D&D 5E It's official, WOTC hates Rangers (Tasha's version of Favored Foe is GARBAGE)

[Sacrosanct]

Nice to know some people in this thread are apologists for bad design.

Or they just disagree with your opinion It's not like you're the gatekeeper who decides what good and bad game design are.

 

[Charlaquin]

I've seen about four rangers in the course of the last six years in campaigns I've run, and any number in AL games I've played in, and none of them have wanted for power. Last session, for a mid-tier group, the ranger did over 40 points of damage in one round, without rolling a single crit. I just don't get the "rangers are underpowered" argument.

The thing is, 5e isn’t really balanced around precise math. It’s balanced around feel, as evaluated by player satisfaction polls. The ranger is fine damage-wise. Maybe a little weaker than some other classes, but not by so much that it isn’t within tolerable variance. The issue is that the ranger doesn’t feel as satisfying to as many players as other classes. There are a number of reasons this might be the case, but some of the worst offenders are favored enemy and terrain being useless in a lot of situations, the beast master’s companion costing an action to command, and the fact that the ostensibly most exploration-focused class pretty much obviates all the actual exploration mechanics. Those features consistently rate lower than WotC would like on player satisfaction polls, hence the optional features that address those specific issues.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Or they just disagree with your opinion It's not like you're the gatekeeper who decides what good and bad game design are.

I'm mostly referring to people posting dumb memes instead of even trying to have a discussion.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

That's the thing - play experience is so subjective. One person might think rangers are overpowered, another underpowered. Someone else might loathe the stunning strike-flurry of blows monk combo with the heat of the sun (that someone might be me). Satisfaction polls with enough data can get at some universal trends - which is why Wizards does them. Good data and metrics are an important part of quality products. I am hesitant to trust anecdotal evidence, but a proper survey is another thing.

While I've seen the same thing - it's also the class I've seen cause people stop playing a character 'because it isn't fun' the most (as in, the only one I've seen people say "this class isn't fun.")

The thing is, 5e isn’t really balanced around precise math. It’s balanced around feel, as evaluated by player satisfaction polls. The ranger is fine damage-wise. Maybe a little weaker than some other classes, but not by so much that it isn’t within tolerable variance. The issue is that the ranger doesn’t feel as satisfying to as many players as other classes. There are a number of reasons this might be the case, but some of the worst offenders are favored enemy and terrain being useless in a lot of situations, the beast master’s companion costing an action to command, and the fact that the ostensibly most exploration-focused class pretty much obviates all the actual exploration mechanics. Those features consistently rate lower than WotC would like on player satisfaction polls, hence the optional features that address those specific issues.

 

[Mistwell]

Nice to know some people in this thread are apologists for bad design.

I am not. I am on your side and exposing Jeremy Crawford's personal beef with you.

You're welcome.

[I really do think you're correct and they should have fixed more with the Ranger. And I also think Jeremy Crawford doesn't like you. In a Star Wars Cantina sort of way.]

 

[Mistwell]

I'm mostly referring to people posting dumb memes instead of even trying to have a discussion.

I think it's possible, just maybe, that if you had not phrased the title to this thread with so much hyperbole, that you would not have gotten memes in response. Just could be.

 

[BluejayJunior]

I'm playing a ranger right now and have played in groups with one before. I've never felt it was crappy or useless.
I agree with the others that have said how it feels to play is very subjective. Just looking at it from a white room math focus, it does look underpowered, especially when feats are included. And I'll agree that the beast master could use some work. But in my play experience, I've never seen anything that shows it is as far behind other classes or as useless as people claim.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm playing a ranger right now and have played in groups with one before. I've never felt it was crappy or useless.
I agree with the others that have said how it feels to play is very subjective. Just looking at it from a white room math focus, it does look underpowered, especially when feats are included. And I'll agree that the beast master could use some work. But in my play experience, I've never seen anything that shows it is as far behind other classes or as useless as people claim.

Blame the tendency towards hyperbole in the modern vernacular. I don’t think there are very many people who truly find the ranger “useless.” It’s a bit under-powered, but not majorly so, and it can still make a meaningful contribution to the group. As well, the degree to which it underperforms in satisfaction polls is often overstated. The ranger is reasonably popular, it just isn’t rated as well as WotC would like.

 

[Sir Brennen]

I'm playing a ranger right now and have played in groups with one before. I've never felt it was crappy or useless.
I agree with the others that have said how it feels to play is very subjective. Just looking at it from a white room math focus, it does look underpowered, especially when feats are included. And I'll agree that the beast master could use some work. But in my play experience, I've never seen anything that shows it is as far behind other classes or as useless as people claim.

I guess the questions for you would be, are you using PHB ranger as is, and are you playing in a campaign where your favored enemy and terrain come into play a reasonable amount of the time? Also, what subclass are you playing? All of these can contribute to how one feels about the class in play.

 

[Gladius Legis]

The ranger is reasonably popular, it just isn’t rated as well as WotC would like.

The concept of the ranger is popular. The execution of it in 5e up to this point isn't.