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

[doctorbadwolf]

Now put them in a one on one fight. Ranger wins due to no SA for the Rogue, more HP for the Ranger, and likely also a better AC.

You sure? No SA for the Rogue? I guess it's harder to get at level 1, but level 2 hits and it's pretty easy, but even then, the Rogue has plenty of skills.

 

[cbwjm]

A party with a Ranger (Outlander) in Chult:

DM: You move at 10 miles per day because of the difficult terrain of the jung..
Ranger: Nope. We move at normal speed as per the DMG; 24 miles per day.
DM OK then, this is a hexcrawl and you need to make Survival checks or you get los...
Ranger: Nope. I never get lost. I also have a good idea of whats around me (ruins, settlements, terrain features etc) in the local area at all times.
DM: OK, food and water are hard to...
Ranger: Nope. I can feed myself and up to 10 people with no checks required.
DM: OK, screw it, where do you want to go?

Outlander doesn't lets you recall the area around you, you don't automatically know where all the ruins, settlements etc. are in the local area if you haven't had reason to know about them before. Entering into a hexcrawl, your outlander ranger is still going in blind.

 

[Mistwell]

The PHB BM is among the worst design I've ever seen. It is the opposite of fun.

It's gotten positive ratings on surveys, positive reviews on people reviewing it, and high level of people playing it on all objective measures of classes people play.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's gotten positive ratings on surveys, positive reviews on people reviewing it, and high level of people playing it on all objective measures of classes people play.

This. It's too popular to be "the opposite of fun". On the other hand, they keep trying to fix it, and have said flat out IIRC that while it gets played a lot it also rates pretty low on satisfaction compared to where they want popular options to be. In other words, its a thing people really want to play, and don't enjoy playing as much as they want to.

 

[Helldritch]

You can´t make an ability that stacks with everything at level 1 that has no concentration. I am glad you are not designing the game.
Yes, maybe remove concentration at level 6 would have been a good idea, but giving 1d6 per attack at level 1 that (I repeat myself) stacks with everything... no thanks.
Edit: and there is more new stuff than reprint. Xanathar also had reprints and was received well...

Could not have done worse than the Tasha book.
1d6 to a class that can have a maximum of three attacks. A total of 11 damage... just wow. Clearly over powered. At 1st level that D6 can be done a grand total of two times per day. Preposterous!

The ranger with our little house rule isn't doing the damage the great weapon master does with his two handed sword. And by far.

Or maybe you think about cheesing that ability from a one level dip in the ranger class? Nope no can do. We have limits on how multiclass works. Single class ranger only. Same thing for Hex. So we got abuses (or potential abuses) under cover.

 

[BacchusNL]

This. It's too popular to be "the opposite of fun". On the other hand, they keep trying to fix it, and have said flat out IIRC that while it gets played a lot it also rates pretty low on satisfaction compared to where they want popular options to be. In other words, its a thing people really want to play, and don't enjoy playing as much as they want to.

That's sounds pretty spot on and I can easily see that being true. Wether people are coming into the Ranger with an image of Drizzt in their heads or after having played Hunter in Wow, having a pet is quite iconic. Not to mention furry companions always rate high in general, so I'm not suprised it's something many people gravitate towards even when it''s mechanicly flawed.

 

[CleverNickName]

Here's a thought exercise for everyone.

Suppose I rolled up a bard in 5th Edition, and I name him Higgins. For his race, I chose Wood Elf (+2 Dex, keen senses, weapon proficiencies, mask of the wild). For his background I chose Outlander (proficient with Athletics and Survival). And I choose his three class proficiencies from the same list as the Ranger class. I outfit Higgins with studded leather armor, a longbow, and a set of daggers. At 3rd level he chooses the College of Swords to get the Two-Weapon Fighting combat style and the extra attack.

So is Higgins a ranger? Why or why not?

Suppose I rolled up a cleric named Sparrow (also wood elf, also Outlander background, also outfitted with studded leather and longbow and daggers. Sparrow chooses the Nature domain, and chooses as many of her proficiencies from the ranger class list as she can). So: is Sparrow a ranger? Why or why not?

How you answer the "why or why not" question will inform you about what truly "makes" the Ranger a stand-alone class according to you. Is it because they don't have a tracking bonuses against a particular creature, or while exploring a particular terrain? Is it because they can't cast hunter's mark? Is it just because the character sheet doesn't have the word "ranger" anywhere on it?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That's sounds pretty spot on and I can easily see that being true. Wether people are coming into the Ranger with an image of Drizzt in their heads or after having played Hunter in Wow, having a pet is quite iconic. Not to mention furry companions always rate high in general, so I'm not suprised it's something many people gravitate towards even when it''s mechanicly flawed.

Yep, also, a lot of DMs probably just make it work at the table, which means that players aren’t discouraged from playing it, but are aware that it requires DM intervention, and so keep playing it but vote that it is unsatisfying.

 

[Lanefan]

Here's a thought exercise for everyone.

Suppose I rolled up a bard in 5th Edition, and I name him Higgins. For his race, I chose Wood Elf (+2 Dex, keen senses, weapon proficiencies, mask of the wild). For his background I chose Outlander (proficient with Athletics and Survival). And I choose his three class proficiencies from the same list as the Ranger class. I outfit Higgins with studded leather armor, a longbow, and a set of daggers. At 3rd level he chooses the College of Swords to get the Two-Weapon Fighting combat style and the extra attack.

So is Higgins a ranger? Why or why not?

No, Higgins is a Bard who so liked playing the role of a Ranger on a stage somewhere he just never left the part behind when the show closed.

Suppose I rolled up a cleric named Sparrow (also wood elf, also Outlander background, also outfitted with studded leather and longbow and daggers. Sparrow chooses the Nature domain, and chooses as many of her proficiencies from the ranger class list as she can). So: is Sparrow a ranger? Why or why not?

Closer than the Bard, but still doesn't have much that in my eyes makes a Ranger what it is (then again, 5e Rangers as written don't have much of it either...)

My idea of a Ranger can track, can forage, can identify plants and herbs, can fight, has Con as its prime stat, and doesn't get casting ability until higher level. It doesn't have or need a pet.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Here's a thought exercise for everyone.

Suppose I rolled up a bard in 5th Edition, and I name him Higgins. For his race, I chose Wood Elf (+2 Dex, keen senses, weapon proficiencies, mask of the wild). For his background I chose Outlander (proficient with Athletics and Survival). And I choose his three class proficiencies from the same list as the Ranger class. I outfit Higgins with studded leather armor, a longbow, and a set of daggers. At 3rd level he chooses the College of Swords to get the Two-Weapon Fighting combat style and the extra attack.

So is Higgins a ranger? Why or why not?

Suppose I rolled up a cleric named Sparrow (also wood elf, also Outlander background, also outfitted with studded leather and longbow and daggers. Sparrow chooses the Nature domain, and chooses as many of her proficiencies from the ranger class list as she can). So: is Sparrow a ranger? Why or why not?

How you answer the "why or why not" question will inform you about what truly "makes" the Ranger a stand-alone class according to you. Is it because they don't have a tracking bonuses against a particular creature, or while exploring a particular terrain? Is it because they can't cast hunter's mark? Is it just because the character sheet doesn't have the word "ranger" anywhere on it?

No, its pretty easy and not all that personal.

They're scouts or trackers, which is only part of what the ranger does, and the vast majority of what these characters can do has no relationship whatsoever with what rangers do.

Feel free to explain what bardic inspiration and charm spells, or channel divinity and holy fire and wrath, have to do with rangers?

Rangers aren't just scouts.