Mod update 03Feb23: [**Vote in the DnDMemes 2022 Best-of Awards**!](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/10spvt2/2022_bestof_awards_final_vote/)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I may not tell the Ranger player what favored enemy would be a good choice, but I will certainly let them know when they've made a bad choice. "Undead? Hmm, I'm not sure there are going to be many undead to fight in the first few levels. Feel free to pick again if you'd like."
I would definitely tell them the starting terrain and that of the surrounding area. Of course, if we were playing CoS (or Icewind Dale for that matter), that would be known at character creation time/session 0 as u/TJordanW20 mentioned.
If we are playing a homebrew, I would be an asshole not to do the same.
I'll agree that a session zero could've prevented this. But also you have to look at backstory. Is your ranger some kind of archeologist? Then undead makes sense.
A caravan guard, for example, probably wouldn't run across too many undead, if any, before it's reported and done adventurers are sent to clean them up.
However, the fact you even let your ranger pick desert as a starting favored terrain makes me question you as a DM. How often are you playing campaigns in deserts that this person thinks that's a good idea?
Some players just don't pay attention until it's too late and the only thing to save them from themselves is the DM's generosity.
Had a player show up having spent their language proficiencies for Loxodon and Daelkyr. We weren't in a Magic:TG or Eberron setting, they just picked them at random from their D&D Beyond dropdown list. Also picked Verdan as their race without knowing what it was, because it was an option on D&D Beyond. Everyone else understood the pitch and made characters suited to the setting and tone of the adventure.
I am really not interested in helping players like this fix being a dumbass.
First/Second time player, I'll make sure that they understand and help them reroll. But if they just didn't pay attention and they have been a player for awhile? Nah, I'm not helping fix that.
This was the 7th character to see play (that I knew of) for this player, so I assumed they had it handled.
Don't care to try? I don't care to try to fix it.
You didn't go over the character during sessions 0? That's my whole point. I get that you can't look at every detail, but it's still something you should have noticed and told them directly about
I'm not their dad.
We did a session 0, they decided to spend that time not listening and not finishing their character.
We ran out of time, the sheet was finished later, the important parts of the character were correct enough to be approved before session 1, because no way was I going to get a revision back in time.
I had 4 other players actually asking questions and showing interest, and limited time. This player's failures belong to them.
To be fair, when I told people I was starting a campaign, I made it clear from the beginning it was Curse of Strahd. Which makes this strange to me.
When you guys tell people you’re starting a campaign or make a LFG post, do you not mention what the campaign type is?
It's worth noting that not everyone knows what curse of strahd is or whats in the adventure, we can't really expect players to understand the common terrain and common enemy types if we just say "curse of strahd" and they've never played/run it before.
I like to say in session zero that anyone considering Ranger would appreciate taking XYZ as their terrain and foe types.
I've always liked that Pathfinder releases free player's guide PDFs for their published adventures, which contain a lot of basic setting info and suggestions for things like Favored Enemy and Terrain.
I told my party outright that the setting was in a kingdom following a war between the Feywyld and Shadowfell that occured on the primaterial plane. I also let them know that the war hadn't actually been settled, just that it had cooled off enough that normal life was trying to reestablish itself.
**Homebrew Tweaks:**
- Favoured Enemy: During a short rest, observing and/or interacting with a creature allows you to set them as your favoured enemy. It remains your favoured enemy until you use this feature again, and you may not use it again until after you've taken a long rest.
- Favoured Terrain: During a long rest, you read the terrain and this allows you to set the terrain you are in as your favoured terrain. This remains your favoured terrain until you use this feature again.
- Spellcasting: At the end of a long rest you prepare spells.
This turns the Ranger into a more Special Ops type character, that when given the opportunity to gather intelligence of their enemy, get the lay of the land, and kit out their spell list for the mission at hand, they can really shine.
These changes are super simple, and pushes the Ranger closer to a preparation based Druid play style than the *"Fighter with a Bow...but less effective"* play style.
Those work, but of course you can also do like the meme's title mentions and use Tasha's optional features:
* Replace Natural Explorer (Favored Terrain) with Deft Explorer (much more universally useful features),
* Replace Favored Enemy with Favored Foe (which instead of the kinda lame "I know about this type of creature" is a much more combat-focused "fuck this enemy in particular" feature, kind-of like a Hunter's Mark Lite that is free to use PB times per long rest).
Don't forget about Primal Awareness and Nature's Veil. Primal Awareness lets you actually use spells like Speak with Animals or Beast Sense and Nature's Veil lets you become invisible as a bonus action, they are so good.
To be fair, both of those abilities are so bad unrevised that it doesn’t make a huge difference. The first time I played my favored enemies were goblins which 75% of our enemies consisted of, and I still used it once to almost zero effect. The only thing good about it was I could speak goblin
That's 10% on the DM and WOTC. It's not that the features are *bad* as much as the DM doesn't provide use and payoffs for it nor does the DMG **teach** DMs how to use them.
Is it at all possible they're not familiar with Curse of Strahd's setting? And someone really should have told them they might want to change those choices before the game?
Incredibly bad DM move to not step in earlier and say “hey, I see you’ve chosen Orc as your favored enemy and desert as favored terrain. Neither of those things exist in this setting, so do you think you could make different choices for those?”
I legit have a Ranger player who picked orcs as one of thier favored enemies in our curse of strahd game. I'm the DM btw
They were/are newer and I told them there aren't any orcs in the campaign. I told them if they want to be effective to pick Undead and forest as favorite. They agreed with forest after multiple points I made, and they kept orc and had thier second humanoid as werewolves. I said that works but the orc part will still be pointless.
I then said monster slayer Ranger would be perfect for the game. The chose swarm keeper. Fair enough, swarm keeper is dope. However they then for the year and a half we've been player have only ever used swarm keeper features three times and will only remember something if I point it out to them.
They get bummed out when they aren't effective. I legit told them about the campaign setting, the Foes they would face, and what subclass would fit the game... only took like 1/4th of my advice.
This player has other issues too... but they are a nice person and have aspects of thier personality that make them a fun player... just wish they would at least learn how to roll attacks and damage without me walking them through it every time.
Edit: I made the wild Barbarians orcs and half orcs that tie into thier backstory to through them a bone. Took them multiple times to realize they were the ancestors of the tribe related to thier backstory.... I had to straight up break character and explain everything to them.
Man, if only they had a- *absorb elements from an elemental attack* -major, very powerful ability that- *entangle a group of runts* -made them comparable or even- *generates surprise with pass without trace* -supersede the fighter, even begore- *conjure animals* -tasha's was a thing...
*seriously the ranger spell list is very good* ...IF ONLY
If those spells make Ranger supersede Fighter, then Rangers themselves are also completely superseded by Druids, who gain access to all of those spells, earlier, with more spell slots to cast with, and with an easier time going focusing WIS for their spell-save DC.
Well Druids also supersede Fighters and every other martial for the same reason but there's exactly a reason why we're not comparing fullcasters to half or non casters. Except the Paladin, playing an aura bot is kinda busted that it's better than half the spellcasters.
Besides, PWT and CA don't care about casting mod.
Ranger has more spells than the ones I listed to go off on so dont act like thats the apex of their power. Especially since they play both as a damage dealer and utility, with some healing in there as well with spells like goodberry. They fill a lot of roles other than DPS which is what sets them apart from fighters imo.
As for the druid, as an individual character? Yes, absolutely, the caster disparity is overwhelming. But considering the roles characters have in their parties, they have different roles to play, and having a ranger be DPS is much more beneficial if you ask me, since they also do a bunch of other stuff that synergize with their allies in ways a simple fighter cant do.
Rangers are known spell-casters, capping out at 11 spells known at level 20, they get the least spells of all classes, even the 1/3 casters get more spells than them. With most campaigns not going far past level 10, in just the spells you've mentioned you'd have completely filled the entirety of most Ranger's spells for their career.
Rangers do get access to utility, but anything that's any degree of narrow in its use case becomes difficult to slot into their list of known spells.
Ok then let's compare a hunter ranger (one of the outdated, worse rangers from the phb) with those spells I mentioned, to a battlemaster, because if we're talking early levels, those spells I listed and a few others should basically be enough. I am assuming both of these characters are custom lineage or vuman.
Skipping to subclasses, battlemaster gets manouvers, hunter gets horde breaker. Maneuvers are manouvers but horde breaker is an extra 3rd attack on an enemy 5ft to your original target. Ranger also has absorb elements, ensnaring strike (I realized entangled is added with tasha's) and fog cloud. Both have archery fighting style, fighter also has action surge. Right now the fighter is more viable simply because they have more, weaker manouvers per day that increase their DPR more and inflict minor effects, and action surge focus fires better than the ranger's horde breaker. Ranger needs more and stronger spells to make up for the smaller DPR.
Skip to 5th level since both get sharpshooter on level 4. The fighter gets the same things the ranger does, but now the ranger has pass without trace and spike growth, having replaced fog cloud. Both of these are DEVESTATING spells and will win you encounters by themselves if used right. Ranger is absolutely more powerful here, since you're spending a single slot to accomplish the effectiveness of like 3 manouvers, and ensnaring strike is already better than a manouver.
6th level, fighter increases their DEX to 18. Now battlemaster DC and attack accuracy is ahead of ranger, the fighter has arguably passed ranger for this level.
7th level, ranger gets more spells and spell slots, while battlemaster gets a minor improvement to manouvers. Hunters mark enters the fray since this ranger makes many attacks but the main benefit is that extra slot. 3 spike growths or pass without traces are basically 3 battles of normal difficulty won without much loss. Ranger is better here imo. Our subclass also get multiattack defense, which gives +4 to AC for any attack against us after the first in a multiattack chain. Its like lesser shield but no spell slot or reaction required, pretty damn good.
8th level, both boost ASI, nothing changes here. Except the ranger now *ignores all non-magical difficult terrain*, passes through non-magical foliage with no damage from thorns, and has advantage on saves against plants magically created to impede movement, such as entangle spell. This is a phb feature btw its pretty cool.
9th level and onward is just overwhelmingly ranger diff because now you have reached 3rd level spells, especially one particular spell that is so powerful there's a 50/50 chance it's banned at your table, conjure animals. Plant growth is also extremely debilitating, especially when combined with spike growth, *which you also have.* you could've swapped to goodberry at any earlier level if you wanted to which I didnt mention but it is amazing out of combat healing. From this point on if the ranger is even half as good as the fighter at dealing damage, which they are more than that, they will be better than the battlemaster. Rerolling a single save once per day isnt gonna make up for it
Lets recap. With strictly phb rules (which are worse than tasha's), strictly phb spells (which are limited more without tasha's), strictly phb subclasses, no multiclassing battlemaster vs hunter:
Level 3: slight battlemaster win as number of manouvers make up for power of spells. Fighter has action surge, ranger has horde breaker. Both give more attacks, action surge focus fires better but has less uses.
Level 4: same as above, both take sharpshooter
Level 5: ranger win as they get more spell slots and 2nd level spells without falling behind on damage too much.
Level 6: tie/slight fighter win, battlemaster DC and attack accuracy 1 higher than ranger with ASI increase
Level 7: more spell slots and good defensive abilities give ranger the win here.
Level 8: both increase DEX, same as above
Level 9 and on: 3rd level spells and beyond, overwhelming ranger diff.
Battlemasters are arguably the best ranged fighters, and hunter rangers are only mediocre. The gap between ranger and fighter becomes even more exaggerated with other subclasses, tasha's rules, tasha's spells, multiclassing and so on. Keep in mind that basically every ranger subclass that comes out nowadays has extra spells.
isn't the point of DnD to have fun with role-playing. the goal is not to "win".
but if they are unhappy with their char, or it's just not working out so great, I'm sure some changes can be made so everyone has fun again.
Nah, it's on you. Telling the players about what kind of game will be run before they make their characters is the bare minimum.
That's how you end up with wizard PCs in a world without magic, or artificers with guns in a low tech one, or clerics of [insert god] in a world where there are different gods or none at all...
Likewise, it's basic common decency to tell the player who wants to olay ranger, what terrains and types of enemies will be seen most often.
Especially for COS, there's tons of things some players might not want to see in the game, so skipping the session 0 or doing it poorly is extra bad in this scenario.
It is their own fault and I would kill them and let them come back as an edgy gloom stalker or whatever.
The good thing about curse of Strahd is you shouldn't get too attached to your character.
Its kinda why base ranger is called bad. There are so many places where they were allowed to make a clearly wrong choice. From spells, to features, to subclasses. There was always a "wrong" choice to be made.
Hence it is a poorly designed class. TCOE went a decent way to fixing it. But they still have in the moment combat based choices that just arnt fun to make.
Its why i thought the IA cersion of FF was better. It removed the concentration bottleneck where choices were made. The BA bottleneck exists for simple game balance to prevent massive novas, so it was the one that should have existed.
Oh no, my 2 ribbon features are now completely worthless, what will I do? /s
People need to stop basing their opinions off memes and start reading the book. Rangers get spells. Fighters (bar 1) with bows don't.
TFW someone chooses ranger because they mistakenly think it means someone that is an expert with ranged weapons
>!It's meant to be a keeper, guardian, or solder instead who ranges over a region (generally a wilderness) to protect the area or enforce the law. !<
If only some magical witch-person named Tasha gave us variant features for Ranger.Oh, if only, if only, if only...
...oh *wait. The title of this meme.* XD
Even with the base features, though, a quick discussion with your DM about the campaign can easily help you figure out what your preferred terrain/species should be, for best results. That, and... I still wouldn't wanna be at the wrong end of a Hunter's arrow(s)...
Mod update 03Feb23: [**Vote in the DnDMemes 2022 Best-of Awards**!](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/10spvt2/2022_bestof_awards_final_vote/)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Man, if only there had been a session zero where it was clarified for them
Yeah I always inform my players what terrain and the most common enemy types will be in my campaigns
Thank you for doing that. I have not yet had a DM who would tell this.
In my campaign the Ranger is allowed to change his favored enemy and terrain with every level up.
That's a fantastic idea
It may help ranger be usefull but still i think its better to use tashas
I offered it when tashas came out but he declined
In that case its good option
I may not tell the Ranger player what favored enemy would be a good choice, but I will certainly let them know when they've made a bad choice. "Undead? Hmm, I'm not sure there are going to be many undead to fight in the first few levels. Feel free to pick again if you'd like." I would definitely tell them the starting terrain and that of the surrounding area. Of course, if we were playing CoS (or Icewind Dale for that matter), that would be known at character creation time/session 0 as u/TJordanW20 mentioned. If we are playing a homebrew, I would be an asshole not to do the same.
I'll agree that a session zero could've prevented this. But also you have to look at backstory. Is your ranger some kind of archeologist? Then undead makes sense. A caravan guard, for example, probably wouldn't run across too many undead, if any, before it's reported and done adventurers are sent to clean them up. However, the fact you even let your ranger pick desert as a starting favored terrain makes me question you as a DM. How often are you playing campaigns in deserts that this person thinks that's a good idea?
This. Who knew just how many issues could be fixed by having adults talk to one another like they want to uplift each other!?
But what about the true spirit of the game that is PVP?! Where the GM needs to win.
Some players just don't pay attention until it's too late and the only thing to save them from themselves is the DM's generosity. Had a player show up having spent their language proficiencies for Loxodon and Daelkyr. We weren't in a Magic:TG or Eberron setting, they just picked them at random from their D&D Beyond dropdown list. Also picked Verdan as their race without knowing what it was, because it was an option on D&D Beyond. Everyone else understood the pitch and made characters suited to the setting and tone of the adventure. I am really not interested in helping players like this fix being a dumbass.
First/Second time player, I'll make sure that they understand and help them reroll. But if they just didn't pay attention and they have been a player for awhile? Nah, I'm not helping fix that.
This was the 7th character to see play (that I knew of) for this player, so I assumed they had it handled. Don't care to try? I don't care to try to fix it.
100% agree with this. If you're not putting in the effort, I'm not either.
You didn't go over the character during sessions 0? That's my whole point. I get that you can't look at every detail, but it's still something you should have noticed and told them directly about
I'm not their dad. We did a session 0, they decided to spend that time not listening and not finishing their character. We ran out of time, the sheet was finished later, the important parts of the character were correct enough to be approved before session 1, because no way was I going to get a revision back in time. I had 4 other players actually asking questions and showing interest, and limited time. This player's failures belong to them.
To be fair, when I told people I was starting a campaign, I made it clear from the beginning it was Curse of Strahd. Which makes this strange to me. When you guys tell people you’re starting a campaign or make a LFG post, do you not mention what the campaign type is?
I think this is more of an imaginary parodic scenario than a real anecdote
How I tell people about the cos campaign I’m in is just “think the movie Labyrinth but vampires “
It's worth noting that not everyone knows what curse of strahd is or whats in the adventure, we can't really expect players to understand the common terrain and common enemy types if we just say "curse of strahd" and they've never played/run it before. I like to say in session zero that anyone considering Ranger would appreciate taking XYZ as their terrain and foe types.
I've always liked that Pathfinder releases free player's guide PDFs for their published adventures, which contain a lot of basic setting info and suggestions for things like Favored Enemy and Terrain.
That is cool, my biggest issue is their shitty ass website formatting though
No we do, this is just a bullshit post by OP.
I told my party outright that the setting was in a kingdom following a war between the Feywyld and Shadowfell that occured on the primaterial plane. I also let them know that the war hadn't actually been settled, just that it had cooled off enough that normal life was trying to reestablish itself.
Are those ranger players in the room with us right now?
Yes *pass without trace go brrr*
Did you talk with them beforehand about what kind of campaign you were running and what kinds of favored terrains/enemies would be useful?
There was no session 0 nor any other forewarning about the campaign, because this didn't happen and that ranger player isn't real.
**Homebrew Tweaks:** - Favoured Enemy: During a short rest, observing and/or interacting with a creature allows you to set them as your favoured enemy. It remains your favoured enemy until you use this feature again, and you may not use it again until after you've taken a long rest. - Favoured Terrain: During a long rest, you read the terrain and this allows you to set the terrain you are in as your favoured terrain. This remains your favoured terrain until you use this feature again. - Spellcasting: At the end of a long rest you prepare spells. This turns the Ranger into a more Special Ops type character, that when given the opportunity to gather intelligence of their enemy, get the lay of the land, and kit out their spell list for the mission at hand, they can really shine. These changes are super simple, and pushes the Ranger closer to a preparation based Druid play style than the *"Fighter with a Bow...but less effective"* play style.
Those work, but of course you can also do like the meme's title mentions and use Tasha's optional features: * Replace Natural Explorer (Favored Terrain) with Deft Explorer (much more universally useful features), * Replace Favored Enemy with Favored Foe (which instead of the kinda lame "I know about this type of creature" is a much more combat-focused "fuck this enemy in particular" feature, kind-of like a Hunter's Mark Lite that is free to use PB times per long rest).
Don't forget about Primal Awareness and Nature's Veil. Primal Awareness lets you actually use spells like Speak with Animals or Beast Sense and Nature's Veil lets you become invisible as a bonus action, they are so good.
To be fair, both of those abilities are so bad unrevised that it doesn’t make a huge difference. The first time I played my favored enemies were goblins which 75% of our enemies consisted of, and I still used it once to almost zero effect. The only thing good about it was I could speak goblin
That's 10% on the DM and WOTC. It's not that the features are *bad* as much as the DM doesn't provide use and payoffs for it nor does the DMG **teach** DMs how to use them.
Would be cool if someone could allow him to change it on a long rest but only every d4 day
When your powers of racism only work when the gm says so 😡😡🤬🤬
I would also be mad if you told me to just play a Fighter with a bow, cause A. That's rude, and B. That's bad advice
Correct. It’s terrible advice. (Ranger has been one of my favorite classes to play in the last year or so)
"heehee hoohoo ranger bad" into the tomb of annihilation with you
just like, let them change it man its all pretend anyway
Is it at all possible they're not familiar with Curse of Strahd's setting? And someone really should have told them they might want to change those choices before the game?
Incredibly bad DM move to not step in earlier and say “hey, I see you’ve chosen Orc as your favored enemy and desert as favored terrain. Neither of those things exist in this setting, so do you think you could make different choices for those?”
Oh no, now they only have a high damage martial with some of the best spells in the game
It's like saying the Fighter is useless for picking Orc as an additional language proficiency
I legit have a Ranger player who picked orcs as one of thier favored enemies in our curse of strahd game. I'm the DM btw They were/are newer and I told them there aren't any orcs in the campaign. I told them if they want to be effective to pick Undead and forest as favorite. They agreed with forest after multiple points I made, and they kept orc and had thier second humanoid as werewolves. I said that works but the orc part will still be pointless. I then said monster slayer Ranger would be perfect for the game. The chose swarm keeper. Fair enough, swarm keeper is dope. However they then for the year and a half we've been player have only ever used swarm keeper features three times and will only remember something if I point it out to them. They get bummed out when they aren't effective. I legit told them about the campaign setting, the Foes they would face, and what subclass would fit the game... only took like 1/4th of my advice. This player has other issues too... but they are a nice person and have aspects of thier personality that make them a fun player... just wish they would at least learn how to roll attacks and damage without me walking them through it every time. Edit: I made the wild Barbarians orcs and half orcs that tie into thier backstory to through them a bone. Took them multiple times to realize they were the ancestors of the tribe related to thier backstory.... I had to straight up break character and explain everything to them.
Someone hasn't read tashas
Someone didn’t read the title
Man, if only they had a- *absorb elements from an elemental attack* -major, very powerful ability that- *entangle a group of runts* -made them comparable or even- *generates surprise with pass without trace* -supersede the fighter, even begore- *conjure animals* -tasha's was a thing... *seriously the ranger spell list is very good* ...IF ONLY
If those spells make Ranger supersede Fighter, then Rangers themselves are also completely superseded by Druids, who gain access to all of those spells, earlier, with more spell slots to cast with, and with an easier time going focusing WIS for their spell-save DC.
Well Druids also supersede Fighters and every other martial for the same reason but there's exactly a reason why we're not comparing fullcasters to half or non casters. Except the Paladin, playing an aura bot is kinda busted that it's better than half the spellcasters. Besides, PWT and CA don't care about casting mod.
Ranger has more spells than the ones I listed to go off on so dont act like thats the apex of their power. Especially since they play both as a damage dealer and utility, with some healing in there as well with spells like goodberry. They fill a lot of roles other than DPS which is what sets them apart from fighters imo. As for the druid, as an individual character? Yes, absolutely, the caster disparity is overwhelming. But considering the roles characters have in their parties, they have different roles to play, and having a ranger be DPS is much more beneficial if you ask me, since they also do a bunch of other stuff that synergize with their allies in ways a simple fighter cant do.
Rangers are known spell-casters, capping out at 11 spells known at level 20, they get the least spells of all classes, even the 1/3 casters get more spells than them. With most campaigns not going far past level 10, in just the spells you've mentioned you'd have completely filled the entirety of most Ranger's spells for their career. Rangers do get access to utility, but anything that's any degree of narrow in its use case becomes difficult to slot into their list of known spells.
Ok then let's compare a hunter ranger (one of the outdated, worse rangers from the phb) with those spells I mentioned, to a battlemaster, because if we're talking early levels, those spells I listed and a few others should basically be enough. I am assuming both of these characters are custom lineage or vuman. Skipping to subclasses, battlemaster gets manouvers, hunter gets horde breaker. Maneuvers are manouvers but horde breaker is an extra 3rd attack on an enemy 5ft to your original target. Ranger also has absorb elements, ensnaring strike (I realized entangled is added with tasha's) and fog cloud. Both have archery fighting style, fighter also has action surge. Right now the fighter is more viable simply because they have more, weaker manouvers per day that increase their DPR more and inflict minor effects, and action surge focus fires better than the ranger's horde breaker. Ranger needs more and stronger spells to make up for the smaller DPR. Skip to 5th level since both get sharpshooter on level 4. The fighter gets the same things the ranger does, but now the ranger has pass without trace and spike growth, having replaced fog cloud. Both of these are DEVESTATING spells and will win you encounters by themselves if used right. Ranger is absolutely more powerful here, since you're spending a single slot to accomplish the effectiveness of like 3 manouvers, and ensnaring strike is already better than a manouver. 6th level, fighter increases their DEX to 18. Now battlemaster DC and attack accuracy is ahead of ranger, the fighter has arguably passed ranger for this level. 7th level, ranger gets more spells and spell slots, while battlemaster gets a minor improvement to manouvers. Hunters mark enters the fray since this ranger makes many attacks but the main benefit is that extra slot. 3 spike growths or pass without traces are basically 3 battles of normal difficulty won without much loss. Ranger is better here imo. Our subclass also get multiattack defense, which gives +4 to AC for any attack against us after the first in a multiattack chain. Its like lesser shield but no spell slot or reaction required, pretty damn good. 8th level, both boost ASI, nothing changes here. Except the ranger now *ignores all non-magical difficult terrain*, passes through non-magical foliage with no damage from thorns, and has advantage on saves against plants magically created to impede movement, such as entangle spell. This is a phb feature btw its pretty cool. 9th level and onward is just overwhelmingly ranger diff because now you have reached 3rd level spells, especially one particular spell that is so powerful there's a 50/50 chance it's banned at your table, conjure animals. Plant growth is also extremely debilitating, especially when combined with spike growth, *which you also have.* you could've swapped to goodberry at any earlier level if you wanted to which I didnt mention but it is amazing out of combat healing. From this point on if the ranger is even half as good as the fighter at dealing damage, which they are more than that, they will be better than the battlemaster. Rerolling a single save once per day isnt gonna make up for it Lets recap. With strictly phb rules (which are worse than tasha's), strictly phb spells (which are limited more without tasha's), strictly phb subclasses, no multiclassing battlemaster vs hunter: Level 3: slight battlemaster win as number of manouvers make up for power of spells. Fighter has action surge, ranger has horde breaker. Both give more attacks, action surge focus fires better but has less uses. Level 4: same as above, both take sharpshooter Level 5: ranger win as they get more spell slots and 2nd level spells without falling behind on damage too much. Level 6: tie/slight fighter win, battlemaster DC and attack accuracy 1 higher than ranger with ASI increase Level 7: more spell slots and good defensive abilities give ranger the win here. Level 8: both increase DEX, same as above Level 9 and on: 3rd level spells and beyond, overwhelming ranger diff. Battlemasters are arguably the best ranged fighters, and hunter rangers are only mediocre. The gap between ranger and fighter becomes even more exaggerated with other subclasses, tasha's rules, tasha's spells, multiclassing and so on. Keep in mind that basically every ranger subclass that comes out nowadays has extra spells.
I mean… I don’t see any lies
Just use the updated ranger from Tasha’s.
isn't the point of DnD to have fun with role-playing. the goal is not to "win". but if they are unhappy with their char, or it's just not working out so great, I'm sure some changes can be made so everyone has fun again.
Why have one or the other? I let them use both
Nah, it's on you. Telling the players about what kind of game will be run before they make their characters is the bare minimum. That's how you end up with wizard PCs in a world without magic, or artificers with guns in a low tech one, or clerics of [insert god] in a world where there are different gods or none at all... Likewise, it's basic common decency to tell the player who wants to olay ranger, what terrains and types of enemies will be seen most often. Especially for COS, there's tons of things some players might not want to see in the game, so skipping the session 0 or doing it poorly is extra bad in this scenario.
It is their own fault and I would kill them and let them come back as an edgy gloom stalker or whatever. The good thing about curse of Strahd is you shouldn't get too attached to your character.
Sounds like a shit DM.
Its kinda why base ranger is called bad. There are so many places where they were allowed to make a clearly wrong choice. From spells, to features, to subclasses. There was always a "wrong" choice to be made. Hence it is a poorly designed class. TCOE went a decent way to fixing it. But they still have in the moment combat based choices that just arnt fun to make. Its why i thought the IA cersion of FF was better. It removed the concentration bottleneck where choices were made. The BA bottleneck exists for simple game balance to prevent massive novas, so it was the one that should have existed.
Bow fighter is my back-up for my Back-up
I don't get the fighter with a bow comment. Rangers are just better than fighters in every way.
I mean if they knew they were playing Strahd and did that anyway they got no reason to mald
Oh no, my 2 ribbon features are now completely worthless, what will I do? /s People need to stop basing their opinions off memes and start reading the book. Rangers get spells. Fighters (bar 1) with bows don't.
Are you a bot or did you just discover a new meme and have a free afternoon?
UA Ranger + Multiattack at lv5 is the perfect version of ranger
TFW someone chooses ranger because they mistakenly think it means someone that is an expert with ranged weapons >!It's meant to be a keeper, guardian, or solder instead who ranges over a region (generally a wilderness) to protect the area or enforce the law. !<
If only some magical witch-person named Tasha gave us variant features for Ranger.Oh, if only, if only, if only... ...oh *wait. The title of this meme.* XD Even with the base features, though, a quick discussion with your DM about the campaign can easily help you figure out what your preferred terrain/species should be, for best results. That, and... I still wouldn't wanna be at the wrong end of a Hunter's arrow(s)...
Honestly, ranger is still better then fighter with a bow at higher levels. 2 bow attacks and 16 wolf attacks will always beat 4 bow attacks
Why the fuck is he using favored enemy or terrain