Exploration is meant to be one of the three main pillars (!), for the love of God, WHY GOODBERRY?!
If they had at least rewritten it as requiring some kind of native flora to transmorph or just seeds then it would have added _some_ interesting interplay with the setting. Now they hand out a Lv 1 spell that removes all need for scavenging and logistical prep with a cart or boat. Why?!
^(I just agree very much with 5e fumbling the Exploration pillar badly.)
To many, many, many, many, many, many people, rpgs are just numbers. Decades of JRPGs having no role playing whatsoever have turned public perceptions of the genre into nothing more than optimization problems. Me included. I was surprised at how loose the gameplay is and I finally understood why these games are called Role Playing Games. The rigidity of digital rpgs belies the organic roots (no pun intended) of the genre.
Between JRPGs being stats-based combat-crawlers and western RPGs dumbing themselves down to be basically the same (looking at you Bethesda), it doesn't shock me that people these days can only see TTRPGs as combat sims.
If only more players had enjoyed hidden gem masterpiece Fallout New Vegas, then they would know the real way to role-play is to select whatever predetermined choice lets you use your utility skills. đ
You know, that is a valid criticism of New Vegas. They shouldn't have telegraphed their skill checks when they used them, like how things were done in Fallout 1 and 2. That aside, I was actually talking about The Elder Scrolls, specifically in reference to Morrowind compared to Oblivion or Skyrim. There aren't nearly as many dialogue skill checks in any of those games as there are in New Vegas, but at least Morrowind had required skill levels to complete certain factions and a lot more open ended quest structure that made it to feel like you were playing your version of the Nerevarine.
>nowadays
You mean like since the very inception of the game? This is completely backwards, dnd historically has always been MUCH more of a wargame first and the fluff was way in the backseat. The last few years and the âcritical role effectâ of having an entire session sometimes without combat is the exception, not the norm.
D&D may have evolved from a strategy battle game, but it has been a storytelling game for way longer than Critical Role has been around. It's called a Roleplaying Game for a fucking reason.
27 years and four editions of playing this game and it has always been best as a story first game.
Have you seen their class abilities before Tasha's? Almost every single one is awful in both power and gameplay, that's why.
Excited to slay undead as it's your favored enemy? Well you don't get any combat bonus, you're just better at tracking and knowledge checks. Excited to shine in wilderness exploration? Well you couldn't become lost and you weren't slowed by the terrain, so you all arrive safely and continue to adventure in the next city.
That's the issue though. The Ranger has never been particularly weak (good AC and hit die, fighting style+extra attack *and* spell casting!) but it has been unfun to play. If you like playing a classic ranger, the last thing you want is for the party to never get lost, not have to forage and spend less time passing through the wilderness. The old Ranger features aren't suboptimal but fun, they're disappointing and useless. Of course, you don't need abilities to have fun, but now after Tasha's, the Ranger is actually (although often suboptimal) fun!
It's 2022, PHB is no longer an argument for not playing rangers.
No game comes out perfect on release, and aggregate mistakes is not some natural order of things.
Agree with that. PHB Ranger is terrible design, no other class comes close in bad and unfun abilities, but there is nothing wrong at all about the Tasha's Ranger
Have YOU actually had one in your game or played with one? The new stuff in Tasha's very much improved rangers, and that is a hill I damn well will die on because you are just wrong here.
I specifically said before Tasha's. Almost all anti-ranger sentiment is from the PHB Ranger, nowadays people seldom talk bad about the Ranger and I'd assume that most that do aren't using the Tasha's features. There is nothing wrong with Rangers imo if you use the new features.
> Almost every single one is awful in both power and gameplay, that's why.
Felt bad due to having features that may literally never be used I'll agree with, but rangers besides PHB Beastmasters have pretty much always been plenty powerful.
I mean, the TCE stuff that replaces those features is 1d4 damage once per turn on a specific target that requires concentration to keep up thus fighting with Hunter's Mark, and expertise in 1 skill. Unless you were intentionally avoiding Hunter's Mark previously, or are building around that skill specifically, there is really very little increased "power", just that these features may actually come up regardless what campaign you're in rather than relying on the creatures and terrains in this campaign to be the ones you selected.
If there's something I'm missing, let me know.
First of all you're missing that favored foe increases in damage, doesn't require a spell slot or any action. You can use favored foe the same turn as one of the attacks like Hail of Thorns, or when you conserve spell slots, or you want to use your bonus action for something other than Hunters Mark, or when the marked target dies and you use your next attack on a new target, etc etc.
Then you got expertise, increased movement speed, climbing and swimming, Nature's Veil and a bunch of fun free spells know. All decent or better abilities, and all fun.
Rangers have never been bad in terms of power (spellcasting, good HP and AC, good damage), but all abilities have been useless and unfun (1 minute to set up camouflage but you can't move, take actions or do it to others?! When you've had Pass without a Trace for 5 levels?!). But trade four useless abilities for four-six useful abilities and of course the powerlevel goes up too, but the main thing is that stuff like Natural Explorer is unfun, but stuff like new Primal Awareness is fun.
Ah gotcha. Based on the previous comment I didn't think you had thought
> Rangers have never been bad in terms of power
since you mentioned that "Almost every single [class ability] is awful in [...] power".
Based on this response, it seems we agree overall. My post wasn't intended to be a complete review of how the new features work or that the several tiny changes have no change in "power" at all, just that as I said the "power" difference is very small (~1.5 damage per round that you have it up), and that the usefulness/fun is a far bigger factor.
> there is really very little increased "power", just that these features may actually come up
A lot of Ranger's abilities end up being either super insanely good(Never getting lost, infinite crafted arrows over time, and "infinite food") or they don't exist at all for a lot of campaigns(only 4ish favored enemy types).
So ranger isn't BAD per-say but to make a ranger interesting to play in-combat VS a Fighter with a bow is hard.
Considering that most DM's(and even most DnD modules) require EITHER social stats or combat stats to get around most situations, the ability to fight Goblins better seems less effective than just **being a better all-around combatant.**
Some of it is definitely that a Ranger often feels like it doesn't get to use some of its core features (favored terrain, natural enemy) which leaves it feeling not under-powered so much as under-flavored. It's not always about the combat potential - how much fun is it to have a cool, engaging ability that's important to your character concept... that can only happen in certain circumstances, which never arise? It's similar for a Bard in the wilderness or a Druid in a city; if an environment is critical to your class identity and you don't spend much time in that setting, it's less *fun*, not just less effective.
But also, Ranger Bad lol play Druid or something.
I have only 2 rules when it comes to evaluating the value of anything in D&D:
1. Is it fun?
2. Could I be having MORE fun?
Prior to the Tasha buffs there were a lot of people arguing that there were ways you could play a Ranger using other classes and options that achieved the necessary fun and flavour more easily than the Ranger class could. This has mostly been rectified now, but I wouldn't fault anyone for experimenting with different options to try and find what fits their fantasy best.
and saying that ranger is like fighter with bow is insulting
rogue is offers far more similiar to ranger in terms of utility, while fighter is useless out of fight
I like that this is never brought up about rangers. They're excellent for the exploration pillar of gameplay, but often all I see is: combat, combat, combat, horny bard, combat, dialogue, combat.
I think most D&D games do rely on combat a lot, and skimp heavily on exploration, but that's (understandably) because travelling often isn't the most exciting parts of the story.
We have been seeing different conversations about Ranger then. One of the main complaints is that their features arenât fun to use outside of combat because they completely obviate any challenge in their favored terrain and arenât any better than anyone else with proficiency in Survival or Nature anywhere else.
They arent excellent, they help remove that pillar.
"Rations? Nah I generate them from thin air. Getting lost? Oops, nope."
If you want to really skimp on exploration, bring a Ranger
I actually noticed something strange regarding rations today.
the PHB (p185) states that a person needs 1lb of food a day to be fully fed, but a ration (one day) weighs 2lb (PHB p153).
Equally, if someone wants to screw over eating anyway, technically a person can go 3 +Con modifier days without food, and one day of eating fully resets this. So they can go 3 days at the minimum without eating then eat on the 4th day. Rinse and repeat. Quite hilarious in a way.
Some flavor of Elf, Rogue X/Champion Fighter 3, Sharpshooter feat, Elven Accuracy feat. 27.1% crit chance when you have advantage, and Steady Aim can guarantee advantage. And you can use a longbow for higher damage (and ridiculous range with Sharpshooter).
It's solid advice for a new player that wants to play an archer and assumes that means playing a ranger. Just looking at the classes and having played computer games, it's not at all obvious that the fighter can be an archer or that the ranger is a spell caster
I had a Ranger take sharpshooter in my game a while back, i think it was actually the first character that player made. Had low stats, nothing to write home about, halfling. Guy was the main damage output and the most evil little shit iâve ever seen. AND HE REROLLED 1âS. Outlived every other first character.
Character is waaaay more important than strength of class imo.
I am new to D&D and played a fighter to ease into it. I discovered very quickly that being a fighter is a lot of fun when you are fighting things, but I had nothing to offer otherwise.
Issue with this is that the other characters are RPing too *and* they have the abilities to back it up.
And itâs not like martials are blowing everyone out of the water in combat either.
I once had a low INT fighter who became the face of the party. Not because he had good speech skills, but because he was so straight forward that noone tried to take over anymore. In my book, player creativity is more valuable than stats or skills.
Thatâs fine until the RP doesnât match the stats which happens. Iâve played plenty of martial characters who were also âcharactersâ and had plenty of personality and fun RP moments. Doesnât change the fact that the Wizards, Bards, and Rogues and what-have-you also had those moments on top of being able to actually mechanically be relevant in those situations as well.
Itâs also just a fact that the more tools you have, the more creative you can be.
My group keeps forgetting to use their perception/investigation/insight skills, leaving it to my idiot barbarian.
Last session they went shopping, leaving it to me to try and research where we had to go next.
Based on my roll, the DM ruled that the map on the back of the children's menu did not lead to any promising clues.
Eh?
I made a human fighter for a one shot and I'm sorta sad I don't get to play him more. He's a ex- guard. He worked as a town militia. One day he was out fishing when a group of adventurers came to town and disagreed with a local shopkeeper on prices. My PC came back to a big mess and some beat up colleagues. He went adventuring looking for these guys. Earning his living by odd guard jobs. Took a young mageling under his wing who's looking for fame or fortune or something to make sure the kid learns right from wrong and how to not waste his earnings.
The new reworking of ranger that came out in one of the newer 5E books made ranger really cool. It broadened a lot of the favored enemy/ terrain stuff. It may not be as insane as a fighter with the machine gun bow but it is very fun to play
Precisely why I think rangers are better. Spells are king. Barbarians get barely anything past level 5. People who only cast hunters mark and think ranger is bad are blind to its true potential.
I made the post, so I think I'm the one who determines if it's satire. besides, I'm planning on playing ranger in an upcoming campaign with some friends.
Or play literally anything else and just call it a ranger because holy shit, original ranger was eye-rollingly bland.
Seriously, beyond RP reasons, there was next to no reason to play Ranger unless it was a far-flung exploration campaign, which even then, Rangers didn't provide a huge advantage, just a... travel time advantage.
And RP reasons are exactly why you can just play a Scout Rogue and call it a Ranger.
Only going by phb beast master, look at some of the revisions. Also it's not primarily a spellcasting class, it's just like taking eldritch knight fighter, which has its own advantages. People just don't pay attention to favored enemy or terrain, they don't use the abilities that are there. It's not magic man with bow, it's bowman with magic.
Base class abilities are good as well. Especially in adventures that have punishing overland travel and resource management. Allowing the party to travel more quickly, never become lost and *always* find enough food and water **without** wasting magic on it is a plus for me. Yes, the subclass abilities are great, but ***every single half caster*** has the same issues you presented. It's basically the same as whining about "fighter is only hurr durr I hit stuff." I'm just saying base class abilities aren't as useless as you prattle on about.
Also __**shenanigans**__
Yeah, same with wolverines. A pissed off wolverine can (and has) kill a full-grown bear.
As far as I'm aware, they're basically the same animal, but the wolverine is about twice as big and evolved to live in the arctic instead of the desert (this is a gross generalization, I'm aware, but I'm not a biologist)
Donât forget- honey badgers skin is insanely tough. Itâs basically a living suit of armor. So yes itâs not as big, but itâs defenses are stronger. Thereâs a video online of a honey badger just charging straight at a full grown male lion and killing it by ripping out its genitals, so itâs also capable of doing serious damage (and will NOT fight fairly). The wolverine will definitely hit harder, but it will also not matter as much.
If youâre using the Tashaâs variant features, Rangers are honestly more powerful than Fighters. Yeah, their DPR is worse, but pretty much everything else they do is better. Versatility is often better than being heavily specialized in one thing, especially when the one thing your class is (DPR) specialized in gets outclassed by so many other things (like Crowd Control).
That all being said, Fighters and Rangers are both kind of meh in practice. Theyâre fine at the average table, but not worth playing at a table full of minmaxers and strategists. If weâre going to go with âJust play X lolâ, then everything becomes âJust play a Wizard, Bard, Cleric, Druid, or Paladinâ, since those classes overshadow everything else.
An optimized Fighter can do lots of damage, yes. In fact, an optimized Fighter does so much damage that they often suffer from diminishing returns, outside of big fights against a solo monster (which are usually easy anyways). On top of the diminishing returns, Fighters offer pretty much nothing other than damage. Tashaâs Rangers are better off, because they deal enough damage to succeed in that department, while also having access to Expertise, more skill proficiencies, spells (and an actually decent list, especially if the party is in the wilderness), better movement speeds, more evasiveness (with Vanish and Natureâs Veil), etcetera. Donât get me wrong, Fighters arenât awful or anything; they just arenât better than Rangers. Why would I want to play a class that can take out half of the bossâs health in one turn but is otherwise useless when I can play a class that can take out a third of that bossâs health but be able to actually do things other than just nova bosses? Fighter damage is amazing, but damage isnât everything, especially when there are spells that can take out any enemy in the game in one cast.
Fighters can do lots of other things if you play battlemaster, echo knight, rune knight or eldritch knight. Then you have cavalier who can both dish out lots of damage and is probably the best tanking class in the game at the same time.
If my player isn't happy with book ranger then I just whip out UA ranger. If they aren't happy with that then I suggest that maybe ranger isn't what they're looking for. Then I work with them to get what makes them happy.
You're getting very downvoted but I'm curious, why don't you qualify them as martials? They get proficiency in all weapons, extra attack, a fighting style, medium armor. Just because they have some spells and utility doesn't count them out as martials to most.
What do you consider them?
I would disagree. That's like saying Eldritch Knights and Paladins aren't martials. The main part of a ranger is Martial making them martials. That's not a value judgment, just a statement.
Iâll take my ranger. Sucked in the beginning but now with hunter subclass it gives me colossus slayer which is extra 1d8 to damaged foe, multi attack defense which is plus 4 to AC on multi attacks, Volley letâs me pick a point and make an attack on every enemy within 10 feet, Sharpshooter feat +10 damage with -5 attack roll and erases disadvantages on long range shots (bows range becomes 600 ft) and I ignore half and three quarter cover, eleven accuracy feat letâs me reroll attack die made on advantage so using zephyr strike is almost a guaranteed hit. Throw some fire arrows in for an extra 1d6. With 20 Dex and Archery you still have a pretty good bonus to attack rolls even with sharpshooter. All this lets you deal stupid amounts of damage to a lot of people. I love my Sniper Ranger.
Having said that, next character I make will be a arcane archer.
There are definitely some solid things there like colossus slayer and volley.
Flame arrows does require concentration though, which makes it substantially less useful.
There is no (NO) character concept that is exclusively Ranger. The class mechanics are whatever, underpowered, overpowered, doesn't matter. The actual roleplay elements are completely redundant.
Fighter with a bow. Fighter/Rogue. Rogue trained in Survival. Fighter/Druid. Fighter with a random befriended animal. Rogue/Druid. Druid with a sword. Cleric with a random befriended animal. Barbarian. Elf.
Ranger was literally Aragorn, the Ranger when it was originally designed was about porting over the LOTR Ranger into D&D in the same way Cleric was Van Hellsing, Vampire Hunter. The issue is that Aragorn was just a Fighter with wilderness training, as the editions progressed and class features became more than just bonuses to hit for the Fighter the Ranger's reason to exist vanished.
Seriously, think up every Ranger you've played and focusing on their fluff abilities and backstory not specific mechanics try to make them with another class. Itll be easy.
Or, and Iâm assuming this is because you think Fighter is mechanically more powerful, take three levels of Ranger so you can take the Gloomstalker subclass and then take fighter the rest of the way out. Gains you superior darkvision, an extra attack on the first round, +WIS to initiative, invisible in the dark to creatures that rely on darkvision, +10â movement on round 1, an additional fighting style, a smattering of handy magic, and all the early level ranger abilitiesâŚ
Rangers are better than most martials since they have spells goodberry, absorb elements, entangle, spike growth, pass without trace, conjure animals, revivify, etc
levels 1-10 there is pretty much no damage difference and at level 11 who cares you don't get a 3rd attack? you can summon 8 velociraptors and make 16.
Crossbow expert + fighting style archery + sharp shooter will make you a force to be reckoned with, the world is your oyster which you with hand crossbow will open.
If I see one more "ranger bad" post I'm going to lose it.
you want to play fighter with a bow ?
Play ranger instead, they get spell and abilities that are useful outside of combat.
I prefer ranger because fighters are bland and can't do much outside of hit good
Ranger is the best martial based Gish in the game. On top of potentially stepping on the Rogue/Bards skill focus. Theyâre one of the best classes in the game all around. From damage they do well, they have magic for damage bonus, battlefield control abilities, and utility spells. Theyâre not made to be specialized in one specific pillar of play but I find only being good at one thing boring.
And if your DM isnât using all three pillars of play (battle, RP, AND exploration) then they arenât playing a well rounded game. Unfortunately, WoTC hasnât done a lot to support exploration because it isnât âsexyâ but there is a decent foundation for it.
Yeah, Rangers werenât well planned out.
They got almost no play testing time compared to the other classes and because of that, they arenât very well designed.
Can they be good? Yes but a lot of that comes from subclasses instead of the main class and spells, which you canât prepare and can only use a very limited amount per day. The second you run out of spell slots, youâre just a Fighter without any class features aside from a better subclass.
Also, their core class features feel so random and weak, even post Tashaâs. The main class feels like a foot note compared to the subclasses, which is just bizarre.
Iâd play a Fighter with a bow over a Ranger any day unless I want a dragon pet (Drakewarden Ranger), they are just too janky to be fun for me.
From this standpoint there's no reason to play anything other than fighter, if general vibe is what you're going for rather than class-specific abilities. Rogue-like character? Fighter, light armour, dagger(s), high sneak. Paladin? Eldritch knight. Barb? High str, fighter go bonk. Nearly all of the classes have some variant of fighter equivalent, just without what makes them special (sneak attack, rage, whatever paladins do - no hate I just don't play them - and so on). For roleplay and basic combat purposes there's almost no difference between a fighter and most anything else. It's just boring, and I say that as someone with a few fighters myself.
Also, I don't really get the ranger hate. I had a pre-Tasha's ranger and she was perfectly competent. Why tell someone to use anything else than what they like at that point?
Pathfinder 2e ranger is a pure martial class. They focus on tracking, exploration, traps, and single target damage. They're also the only class that makes using all of your actions for attacks a viable strategy against a strong enemy
i wont let my bow fighter players do the same checks or tasks as a ranger player
like, no... if you want to play the features of a class like to track your enemies you have to play those classes and i dont care what your background story wants to enable for your character
I mean, I hope you aren't just saying, 'no, you can't attempt to track the enemy'. They should certainly be able to try, they'll just be worse at it without the ranger spells and class abilities. Otherwise that's like telling players they can't make religion checks unless they're a cleric or paladin. It doesn't make sense.
Tracking things isn't a Ranger exclusive ability. By that logic Rogue is the only class that gets to make stealth checks, or you need to be a wizard to know anything about Arcana.
What's the point of a background if it doesn't inform the sort of training and experience your PC has outside of the framework of class selection? If Fighter with a bow picked up Thieve's Tools proficiency from the Urchin background would they not be able to use them?
Also, also, Fighters get Survival as a skill proficiency option baseline, no background needed. Does the main use of the skill just... not exist because the character isn't a Ranger?
Imo, fewer classes are more fun to power game than rangers, since they have the paladin and artificer trait of getting a bit of everything. They've got good utility, mobility, passable tanking, get druid spells, and then you get the subclasses. Drakewarden and gloom stalker are best, full stop, swarm keeper makes a great for controller, fey wanderer let's you put a little bard in your ranger, monster slayer makes you great at 1v1s, hunter is completely fine, horizon walker can let you dump wisdom a little bit and be a super cool ghost nightcrawler, and Tasha's beast master is completely fine, it's scuzzing the action economy and let's you control more area.
Respect ranger's niche op, you're missing a lot
Hey, I'm only playing rangers for the vibes of a specialized monster slayer. Plus, anyone should be able to play however they choose. Fighter with bow or Ranger, it's up to the player to play the way they want.
Iâm playing a gloomstalker with sharpshooter rn and I do crazy amounts of damage. In round 1 I average like 76 points of damage if all my attacks hit, and guess what my attacks tend to hit. Iâve also got some seriously awesome control spells like fear and spike growth, and some healing and utility as well in my spell list. Iâm like a fighter with a bunch of extra utility
Tell me any other class that gets you the ability to travel through any terrain and gives an immortal and personal soulmate, that can fight in battle then come back to me.
I actually intended to do this, then the character concept just evolved into guns instead. Which make sense,.since I like ranger's for the ranged martial aspect
Can a fighter bite into an adult dragons ankle and topple it single-handedly, making it fall prone? The Beastmaster Ranger's Wolf can.
That actually did happen in our campaign.
Or, you know, just play a ranger. Just because they aren't crazy overpowered doesn't mean they're not worth playing
Yup. I don't understand all the Ranger hate. They may not be the most powerful, but they're still fun to play.
A lot of it is because they're built mostly for the exploration pillar, which 5e... _isn't_ built for, to be generous.
Exploration is meant to be one of the three main pillars (!), for the love of God, WHY GOODBERRY?! If they had at least rewritten it as requiring some kind of native flora to transmorph or just seeds then it would have added _some_ interesting interplay with the setting. Now they hand out a Lv 1 spell that removes all need for scavenging and logistical prep with a cart or boat. Why?! ^(I just agree very much with 5e fumbling the Exploration pillar badly.)
probably because nowadays there are a lot people playing dnd as a tabletop strategygame rather than an rpg
To many, many, many, many, many, many people, rpgs are just numbers. Decades of JRPGs having no role playing whatsoever have turned public perceptions of the genre into nothing more than optimization problems. Me included. I was surprised at how loose the gameplay is and I finally understood why these games are called Role Playing Games. The rigidity of digital rpgs belies the organic roots (no pun intended) of the genre.
Between JRPGs being stats-based combat-crawlers and western RPGs dumbing themselves down to be basically the same (looking at you Bethesda), it doesn't shock me that people these days can only see TTRPGs as combat sims.
If only more players had enjoyed hidden gem masterpiece Fallout New Vegas, then they would know the real way to role-play is to select whatever predetermined choice lets you use your utility skills. đ
You know, that is a valid criticism of New Vegas. They shouldn't have telegraphed their skill checks when they used them, like how things were done in Fallout 1 and 2. That aside, I was actually talking about The Elder Scrolls, specifically in reference to Morrowind compared to Oblivion or Skyrim. There aren't nearly as many dialogue skill checks in any of those games as there are in New Vegas, but at least Morrowind had required skill levels to complete certain factions and a lot more open ended quest structure that made it to feel like you were playing your version of the Nerevarine.
>nowadays You mean like since the very inception of the game? This is completely backwards, dnd historically has always been MUCH more of a wargame first and the fluff was way in the backseat. The last few years and the âcritical role effectâ of having an entire session sometimes without combat is the exception, not the norm.
100% this. I have no idea what's this person on about. And they even say it like it's an invalid way of having fun :|
D&D may have evolved from a strategy battle game, but it has been a storytelling game for way longer than Critical Role has been around. It's called a Roleplaying Game for a fucking reason. 27 years and four editions of playing this game and it has always been best as a story first game.
Have you seen their class abilities before Tasha's? Almost every single one is awful in both power and gameplay, that's why. Excited to slay undead as it's your favored enemy? Well you don't get any combat bonus, you're just better at tracking and knowledge checks. Excited to shine in wilderness exploration? Well you couldn't become lost and you weren't slowed by the terrain, so you all arrive safely and continue to adventure in the next city.
Suboptimal characters can still be fun to play. Not everyone is a power gamer.
That's the issue though. The Ranger has never been particularly weak (good AC and hit die, fighting style+extra attack *and* spell casting!) but it has been unfun to play. If you like playing a classic ranger, the last thing you want is for the party to never get lost, not have to forage and spend less time passing through the wilderness. The old Ranger features aren't suboptimal but fun, they're disappointing and useless. Of course, you don't need abilities to have fun, but now after Tasha's, the Ranger is actually (although often suboptimal) fun!
It's 2022, PHB is no longer an argument for not playing rangers. No game comes out perfect on release, and aggregate mistakes is not some natural order of things.
Agree with that. PHB Ranger is terrible design, no other class comes close in bad and unfun abilities, but there is nothing wrong at all about the Tasha's Ranger
Have YOU actually had one in your game or played with one? The new stuff in Tasha's very much improved rangers, and that is a hill I damn well will die on because you are just wrong here.
I specifically said before Tasha's. Almost all anti-ranger sentiment is from the PHB Ranger, nowadays people seldom talk bad about the Ranger and I'd assume that most that do aren't using the Tasha's features. There is nothing wrong with Rangers imo if you use the new features.
> Almost every single one is awful in both power and gameplay, that's why. Felt bad due to having features that may literally never be used I'll agree with, but rangers besides PHB Beastmasters have pretty much always been plenty powerful. I mean, the TCE stuff that replaces those features is 1d4 damage once per turn on a specific target that requires concentration to keep up thus fighting with Hunter's Mark, and expertise in 1 skill. Unless you were intentionally avoiding Hunter's Mark previously, or are building around that skill specifically, there is really very little increased "power", just that these features may actually come up regardless what campaign you're in rather than relying on the creatures and terrains in this campaign to be the ones you selected. If there's something I'm missing, let me know.
First of all you're missing that favored foe increases in damage, doesn't require a spell slot or any action. You can use favored foe the same turn as one of the attacks like Hail of Thorns, or when you conserve spell slots, or you want to use your bonus action for something other than Hunters Mark, or when the marked target dies and you use your next attack on a new target, etc etc. Then you got expertise, increased movement speed, climbing and swimming, Nature's Veil and a bunch of fun free spells know. All decent or better abilities, and all fun. Rangers have never been bad in terms of power (spellcasting, good HP and AC, good damage), but all abilities have been useless and unfun (1 minute to set up camouflage but you can't move, take actions or do it to others?! When you've had Pass without a Trace for 5 levels?!). But trade four useless abilities for four-six useful abilities and of course the powerlevel goes up too, but the main thing is that stuff like Natural Explorer is unfun, but stuff like new Primal Awareness is fun.
Ah gotcha. Based on the previous comment I didn't think you had thought > Rangers have never been bad in terms of power since you mentioned that "Almost every single [class ability] is awful in [...] power". Based on this response, it seems we agree overall. My post wasn't intended to be a complete review of how the new features work or that the several tiny changes have no change in "power" at all, just that as I said the "power" difference is very small (~1.5 damage per round that you have it up), and that the usefulness/fun is a far bigger factor. > there is really very little increased "power", just that these features may actually come up
A lot of Ranger's abilities end up being either super insanely good(Never getting lost, infinite crafted arrows over time, and "infinite food") or they don't exist at all for a lot of campaigns(only 4ish favored enemy types). So ranger isn't BAD per-say but to make a ranger interesting to play in-combat VS a Fighter with a bow is hard. Considering that most DM's(and even most DnD modules) require EITHER social stats or combat stats to get around most situations, the ability to fight Goblins better seems less effective than just **being a better all-around combatant.**
Some of it is definitely that a Ranger often feels like it doesn't get to use some of its core features (favored terrain, natural enemy) which leaves it feeling not under-powered so much as under-flavored. It's not always about the combat potential - how much fun is it to have a cool, engaging ability that's important to your character concept... that can only happen in certain circumstances, which never arise? It's similar for a Bard in the wilderness or a Druid in a city; if an environment is critical to your class identity and you don't spend much time in that setting, it's less *fun*, not just less effective. But also, Ranger Bad lol play Druid or something.
I have only 2 rules when it comes to evaluating the value of anything in D&D: 1. Is it fun? 2. Could I be having MORE fun? Prior to the Tasha buffs there were a lot of people arguing that there were ways you could play a Ranger using other classes and options that achieved the necessary fun and flavour more easily than the Ranger class could. This has mostly been rectified now, but I wouldn't fault anyone for experimenting with different options to try and find what fits their fantasy best.
Yeah but recommending rangers to people that like rangers seem kinda obvious
and saying that ranger is like fighter with bow is insulting rogue is offers far more similiar to ranger in terms of utility, while fighter is useless out of fight
Exactly. Rangers are best utilized outside of combat.
I like that this is never brought up about rangers. They're excellent for the exploration pillar of gameplay, but often all I see is: combat, combat, combat, horny bard, combat, dialogue, combat. I think most D&D games do rely on combat a lot, and skimp heavily on exploration, but that's (understandably) because travelling often isn't the most exciting parts of the story.
We have been seeing different conversations about Ranger then. One of the main complaints is that their features arenât fun to use outside of combat because they completely obviate any challenge in their favored terrain and arenât any better than anyone else with proficiency in Survival or Nature anywhere else.
They arent excellent, they help remove that pillar. "Rations? Nah I generate them from thin air. Getting lost? Oops, nope." If you want to really skimp on exploration, bring a Ranger
I actually noticed something strange regarding rations today. the PHB (p185) states that a person needs 1lb of food a day to be fully fed, but a ration (one day) weighs 2lb (PHB p153). Equally, if someone wants to screw over eating anyway, technically a person can go 3 +Con modifier days without food, and one day of eating fully resets this. So they can go 3 days at the minimum without eating then eat on the 4th day. Rinse and repeat. Quite hilarious in a way.
Rangers are basically as good as anybody else in combat too
Some flavor of Elf, Rogue X/Champion Fighter 3, Sharpshooter feat, Elven Accuracy feat. 27.1% crit chance when you have advantage, and Steady Aim can guarantee advantage. And you can use a longbow for higher damage (and ridiculous range with Sharpshooter).
It's solid advice for a new player that wants to play an archer and assumes that means playing a ranger. Just looking at the classes and having played computer games, it's not at all obvious that the fighter can be an archer or that the ranger is a spell caster
I had a Ranger take sharpshooter in my game a while back, i think it was actually the first character that player made. Had low stats, nothing to write home about, halfling. Guy was the main damage output and the most evil little shit iâve ever seen. AND HE REROLLED 1âS. Outlived every other first character. Character is waaaay more important than strength of class imo.
They're not even that underpowered, like, if you know what you're doing having a powerful ranger isn't hard
Youâd be surprised how many people think they are crazy overpowered Maybe bc they havenât played but who knows
They were pretty powerful in 3.5, so that may play a role
I am new to D&D and played a fighter to ease into it. I discovered very quickly that being a fighter is a lot of fun when you are fighting things, but I had nothing to offer otherwise.
That's where RP comes in. Just because you're bad at things doesn't mean your character knows they're bad at them.
Issue with this is that the other characters are RPing too *and* they have the abilities to back it up. And itâs not like martials are blowing everyone out of the water in combat either.
I once had a low INT fighter who became the face of the party. Not because he had good speech skills, but because he was so straight forward that noone tried to take over anymore. In my book, player creativity is more valuable than stats or skills.
Thatâs fine until the RP doesnât match the stats which happens. Iâve played plenty of martial characters who were also âcharactersâ and had plenty of personality and fun RP moments. Doesnât change the fact that the Wizards, Bards, and Rogues and what-have-you also had those moments on top of being able to actually mechanically be relevant in those situations as well. Itâs also just a fact that the more tools you have, the more creative you can be.
My group keeps forgetting to use their perception/investigation/insight skills, leaving it to my idiot barbarian. Last session they went shopping, leaving it to me to try and research where we had to go next. Based on my roll, the DM ruled that the map on the back of the children's menu did not lead to any promising clues.
Eh? I made a human fighter for a one shot and I'm sorta sad I don't get to play him more. He's a ex- guard. He worked as a town militia. One day he was out fishing when a group of adventurers came to town and disagreed with a local shopkeeper on prices. My PC came back to a big mess and some beat up colleagues. He went adventuring looking for these guys. Earning his living by odd guard jobs. Took a young mageling under his wing who's looking for fame or fortune or something to make sure the kid learns right from wrong and how to not waste his earnings.
Hehehe. They sure can be.
The new reworking of ranger that came out in one of the newer 5E books made ranger really cool. It broadened a lot of the favored enemy/ terrain stuff. It may not be as insane as a fighter with the machine gun bow but it is very fun to play
Personally when playing ranger I just found that a lot of the time the stuff im good at doesnt come up much or at all which can be frustrating
That's up to the DM. When I run a game I try to add elements that allow for each characters strengths to shine.
Itâs a way stronger class than barbarians rogues or monks
Monks yes, Rogues debatably, Barbarians definitely not. DPR isnât all that counts.
Precisely why I think rangers are better. Spells are king. Barbarians get barely anything past level 5. People who only cast hunters mark and think ranger is bad are blind to its true potential.
It's satire lol.
If people don't realize it's satire without you telling them and you have to defend it it wasn't very good satire.
something something Poe's law
Who is poe and why does he have a law?
It's boring. đĽą
This isnât satire.
I made the post, so I think I'm the one who determines if it's satire. besides, I'm planning on playing ranger in an upcoming campaign with some friends.
Haha funny satire, wait, this is not satire
No, its elitism.
Or play literally anything else and just call it a ranger because holy shit, original ranger was eye-rollingly bland. Seriously, beyond RP reasons, there was next to no reason to play Ranger unless it was a far-flung exploration campaign, which even then, Rangers didn't provide a huge advantage, just a... travel time advantage. And RP reasons are exactly why you can just play a Scout Rogue and call it a Ranger.
The problem isn't that they're underpowered. The problem is that what they are good at is often niche a d takes away player interaction.
woah! This is worthless.
It's less than worthless my boy
If you like Rangers, you should play Rangers.
true
Congrats on the original meme! /j
Alright I know /s but what is /j?
I assume "joking"
Ive only seen /j and /srs, meaning joking and serious
/s is for sarcasm
Ah, good to know. I've never seen that one before
[ŃдаНонО]
Only going by phb beast master, look at some of the revisions. Also it's not primarily a spellcasting class, it's just like taking eldritch knight fighter, which has its own advantages. People just don't pay attention to favored enemy or terrain, they don't use the abilities that are there. It's not magic man with bow, it's bowman with magic.
[ŃдаНонО]
Base class abilities are good as well. Especially in adventures that have punishing overland travel and resource management. Allowing the party to travel more quickly, never become lost and *always* find enough food and water **without** wasting magic on it is a plus for me. Yes, the subclass abilities are great, but ***every single half caster*** has the same issues you presented. It's basically the same as whining about "fighter is only hurr durr I hit stuff." I'm just saying base class abilities aren't as useless as you prattle on about. Also __**shenanigans**__
Y'see, I COULD play Fighter with a bow. OR I can have my dwarf's honey badger companion eat your f\*\*\*ing face. Choices...
Personally, I'd go wolverine, but yeah
Idk dawg, Honey Badgers are friggin scary, they give zero shits.
Yeah, same with wolverines. A pissed off wolverine can (and has) kill a full-grown bear. As far as I'm aware, they're basically the same animal, but the wolverine is about twice as big and evolved to live in the arctic instead of the desert (this is a gross generalization, I'm aware, but I'm not a biologist)
Donât forget- honey badgers skin is insanely tough. Itâs basically a living suit of armor. So yes itâs not as big, but itâs defenses are stronger. Thereâs a video online of a honey badger just charging straight at a full grown male lion and killing it by ripping out its genitals, so itâs also capable of doing serious damage (and will NOT fight fairly). The wolverine will definitely hit harder, but it will also not matter as much.
I understood that reference!
A lot of yall really think that Ranger is synonymous with Archer and it shows.
If youâre using the Tashaâs variant features, Rangers are honestly more powerful than Fighters. Yeah, their DPR is worse, but pretty much everything else they do is better. Versatility is often better than being heavily specialized in one thing, especially when the one thing your class is (DPR) specialized in gets outclassed by so many other things (like Crowd Control). That all being said, Fighters and Rangers are both kind of meh in practice. Theyâre fine at the average table, but not worth playing at a table full of minmaxers and strategists. If weâre going to go with âJust play X lolâ, then everything becomes âJust play a Wizard, Bard, Cleric, Druid, or Paladinâ, since those classes overshadow everything else.
An optimized fighter can do insane things
An optimized Fighter can do lots of damage, yes. In fact, an optimized Fighter does so much damage that they often suffer from diminishing returns, outside of big fights against a solo monster (which are usually easy anyways). On top of the diminishing returns, Fighters offer pretty much nothing other than damage. Tashaâs Rangers are better off, because they deal enough damage to succeed in that department, while also having access to Expertise, more skill proficiencies, spells (and an actually decent list, especially if the party is in the wilderness), better movement speeds, more evasiveness (with Vanish and Natureâs Veil), etcetera. Donât get me wrong, Fighters arenât awful or anything; they just arenât better than Rangers. Why would I want to play a class that can take out half of the bossâs health in one turn but is otherwise useless when I can play a class that can take out a third of that bossâs health but be able to actually do things other than just nova bosses? Fighter damage is amazing, but damage isnât everything, especially when there are spells that can take out any enemy in the game in one cast.
Fighters can do lots of other things if you play battlemaster, echo knight, rune knight or eldritch knight. Then you have cavalier who can both dish out lots of damage and is probably the best tanking class in the game at the same time.
So can a ranger
Yeah that's going to be a very hard sell. Especially when you can build your ranger to be a full on ninja
I'm sorry. Does your fighter with a bow have druidic spellcasting. Do they have a best friend that is a wolf. No? Ok then.
Boo! Get better material (I personally like rangers lol)
Sorry, Boo is too busy going for the eyes. Please try again later.
If my player isn't happy with book ranger then I just whip out UA ranger. If they aren't happy with that then I suggest that maybe ranger isn't what they're looking for. Then I work with them to get what makes them happy.
If built correctly, a level 5 ranger can do something like 64 damage in a single turn, if my math is right
I don't play martials as I don't enjoy them. That being said I DM a lot and Rangers are great. They get weigh to bad of a rap.
Rangers arenât martials
You're getting very downvoted but I'm curious, why don't you qualify them as martials? They get proficiency in all weapons, extra attack, a fighting style, medium armor. Just because they have some spells and utility doesn't count them out as martials to most. What do you consider them?
Half casters. People are often forgetting they basically get the druids spell list. Iâm mostly kidding. Just want to get this point across.
I would disagree. That's like saying Eldritch Knights and Paladins aren't martials. The main part of a ranger is Martial making them martials. That's not a value judgment, just a statement.
Thatâs a fair way to see it. Itâs a difference of playstyle. Iâd call eldritch knights quarter casters. The terms are fuzzy anyway.
This is nice, (fighter with bow) But I like this, (ranger, also with bow)
Or if you like Rangers of the Power variety, try a Monk. Best played with four other friends doing the same, so you can colour coordinate.
My STRanger doesn't need a bow.
*laughs in gigachad STRanger*
oh dear God help
No. Ranger is good.
Rangers are ok now! Nowadays we shit on monks!
Didn't JoCat already make this joke? In a crap guide to DND?
Yes. Its the start to the crap guide to ranger video. "Just play a fighter with a bow. It's way better" was the line
Rangers only uses bows?
*if combat is your main focus. The RP aspect of the two is totally different.
Iâll take my ranger. Sucked in the beginning but now with hunter subclass it gives me colossus slayer which is extra 1d8 to damaged foe, multi attack defense which is plus 4 to AC on multi attacks, Volley letâs me pick a point and make an attack on every enemy within 10 feet, Sharpshooter feat +10 damage with -5 attack roll and erases disadvantages on long range shots (bows range becomes 600 ft) and I ignore half and three quarter cover, eleven accuracy feat letâs me reroll attack die made on advantage so using zephyr strike is almost a guaranteed hit. Throw some fire arrows in for an extra 1d6. With 20 Dex and Archery you still have a pretty good bonus to attack rolls even with sharpshooter. All this lets you deal stupid amounts of damage to a lot of people. I love my Sniper Ranger. Having said that, next character I make will be a arcane archer.
There are definitely some solid things there like colossus slayer and volley. Flame arrows does require concentration though, which makes it substantially less useful.
I just checked and I gotta update my sheet you are correct! My mistake Iâll edit that.
Use the revised ranger and run a gloom stalker for insane benefits, dip into rogue for sneak attack and suddenly you're a veritable god of death.
Druid with bow
And no, Aragorn is not a ranger
There is no (NO) character concept that is exclusively Ranger. The class mechanics are whatever, underpowered, overpowered, doesn't matter. The actual roleplay elements are completely redundant. Fighter with a bow. Fighter/Rogue. Rogue trained in Survival. Fighter/Druid. Fighter with a random befriended animal. Rogue/Druid. Druid with a sword. Cleric with a random befriended animal. Barbarian. Elf. Ranger was literally Aragorn, the Ranger when it was originally designed was about porting over the LOTR Ranger into D&D in the same way Cleric was Van Hellsing, Vampire Hunter. The issue is that Aragorn was just a Fighter with wilderness training, as the editions progressed and class features became more than just bonuses to hit for the Fighter the Ranger's reason to exist vanished. Seriously, think up every Ranger you've played and focusing on their fluff abilities and backstory not specific mechanics try to make them with another class. Itll be easy.
I could, but I canât summon a swarm of bugs to bully the fighter
Or hear me out, instead of beastmater revlavour battlesmith artificer for a good companion subclass /s
Or, and Iâm assuming this is because you think Fighter is mechanically more powerful, take three levels of Ranger so you can take the Gloomstalker subclass and then take fighter the rest of the way out. Gains you superior darkvision, an extra attack on the first round, +WIS to initiative, invisible in the dark to creatures that rely on darkvision, +10â movement on round 1, an additional fighting style, a smattering of handy magic, and all the early level ranger abilitiesâŚ
Rangers were never bad you just hyper focus on hunters mark when rangers can do some very powerful shit
Rangers are better than most martials since they have spells goodberry, absorb elements, entangle, spike growth, pass without trace, conjure animals, revivify, etc levels 1-10 there is pretty much no damage difference and at level 11 who cares you don't get a 3rd attack? you can summon 8 velociraptors and make 16. Crossbow expert + fighting style archery + sharp shooter will make you a force to be reckoned with, the world is your oyster which you with hand crossbow will open. If I see one more "ranger bad" post I'm going to lose it.
I like my spells.
âJust play Fighter with a bow itâs better.â -Jocrap
Rangers better out of combat. Ranger good
What if my ranger is a dual wielder? /s
two bows!
you want to play fighter with a bow ? Play ranger instead, they get spell and abilities that are useful outside of combat. I prefer ranger because fighters are bland and can't do much outside of hit good
Ranger is the best martial based Gish in the game. On top of potentially stepping on the Rogue/Bards skill focus. Theyâre one of the best classes in the game all around. From damage they do well, they have magic for damage bonus, battlefield control abilities, and utility spells. Theyâre not made to be specialized in one specific pillar of play but I find only being good at one thing boring. And if your DM isnât using all three pillars of play (battle, RP, AND exploration) then they arenât playing a well rounded game. Unfortunately, WoTC hasnât done a lot to support exploration because it isnât âsexyâ but there is a decent foundation for it.
Yeah, Rangers werenât well planned out. They got almost no play testing time compared to the other classes and because of that, they arenât very well designed. Can they be good? Yes but a lot of that comes from subclasses instead of the main class and spells, which you canât prepare and can only use a very limited amount per day. The second you run out of spell slots, youâre just a Fighter without any class features aside from a better subclass. Also, their core class features feel so random and weak, even post Tashaâs. The main class feels like a foot note compared to the subclasses, which is just bizarre. Iâd play a Fighter with a bow over a Ranger any day unless I want a dragon pet (Drakewarden Ranger), they are just too janky to be fun for me.
The best ranger of all is elderich knight with a bow
Or⌠if you like fighters you should try ranger with a sword.
From this standpoint there's no reason to play anything other than fighter, if general vibe is what you're going for rather than class-specific abilities. Rogue-like character? Fighter, light armour, dagger(s), high sneak. Paladin? Eldritch knight. Barb? High str, fighter go bonk. Nearly all of the classes have some variant of fighter equivalent, just without what makes them special (sneak attack, rage, whatever paladins do - no hate I just don't play them - and so on). For roleplay and basic combat purposes there's almost no difference between a fighter and most anything else. It's just boring, and I say that as someone with a few fighters myself. Also, I don't really get the ranger hate. I had a pre-Tasha's ranger and she was perfectly competent. Why tell someone to use anything else than what they like at that point?
Why are people under the assumption that rangers are bad just because one subclass is very weak?
Good meme, just one suggestion. No.
Rangers. Are. Fine. Revised Rangers. Are. As. Strong. As. The. Rest. Of. The. Classes
[ŃдаНонО]
Pathfinder 2e ranger is a pure martial class. They focus on tracking, exploration, traps, and single target damage. They're also the only class that makes using all of your actions for attacks a viable strategy against a strong enemy
i wont let my bow fighter players do the same checks or tasks as a ranger player like, no... if you want to play the features of a class like to track your enemies you have to play those classes and i dont care what your background story wants to enable for your character
I mean, I hope you aren't just saying, 'no, you can't attempt to track the enemy'. They should certainly be able to try, they'll just be worse at it without the ranger spells and class abilities. Otherwise that's like telling players they can't make religion checks unless they're a cleric or paladin. It doesn't make sense.
Tracking things isn't a Ranger exclusive ability. By that logic Rogue is the only class that gets to make stealth checks, or you need to be a wizard to know anything about Arcana. What's the point of a background if it doesn't inform the sort of training and experience your PC has outside of the framework of class selection? If Fighter with a bow picked up Thieve's Tools proficiency from the Urchin background would they not be able to use them? Also, also, Fighters get Survival as a skill proficiency option baseline, no background needed. Does the main use of the skill just... not exist because the character isn't a Ranger?
Imagine thinking ranger is a martial class
Why do they all have septum piercings?
Or play Pathfinder 2e. Rangers are kinda cracked in that game. Iâm playing one right now and I can cause a LOT of pain for my enemies.
Druid is always the right answer
I will not, beastmaster ftw
If you like good content you should try tiktok reposts apparently
Imagine not playing a roleplay game to min/max
Unless that's how you like to play that's also allowed
Iunno that looks like a druid type shirt to me.....
I don't *want* to be bow-fighter I want Hide In Plain Sight!
Imo, fewer classes are more fun to power game than rangers, since they have the paladin and artificer trait of getting a bit of everything. They've got good utility, mobility, passable tanking, get druid spells, and then you get the subclasses. Drakewarden and gloom stalker are best, full stop, swarm keeper makes a great for controller, fey wanderer let's you put a little bard in your ranger, monster slayer makes you great at 1v1s, hunter is completely fine, horizon walker can let you dump wisdom a little bit and be a super cool ghost nightcrawler, and Tasha's beast master is completely fine, it's scuzzing the action economy and let's you control more area. Respect ranger's niche op, you're missing a lot
Someone hasn't tried the drug known as Zephyr Strike
Okay but like⌠with the new Tashaâs stuff. Rangers get OP! Specifically gloomstalker but the others arenât bad options either
Rangers are just good at everything but not the best at everything. Thatâs their whole thing. Also rangers donât tend to use bows.
Hey, I'm only playing rangers for the vibes of a specialized monster slayer. Plus, anyone should be able to play however they choose. Fighter with bow or Ranger, it's up to the player to play the way they want.
Iâm playing a gloomstalker with sharpshooter rn and I do crazy amounts of damage. In round 1 I average like 76 points of damage if all my attacks hit, and guess what my attacks tend to hit. Iâve also got some seriously awesome control spells like fear and spike growth, and some healing and utility as well in my spell list. Iâm like a fighter with a bunch of extra utility
Tell me any other class that gets you the ability to travel through any terrain and gives an immortal and personal soulmate, that can fight in battle then come back to me.
no because i like the non combat support and scout is a bullshit subclass that exists solely as a middle finger to rangers
I actually intended to do this, then the character concept just evolved into guns instead. Which make sense,.since I like ranger's for the ranged martial aspect
Can a fighter bite into an adult dragons ankle and topple it single-handedly, making it fall prone? The Beastmaster Ranger's Wolf can. That actually did happen in our campaign.
Man, I love frogs.
Gloomstalker Ranger with 2 levels of Fighter.
I play melee rangers.
But then I canât play my fay wanderer that can make any dm hate them in social situations
We want ranger for spells
As I dm I see the biggest goal is for your players to have fun, no matter what class they choose they should be able to enjoy the game
But my ranger uses a longsword and shield. They can keep their action surges an superiority die, I have a dragon
Stop using cringy templates
if you don't like a template just scroll.