D&D 5E Ranger Rating Thread

[Gladius Legis]

What's wrong with Favored Foe? I think it's a brilliant replacement for Favored Enemy.

The concentration part of it. It puts the Ranger back on Square One, a class whose features still compete with each other.

At the very least the concentration part should've been eliminated at level 6, if they were worried about Ranger dips for it.

 

[Sacrosanct]

One word: Concentration.

The concentration part of it. It puts the Ranger back on Square One, a class whose features still compete with each other.

At the very least the concentration part should've been eliminated at level 6, if they were worried about Ranger dips for it.

I disagree that the concentration thing makes it bad. It still frees up that spell slot that would normally be used on hunter's mark to be used for something else. For example, now using favored foe along with zephyr strike for the same spell slot cost as hunter's mark all by itself.

 

[BacchusNL]

I legitimately do not understand the love for Gloom Stalker. The flavor is cool, but the mechanics are not compelling to me at all.

I assume the draw is the invisibility to darkvision in darkness? In the campaigns we play the only creatures who don't carry a readily available light source essentially at all times are those that are incapable of doing so. And many of those have alternate senses. Further, the ability is just bad if you have PCs that don't have darkvision in the party because they'll be carrying light sources. I suppose it's decent for scouting, but you still need Stealth.

If those orcs are carrying around torches instead of shields because they are afraid of rangers lurking in shadows which their normal darkvision already covered....then didn't the ability already pay itself off by removing their AC? Your standard orc also carries a greataxe, so in combat that torch will have to be put down.

And that's pretty much a worst-case-scenario. Best case scenario; DM's rule this as "you have greater invisibility active when you are in darkness vs non-truesight enemies". A bit like being a rogue with bonus action hide, it's one of those "YMMV" abilities, I think.

 

[Minigiant]

Can I do 2?

Look like a Ranger

1. Hunter
2. Horizon Walker
3. Gloom Stalker
4. Fey Wanderer
5. Beast Master
6. Swarmkeeper
7. Monster Slayer

Play like a Ranger

1. Horizon Stalker
2. Gloom Stalker
3. Swarmkeeper
4. Hunter
5. Fey Wanderer
6. Beast Master
7. Monster Slayer

 

[Flamestrike]

One word: Concentration.

Beast masters need their bonus action to command their beast to attack. Monster hunters need it for Slayers eye. TWF guys need it for the off hand attack.

My Beastmaster can now has the option to use a bonus action to command the beast to attack on round 1 AND gain a damage buff for my own attacks.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Beast masters need their bonus action to command their beast to attack. Monster hunters need it for Slayers eye. TWF guys need it for the off hand attack.

My Beastmaster can now has the option to use a bonus action to command the beast to attack on round 1 AND gain a damage buff for my own attacks.

Hunter's Mark is one bonus action. It applies an extra 1d6 damage to all of your attacks, as long as the target is alive. If you manage to kill it, you're not getting punished for having to use a bonus action to move it to another creature, that's a benefit.

The problem is that this feature is strictly worse than Hunter's Mark, other than its trigger. Still concentration, no chance of an extended duration, less damage overall, and no added benefit for tracking.

I would be fine if they just did the UA version of Favored Foe without the "no concentration" casting. I would be fine if they made this feature not be concentration. However, they did neither of those things, and this feature really, really sucks. It's got all of the same problems as Hunter's Mark, while being strictly worse.

 

[Flamestrike]

Hunter's Mark is one bonus action. It applies an extra 1d6 damage to all of your attacks, as long as the target is alive. If you manage to kill it, you're not getting punished for having to use a bonus action to move it to another creature, that's a benefit.

The problem is that this feature is strictly worse than Hunter's Mark, other than its trigger. Still concentration, no chance of an extended duration, less damage overall, and no added benefit for tracking.

Damage isnt the Rangers problem though. Rangers are just fine for damage at low level for damage (top tier actually). Rangers run into problems at middle and high level, where there just isnt enough in the class to justify sticking with it.

On round 1, my 3rd level Beastmaster has the option of either [weapon attack and Favored foe] and [Direct the beast to attack] or Hunters mark and attack.

Beast of the land Charge: 1d8+1d6+4 (and Save or be knocked prone) and weapon attack 1d8+3+1d4 (total 22 damage)
or
Hunters mark and Weapon attack: 1d8+1d6+3 (total 11 damage)

I get that in subsequent rounds Hunters mark starts to pull even and even pull ahead, but in many cases (for Beastmasters) using Favored foe is a niche ability that lets it get its Beast doing its schtick on round 1.

 

[Charlaquin]

I legitimately do not understand the love for Gloom Stalker. The flavor is cool, but the mechanics are not compelling to me at all.

I assume the draw is the invisibility to darkvision in darkness? In the campaigns we play the only creatures who don't carry a readily available light source essentially at all times are those that are incapable of doing so. And many of those have alternate senses. Further, the ability is just bad if you have PCs that don't have darkvision in the party because they'll be carrying light sources. I suppose it's decent for scouting, but you still need Stealth.

Bonus to initiative, bonus damage on turn 1, free Darkvision or improved Darkvision if you already have it, invisibility against creatures with Darkvision in darkness, Wis save proficiency (!!), an extra attack if you miss, and a self-targeting Protection style? What’s not to like? Every single feature is very valuable, whereas most subclasses have at least one “meh” level.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Damage isnt the Rangers problem though. Rangers are just fine for damage at low level for damage (top tier actually). Rangers run into problems at middle and high level, where there just isnt enough in the class to justify sticking with it.

On round 1, my 3rd level Beastmaster has the option of either [weapon attack and Favored foe] and [Direct the beast to attack] or Hunters mark and attack.

Beast of the land Charge: 1d8+1d6+4 (and Save or be knocked prone) and weapon attack 1d8+3+1d4 (total 22 damage)
or
Hunters mark and Weapon attack: 1d8+1d6+3 (total 11 damage)

I get that in subsequent rounds Hunters mark starts to pull even and even pull ahead, but in many cases (for Beastmasters) using Favored foe is a niche ability that lets it get its Beast doing its schtick on round 1.

Damage isn't, but concentration is. The majority of their spells are concentration, which makes this yet another option for a concentration feature that they do not need.

 

[Flamestrike]

Damage isn't, but concentration is. The majority of their spells are concentration, which makes this yet another option for a concentration feature that they do not need.

Then dont use it. Without it, Rangers are just fine at low levels for damage anyway.