D&D 5E Question about Ranger's ability vs Hordes

[ScuroNotte]

I was always under assumption that Rangers excelled against fighting large number of creatures.
Hunter's Mark is vs only one creature. There are a couple of spells that are effective vs hordes that only work with thrown weapons or arrows/bolts. But the others focus on one creature.

The Hunter is the only one effective conclave that is consistent vs hordes, with Volley always available. And Whirlwind attack is great if you surround yourself with enemies which I wouldn't recommended..lol. And Two-Weapon fighting style and Horde Breaker allows you to attack 4 different creatures with movement (recommend Mobile feat).

And then any extra combat abilities are further narrowed to favored enemies. I know favored enemies is in the class's history, but still no other class has such a limiting feature when it comes to a special feature. Consider if sneak attack was only effective vs humanoids or paladins can only smite fiends.
In addition, A paladin's Divine Smite gives an additional 1d8 damage to each creature damaged which is beneficial when attacking multiple opponents.

The new Ranger conclaves that are being published and/or presented seem to focus against one creature with respect to attacking, damage, or special ability.

Back to original question. If the Ranger is supposed to excel vs large number of creatures, why does it appear that they fall behind in that category? Especially in melee?

 

[cbwjm]

I dont think the ranger is really meant to excel against hordes its just that some can focus on taking out hordes whereas others are more focused on taking down single larger prey.

 

[KahlessNestor]

And paladins have always only been able to smite fiends, undead, evil. It's only in 5e that they can smite anything. I don't know that any other edition ranger did much against hirdes either. That's more the wizard's schtick.

Sent from my SM-G900P using EN World mobile app

 

[thethain]

Generally: Casters deal with hordes, melee deal with single targets.

Rangers CAN branch out and pickup decent AoE damage. But it isn't really a class defining thing.


Rangers : Survival experts. Can survive in wilderness, track down bad guys.

 

[plisnithus8]

Why are you under that assumption?

 

[jaelis]

From the AD&D PHB:

Rangers are a sub-class of fighter who are adept at woodcraft, tracking, scouting, and infiltration and spying.

No mention of hordes, and none of their abilities are particularly focused on hordes.

From the 2E Complete Ranger's Handbook:

A woodsman and tracker, as well as a dangerous fighter, he combines good combat skills with a few extra abilities that give him many options and decisions during play. He boasts the courage and strength of a warrior and the stealth and self-reliance of a thief. He combines the druid's affinity for the outdoors with the devotion and magical aptitude of a priest. He's a hunter, a tracker, and a survivalist. By temperament and by choice, he's a loner, often preferring the company of animals to people. Without question, he's one with nature, sworn to protect the inhabitants of the wilderness and preserve the integrity of the land.

Again nothing about fighting hordes, and none of the kit abilities are focused on hordes.

Third edition says

More cunning and powerful than these monsters is the ranger, a skilled hunter and stalker. He knows the woods as if they were his home (as indeed they are), and he knows his prey in deadly detail. A ranger often accepts the role of protector, aiding those who live in or travel through the woods. In addition, a ranger carries grudges against certain types of creatures and looks for opportunities to find and destroy them.

Again nothing specific to hordes, but they can be TWF specialists which is particularly effective against hordes. On the other hand, if they specialize in archery they don't get any anti-horde benefits.

Turning to 4E, rangers are

watchful warriors who roam past the horizon to safeguard a region, a principle, a way of life. Masters of bow and blade, rangers excel at hit-and-run assaults and can quickly and silently eliminate foes. Rangers lay superb ambushes and excel at avoiding danger.

Still no hordes. Certainly some of the 4E powers are useful against groups of foes, but I wouldn't say any more than those of other classes like fighters.

So I would say, after a review of the sources, that there's no particular reason to think that rangers have historically been intended as specialists vs. hordes.

 

[Ganymede81]

Since when is killing hordes a schtick of the Ranger? The 5e Ranger is the first one I remember that offers perks in that regard (the Hunter), and I think that is just to provide a different take on the favored enemy bonuses that they've always had.

 

[BookBarbarian]

The Hunter has some specific abilities that if chosen work well in scenarios with multiple enemies, but like others have said that is by no means a core part of the Ranger's theme.

 

[ScuroNotte]

I must have remembered incorrectly. Possibly I read it elsewhere (whether another game or recreational reading) and transposed it to the D&D Ranger.

Thank you for clearing it up.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

The Hunter has some specific abilities that if chosen work well in scenarios with multiple enemies, but like others have said that is by no means a core part of the Ranger's theme.

Yeah, and frankly, I think giving the Hunter even those abilities was a mistake. They're the Hunter. They're supposed to hunt. The guy standing in the middle of a horde and saying "Whirlwind Attack!" should be a barbarian or fighter.