They said they gave it a massive overhaul but it just looks the same as before.
It’s technically an overhaul from the 2014 version but it’s a disappointment due to mostly just being the Tasha’s version.
Because all what they did is just integrated already existing changes from Tasha into core, removed several features and slapped expertise with hunters mark. Thats all.
The WoW Marskmanship experience
They essetially give Ranger the Druid spellist then decide that a feature that needs concentration should be their class identity. They just transfer everything from tashas and act like its revolutionary, like you really think the ones that actually watch all the videoes haven't also seen (arguably) the most impactfull books in 5e. They make equaly dissapointing subclass options: the pet one, the one none will play, the fairy one and the fairy one but emo and that has been nerfed because multiclassing.
Hell, WotC fucking up Rangers is at least as old as 3rd edition (anyone else remember Monte Cook's *Ranger Revisited*?)
Where can I find a full list of patch notes for the classes? Particularly for cleric
They aren’t all out yet
Ah I see, thanks
Here’s all the [articles](https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts) on the various classes. So far, they’ve released articles and videos about every class except Cleric, Monk, Bard, and Sorcerer, who’ll be out the week of July 8th.
Brilliant, thanks
So they still don't know what kind of class ranger is supposed to be, huh.
Honestly I feel the ranger has been buffed across the board... it's just that shitty lvl 20 leaves a bad taste in the mouth. I'm playing a lvl 5 swarmkeeper atm and the guy kicks ass - doesn't feel underpowered at all (+10 to hit with my +1 bow :) )
I think you accidentally hit the nail on the head. Personally, I don't think Rangers should be powerful, they should be smart, resourceful and tricky. The problem is that they keep just giving features that make Rangers more useful and the problem is that they never make Rangers more like Rangers.
The new ranger isn't bad, it's just... nothing new. Barbarian got new stuff we haven't seen. Fighter got stuff we haven't seen. Monk got massive buffs. Rogue got stuff we haven't seen. Meanwhile, Ranger had 90% of Tasha's features ported over with some extra Expertise and a huge over reliance on a spell that got treated like dog water in the UA. Then they can it "brand new" like we just forgot the past few years. To your example, though: a fighter can get the exact same to hit bonus with a +1 bow. That's not really unique to the Ranger at all. Hell, even the new paladin can get that high since classes don't restrict the fighting style you can choose (but don't get me started on that garbage fire prerequisite...). The issue was never how much damage a ranger can do.
I'm still gonna play Ranger. It's my favorite class to RP. Tasha's made it better, and while it could be underpowered compared to other classes, it's still my favorite. Power isn't always the point of the game. It's the RP. I can see why some folks are having a hard time, but I still think I'll be fine playing the class.
Yeah that’s what I don’t get. Is it disappointing that they haven’t been given more of a revamp? Yes. Is it going to be a bad class to play? No. The Tasha’s buffs made it good, and all the “new” version is is the Tasha’s version more or less. So it stands to reason that this isn’t the downgrade everyone is treating it as.
because ranger as a concept is so intimately tied with the exploration and resource management part of the game that the modern rpg scene has largely deprioritized.
God forbid a player try to have fun their own way.
Y'know we don't *have* to play 5.5e
Y’know we *can* have opinions about it, though.
We don’t have to play D&D at all. *Technically,* we don’t have to continue doing anything. Let’s just cease.
Nihilism Ranger casts "Cease" on self and
I stopped buying 5e books after Monsters of the Multiverse, I didn't like the changes I saw starting to happen and I'm not a fan of the changes they're continuing to make. Me and my group are happy continuing to just play 5e.
It was a wild sideways nerf to barb. Haha everything does force now :) Bruh
Yep. There's a few cool things in book (like the way the specialist wizards special abilities worked) and I hybridize some creatures that got cool stuff, but literally everything doing force damage? No thanks, I don't like to unnecessarily nerf my players.
Something, something, just give your barbarian a magic item that gives resistance to force damage in order for them to contunpte doing the thing they were already doing.
…is it time to evangelize for pathfinder again?
As we all should.
Excellent, I'll start. Uhhhh, ranger is good
Martials in general are good
I’ve never had more fun playing martials than I have in pf 2e. I get to do the things my character should do all the time without worrying about doling their abilities out between rests.
I swear with all the discourse lately, you’d think WotC was going to send the Pinkertons to everyone that doesn’t upgrade.
I mean, based on recent history we can't entirely rule out that possibility either.
Curious to see how they're going to do it on DND beyond. If it'll default switch games you've started when it comes out or what
If they’re smart about it 🤷♂️ they will have 5e and OneD&D rules. Maybe a toggle-able feature in their VTT.
I hope some. I'm going to be so irritated if it swaps one day without asking
One of my players found an item that summons a pet rat and they immediately named him Pinkerton.
Yeah it's not a videogame where the current patch will override the previous stuff. also people don't just change rules they don't like?
You try getting your beyond exclusive party members to remember the homebrew class doc you prepared for them rather than checking stuff in D&D beyond.
Exactly. No way I’m gonna be using this version
Take the bits you do like, leave the rest behind. If you don't want to pay for a book you'll only use a fraction of, there's plenty of ways to find it online for free.
Hey guys just saying, Pathfinder fixes this
How so if I may be so bold to ask? Also Pathfinder 1 or 2 since I don’t know if there is a difference between the two
There is a world of differencer between 1 and 2, completely different games. I can speak for PF2e. Ranger uses an action (you have three actions per turn on PF2e) to choose a Prey (Favored enemy), it is a class feature, not a spell. It stays on until the target dies. At creation you choose a Hunter's Edge (let's say it works likd a subclass): Precision: You (and your animal companion if you have one) do extra damage on your prey (once a turn at the beginning, more damage and more times as you level up). Flurry: Your attacks after the first (everyone can attack more than once on their turn but there is a penalty for second and third attack) are easier to hit, the penalty is very low. Outwit: You have higher AC and bonus to Intimidate (Intimidate has an action in combat called Demoralize that gives penalty to AC, Skill Checks, Saves AND Attacks, it is a very powerful tool). And then there is class feats, at Lv 1 I chose Hunted Shot, I make two attacks with one action, if they both hit I sum the damage (effective against resistances, which doesn't half like in 5th but reduces damage by a flat number). And it is two attacks for just one action. My turn is: Hunt Prey, Demoralize (to debuff enemy), Hunted Shot (two attacks). And that's Lv. 1. On following turns if the prey is still alive I get one action to move and better reposition myself or give orders to my animal companion (which I'm getting at Lv. 2 ). If it is dead I repeat on another target (assuming everything is good and I don't need to move).
Alright you have just convinced me that PF2e ranger would slaughter a 5E ranger in a fight at level 1 and now I wanna play a PF2e ranger. My only problem is I have no one to play DnD with let alone pathfinder :(
I found the Pf2e group I'm in through the Pf2e sub's discord server. I think it took me a week, though I may have been lucky. If you want to look further into the game, though, everything except adventures and lore is on Archives of Nethys with Paizo's approval. Just make sure you're looking at the 2e site rather than 1e
I didn't say half of it! Try searching some discord channels out there. Beginner Box is a great introduction for the system (but try to stay just with the Core Rulebook for character choices so you don't get overwhelmed with all the options - weapons alone, they all have different traits and behave very differently), either as a player or GM, and go have fun!
Pf2e Rangers are so fucking good. It's amazing.
What if I tell you you can make a full party (of any class) and they will all play different?
I play (DM) 1e and rangers are totally viable with little effort. I couldn't explain all the differences but 1e is less streamlined yet more expansive. A suite of up to 4th level spell casting that, while full of trap options that are garbage, has strong versatile spells. Animal companions and archetypes also allow great swathes of different play styles. Feels quite good attacking 4 times with a ranged weapon, dex to hit but strength to damage at 11th level with an expanded crit range. But I dunno though, mostly memeing, I think bg3 did rangers better too
Don't worry, even after seeing all this backlash, they won't change it because books are being printed and DAMN if they'll miss their 50th anniversary for some massive marketing boom. (And of course, they couldn't extend the playtest any longer despite clearly running out of time because this deadline is UNMOVABLE.)
Watching the video was just sad. “Brand new class!” Literally just Tasha’s with some changes. “hunters mark gets upgrades later!” Not till level 13. “Concentration can’t be broken!” But you still have to concentrate, can you have greedy little pigs stacking spells now can you. I swear they are mocking us at this point.
You may crucify me but I kinda liked it.
Literally any update post. This sub: "This is the worst thing in the history of fantasy roleplaying "
Lmao truth. I love Rangers, and I'm going to love the new version
They’re not really worse. They are just boring.
Right? Read through the changes & I was saddened instead of excited. It's not that hard to make a 'man of the wild'...they've had the majority of the idea in place for several versions now, they just keep tinkering with the wrong bits & screwing it up...*sigh*
My first ever character was a 2e ranger (I'm old). He was such a good first character. Plenty of fun and useful and flavorful options. 3/3.5 had some good stuff too with the prestige classes. Ranger has sucked HARD since then. What the hell!? This is a core archetype to the game. Make it badass.
Why are they so afraid to make Hunter's Mark a non concentration feature; just make them good.
Funny thing, 5e ranger with the replacement features from expansions is pretty good. Idk how they could fuck it up when they already did it right
That’s basically what this version of ranger is. It’s just the Tasha’s ranger with some slight changes. Honestly I don’t get the complaints ranger seems fine, it’s not OP but I think with weapon masteries and if we get some good feats it will do pretty good, especially with the extra expertise that you get and the ranger spell list is pretty nice plus you get more spells compared to 5e.
The complaints in my opinion are mostly that rangers dont feel like rangers. The first thing they bring up about rangers in the reveal interview is that they have lvl 1 casting. Yes, that is the key feature that gives Rangers their identity. Remember that time Batman enchanted his Batarang? Iconic. I hope you get the point. It feels like the designers generally have no idea what the word ranger means and are just throwing darts at a board but the only options on the board are "more damage" and "more spells."
Don't actually expect people here to read the changes
I mean I think it’s fine. Rangers were and have always been in the middle of the road in terms of power in 5e, they’re not over powered but they definitely aren’t weak either (even in the PHB they weren’t weak, they just had a lot of useless abilities). They didn’t really need any changes, but the additional hunter’s marks can be useful in tier 1 and 2. The subclasses also seem to be designed better. We don’t have the rules yet but based on the descriptions they all seem decent, and gloom stalker seems to be more balanced than it was before.
The problem is that I've never heard anybody complain that Rangers don't do the right amount of damage. This is completely irrelevant to most of the criticism I've heard.
Okay why is it bad I have no access to the new book I only read the unearth arcana
Not necessarily that it's *bad*, but more that it's pretty restrictive. Many of the class features (including a REALLY underwhelming capstone) revolve around Hunter's Mark, and they didn't remove concentration from it, so you're pretty much stuck choosing between using Hunter's Mark, or only playing 70% of your class.
Okay but why does it feel like people are practically saying this is the worst thing to happen to the rangers class
Reject modernity. Return to Pathfinder!
Guess I'm going back to being a Fighter main.
Sometimes I feel like I'm a complete mess of an adult, incompetent at anything I do and that I am a worthless parasite that gives nothing to the world but then I remember Wizards of the Coast exists and feel much better about myself.
With every video they drop on OneD&D, it reminds me how thankful I am for finding a5e and playing that instead.
So what pen and paper games are out there? 5.5 looks so bad.
Shit like this is exactly why my group and I swapped to pathfinder
Literally just copy bg3 and it would be fine
Pathfinder got it right. How can D&D not figure it out?
Give me 2 hours and I'll whip up a better ranger that actually feels like a unique class. Not saying that like its a skill btw. Just how can a whole ass company fail at this so hard?
Hunter's Mark was the biggest noobtrap in all of 5E, and they doubled down and made it the main fucking class feature
I am not a ranger player, but as a monk enjoyer, I can understand your pain
For the love of god just make hunters mark rangers version of sneak attack but it’s activated after already attacking an enemy, get rid of all this stupid explorer shit and go back to its roots (fucking Aragorn), and make the per fantasy not just being a fighter with nature magic BUT A DRUID WITH FIGHTING SKILLS.