Sir Brennen
Legend
Ranger should just be a fighter subclass.WOTC made a crappy ranger but too many approach the class like a fighter. Probably because WOTC built a bad ranger so no one knows what a ranger is supposed to do.
There. I said it.
Ranger should just be a fighter subclass.WOTC made a crappy ranger but too many approach the class like a fighter. Probably because WOTC built a bad ranger so no one knows what a ranger is supposed to do.
That’s true as far as I’m concerned. D&D’s Ranger makes no sense, never made any sense and will probably never make sense.Hot take: people that complain about the Ranger would complain about ANY Ranger from WotC. It's just a meme now.
The thing is, the ranger sucks at "rangering", and it is incompetent at combat. Being strictly dominated by other classes is not a requirement for them to be a ranger.Not really.
The ranger's biggest issue is that people don't play it how its archetype is supposed to be played. No one reads the ranger class description.
The ranger is not great at that archetype but neither are other classes. Save for the Bard and Druids everyone sucks at rangering.
The problem is many see it as an alternative fighter or variant paladin. The ranger fails at that.
WOTC made a crappy ranger but too many approach the class like a fighter. Probably because WOTC built a bad ranger so no one knows what a ranger is supposed to do.
This seems fine to me, it even gets better as you level up. Maybe it could have been per short rest so that you'd have more chances to spread the damage around, but otherwise it seems fine.
It also doesn't use a bonus action which allows it to fit more seamlessly with two-weapon fighting rangers. I was thinking it was more for a boss fight, I'd like it to be a little more useable though. Might houserule it to short rests.This version seems fine to me. The fact that unlike HM it can't be reapplied means it fills a different role. HM is just fine for tearing through a pack of lesser monsters because it can bounce from one to the next. This is more about having some extra kick on the single target boss type encounters.
Hey, the ranger is great at rangering as long as it sticks to a very, very specific environment...The thing is, the ranger sucks at "rangering", and it is incompetent at combat. Being strictly dominated by other classes is not a requirement for them to be a ranger.
There is nothing about "rangering" that states "classes who ranger must suck at combat".
As evidenced by the Bard and Druid. Both of whom ranger better than the ranger.
Or the rogue. The rogue isn't a great combatant (especially at level 1), but it isn't dominated, there are scenarios where they are better at some aspect of fighting than the fighter.
... Ok, I'm wrong. The level 1 ranger can in one scenario I found deal 6% more DPR than a level 1 fighter (Attack using DW a high AC foe with advantage, at most 2 foes per day).
No it shouldn't.Ranger should just be a fighter subclass.
There. I said it.
The thing is, the ranger sucks at "rangering", and it is incompetent at combat. Being strictly dominated by other classes is not a requirement for them to be a ranger
But it is worse than HM at doing that?This version seems fine to me. The fact that unlike HM it can't be reapplied means it fills a different role. HM is just fine for tearing through a pack of lesser monsters because it can bounce from one to the next. This is more about having some extra kick on the single target boss type encounters.