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

[Minigiant]

D&D's exploration space is decent enough. The problem is that they have a hard time communicating their ideas in a structured way and DM's are way too lazy to even consider what "exploration" even means, much less take the time to prepare it. When DM's are pressed on time, exploration is the first thing they decide to "wing."

Well that's becaue 95% of it is open end and not specific. 5e says "do whatever you want", paartially codified 3 aspects of exploration, and forces DMs to do the rest unguided.

D&D only gets away with it in dungeons because players only expect traps.

 

[Flamestrike]

A lot more people were saying it about the Paladin and Barbarian before 5e properly filled their design space. If 5e had made the Ranger good from the start, people wouldn't be talking about reducing it to a Fighter subclass or whatever.

The Ranger isn't a bad class.

Beastmaster had its issues, but certainly Hunter Rangers were just fine offensively, being superior to Fighters in the damage stakes at levels 1-4.

What was wrong with Rangers is there was little incentive to continue as a Ranger past 5th level. Taking levels in Scout Rogue and Battlemaster Fighter was often the better choice.

 

[Horwath]

At 1st level it doesn't really matter does it?

Scale Mail is AC 16 (presuming Dex 14+), the same AC as Chain mail.

yes it does, as you play 1st level for one session. or less.

 

[Flamestrike]

The only thing I don't understand is why it requires concentration.

Because otherwise it would stack with Hunters Mark.

The Ranger is already an offensive DPR powerhouse over the 1st five levels of the game. Layering more damage on that would be a bad design choice.

Take a TWF Hunter Ranger 3. Presuming Hunters mark is already on the target, with two shortswords, colossus slayer, hunters mark AND favored foe, and an attack stat of 16, he's dealing 4d6+1d8+1d4+6 damage each round.

 

[Gradine]

Fine. Then Warlord should also be a Fighter Subclass.

Ooh, I can do this one too!

How to make a perfect Warlord

• Everyone hits next turn, you're welcome
• Make somebody else do it
• Shout an arm back on

 

[Gladius Legis]

The Ranger isn't a bad class.

Beastmaster had its issues, but certainly Hunter Rangers were just fine offensively, being superior to Fighters in the damage stakes at levels 1-4.

What was wrong with Rangers is there was little incentive to continue as a Ranger past 5th level. Taking levels in Scout Rogue and Battlemaster Fighter was often the better choice.

If there's no incentive to continue past 5th level in a class, that is a bad class in my book. Most campaigns proceed to between levels 9-12.

 

[Flamestrike]

yes it does, as you play 1st level for one session. or less.

You'll be able to find (and afford) Half plate long before your Fighters and Paladins can afford Full plate, and even when they can afford that Armor, you're only 1 AC point behind.

1 AC point in exchange for spellcasting, an extra skill, favoured terrain, and expertise in at least 1 skill isnt a bad exchange at all!

 

[Horwath]

Because otherwise it would stack with Hunters Mark.

The Ranger is already an offensive DPR powerhouse over the 1st five levels of the game. Layering more damage on that would be a bad design choice.

Take a TWF Hunter Ranger 3. Presuming Hunters mark is already on the target, with two shortswords, colossus slayer, hunters mark AND favored foe, and an attack stat of 16, he's dealing 4d6+1d8+1d4+6 damage each round.

yes stacking is a problem.
But, this is a poor way to fix that.
UA was pretty close to home.

Here is my idea,

Foe hunter:
You learn Hunters mark spell,
you can cast that spell without concentration and spell components.
As a reaction when you hit a target with weapon attack you can cast hunters mark on that target(and apply extra damage on that attack) if you do not have Hunters mark active already.
You can do this kind of casting number of times per long rest equal to you wis bonus(min 1 per long rest).

That is, you can cast HM at 1st level only by this way, as you still do not have spell slots. Unless multi class or some other thing.

 

[Bacon Bits]

All of those existed back when Rangers were first made.

Ranger first appeared in The Strategic Review volume 1, number 2, published in Summer 1975. The only older classes are Fighting Man, Cleric, Magic User, Thief, and Paladin. And it's only a month or two newer than Thief and Paladin from Supplement I: Greyhawk.

The issue is that WOTC got imaginative after the PHB. When they were force due to needing subclasses for Xanatars and now Tasha's.

Gloom Stalker, Horizon Walker, Monster Slayer, Swarm Keeper, and Fey Warden. Ideas after PHB.

The design space is massive

1. Subclasses based on enemies (Hunter, Monster Slayer, Bounty Hunter, Giant Killer,)
2. subclasses based on terrains (Gloom Stalker, Horizon Walker, Arctic/Desert/Forest/Plains Runner, Mountain Man)
3. Subclasses based on the ranger's alliances (Fey Warden, Drakewarden, Seeker, Ranger Lord)
4. Subclasses based on companions (Swarmkeeper, Falconer, Houndmaster, Liontamer, Drakewarden)

Plenty of design space untouched.

So hunting, exploring, hunting with a pet, and exploring with a pet.

I'm not entirely thrilled with this chosen design space. It's extremely DM dependant. If you're a forest ranger who hunts giants and you don't need to go to the forest or face a giant, what unique things can your character do instead? Nothing. And when you find a forest, what does the ability do? If it works nothing happens. The ability turns a potential encounter into no encounter. Your class ability is to void XP. And if you face a giant, what can you do? Talk to it. That's the big benefit. You speak Giant. Your ability as a hunter is that you kind of know stuff about them, you know how to track them, and you can talk to them. You are the Diplomatic Hunter. In the game about fighting monsters, your really special skill is... avoiding adventure and talking to foes.

Except they can't really expand or alter this explorer-hunter role, because they run into Fighter (more martial), Druid (more nature magic), Rogue (more skill based), Bard (more hybridized), or Barbarian (more natural martial).

 

[Horwath]

You'll be able to find (and afford) Half plate long before your Fighters and Paladins can afford Full plate, and even when they can afford that Armor, you're only 1 AC point behind.

1 AC point in exchange for spellcasting, an extra skill, favoured terrain, and expertise in at least 1 skill isnt a bad exchange at all!

what expertise?