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

[Don Durito]

Alas, making the "perfect Ranger" for D&D is likely an exercise in futility. There are just too many different ideas of what "a ranger" is supposed to be in pop media. Should the ideal Ranger be based on Legolas? (Yes.) Should it be based on Aragorn? (Also yes.) Should it be based on Princess Mononoke? (Still yes.) Should it be based on Hank from the D&D cartoon? (Yes again.) Can it be all of them at once? (Absolutely not how dare you...)

I don't envy Wotc.

That, is, I think probably a good argument for making them subclass - because you could have a series of different subclasses to do different takes on the ranger.

 

[NotAYakk]

The problem with Rangering is that like the Dwarf Baker with expertise in baking tools it gets forced off screen. The Ranger is so good that there is no point to it.

It's like if you had a subclass 'Duelist' with the feature: "Whenever you fight a duel you win".

And there are level 2 spells that generate impossibly good cupcakes. Level 4 spells are required to make impossibly good pies and other baked goods. Level 6 needed for cookies (we don't know why cookies are level 6, but they are).

Sure, there are going to be niche's for the baker that can't be handled by magical baked goods. Sometimes. When the DM specifically arranges a baking competition in an anti-magic zone or a magic-allergic dragon who wants a pie.

 

[Horwath]

If only they gave 3rd level scouts feature with skills instead of 1st level rangers "overpowered" natural explorer.

1st level deft explorer: bonus proficiency and expertise in Nature and Survival.
6th level explorer: +5ft speed, swim and climb speed,
8th level: Dash as a bonus action
10th level: Endurance: halve effective exhaustion levels(round down), remove one exhaustion level after short rest. Hide as a bonus action
14th level:

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Ok. It is worse than hunter's mark regarding not being able to track your marked foe, which I don't really like.
I also think, that inventing a new feature is unnecessary. Why not just use hunter's mark as a free action when you hit with an attack?
Maybe at level 1 it was just too strong. I don't think so.
Also the artificer is a half caster that can cast their first level spells at level 1.
Another thing is that it autoscales with the number of attacks you do, so scaling is not necessary.

On the other hand, it is better than favoured enemy and makes the ranger level 1 a good choice.

 

[NotAYakk]

Okay, but what if I'm playing a Beast Master or Drakewarden and one of my attacks is from my pet and wouldn't trigger HM? That leaves two attacks, and if one misses than FF and HM are pretty close together. Heck, at higher levels the FF damage die scales so it's ahead in some circumstances.

FF is an optional feature that fits well with certain Ranger builds, for which I'm very thankful. Other builds may still want to use HM, and it still exists for them. This is literally the best of both worlds.

Sure, now it takes a foe that is up for 3 rounds instead of 2 for HM to catch up and start passing it.

The claim was Foe was better than HM on a single big foe. It is less worse on a big foe than on a bunch of little foes.

It is better than HM when you want to use the ranger's other concentration spells, and value Foe lowly, so you might as well toss on an extra bit of damage on top of the other concentration spell hit. Or when you are losing concentration every round anyhow, and have something good to use your bonus action on.

Even the d8 version is worse than HM with 2 attacks in almost any reasonable scenario.

And, if someone goes to the hospital with a gaping chest wound, and they do a half-assed job of fixing their hangnail, that is better than not fixing the hangnail. I think it is fair to point at the gaping chest wound and say "um, you aren't doing your job, you just fixed a hangnail, and you didn't even do a good job at fixing the hangnail".

 

[Minigiant]

it shouldn't.

1e had it right: the Ranger there was a Fighter-with-extras, and gated behind some pretty serious stat requirements to make them less common.

Some idiot named Drizz't came along during 2e and mangled the Ranger archetype. It has yet to recover.

1e did have it right but..

The 1e ranger was an Upgrade class. D&D doesn't do those any more.

For us old-timers that's because it was originally supposed to BE a (sub-class of) Fighter

The problem is the Ranger was a Fighter+.

Which made the Fighter a Ranger-.

Essentially WOTC doesn't know how to balance TSR's Fighter and Ranger without angering people. THEN you have the Druid, Bard, and Rogue sneaking in the conversation.

 

[Don Durito]

1e did have it right but..

The 1e ranger was an Upgrade class. D&D doesn't do those any more.

It does. They're called subclasses now.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I have to say that this seems rather clunky to me. It is a Hunter's Mark lite which competes with the acual Hunter's Mark... I don't get it...

Was there something terribly wrong with the UA version?

Favored Foe
1st-level ranger feature (replaces Favored Enemy)
You can call on your bond with nature to mark a creature as your favored enemy for a time: you know the hunter’s mark spell, and Wisdom is your spellcasting ability for it. You can use it a certain number of times without expending a spell slot and without requiring concentration— a number of times equal to your Wisdom modifier (a minimum of once). You regain all expended uses when you finish a long rest. When you gain the Spellcasting feature at 2nd level, hunter’s mark doesn’t count against the number of ranger spells you know.

Perhaps add a stipulation to Beastmasters that the hunter's mark triggers from the pet's attacks as well.

 

[Horwath]

Ok. It is worse than hunter's mark regarding not being able to track your marked foe, which I don't really like.
I also think, that inventing a new feature is unnecessary. Why not just use hunter's mark as a free action when you hit with an attack?
Maybe at level 1 it was just too strong. I don't think so.
Also the artificer is a half caster that can cast their first level spells at level 1.
Another thing is that it autoscales with the number of attacks you do, so scaling is not necessary.

On the other hand, it is better than favoured enemy and makes the ranger level 1 a good choice.

Favored enemy should be deleted from writers minds, permanently.
It was a dumb idea few editions ago, and it is dumb now.

an extra tool proficiency in addition to language would be more useful than favored enemy.
Sad thing is that extra language is best part of favored enemy.
At least you can RP a smart guy that knows how to speak in many cultures.

 

[Minigiant]

It does. They're called subclasses now.

People will want manuvers and imp critical still for their fighter.

As this topic proves my point, many people want a ranger that doesn't lose a drop of combat ability compared to a "normal fighter".

People will just say the Ranger subclass sucks at fighting compared to the Champion and Battlemaster. To many, rangers are only seen in the combat lens.