D&D (2024) 2024 Player's Handbook reveal: "New Ranger"

"More than any other class, the ranger is a new class."

​

It has been a year (less a day) since we last saw the Ranger in UA Playtest 6. There still could be a lot of change. My sense is that they are more or less happy with three of the subclasses (Fey Wanderer, Beastmaster, and Gloom Stalker), but many questions remain: Will anyone be happy with the favored enemy/relation to the land abilities? Will Hunter's Mark be foregrounded in multiple abilities? Will rangers at least get a free casting of the Barrage/Volley spells? For the Hunter, will the "Superior" abilties at levels 11 and 15 continue to be things you didn't choose at lower levels? For the Gloom Stalker, will they pull out 3rd level invisibility from "Umbral Sight"? Any chance for a surprise substitution of the Horizon Walker? Let's find out.

OVERVIEW

• "widely played, but ... one of the lowest rated"
• Spellcasting and Weapon Mastery at 1 (as with Paladin). Spellcasting can change spells after long rest (not every level)
• NEW: Favored Enemy: Hunters Mark always prepared, and X castings per day. (was level 2 in PT6, where it was WIS times/day)
• NEW: Fighting Style at 2 (no limits on choice). or you may choose two cantrips (again, like Paladin).
• NEW: Deft Explorer at 3: expertise in a proficient skill, +2 languages. NO INTERACTION WITH LAND TYPES. This is a nerf from PT6, where at least you got a bonus to Intelligence (Nature) checks.
• Extra attack at 5, Roving at 6 (+10' move, Climb Speed, Swim speed).
• Two more expertise options, at 9, presumably. Compared to the playtest, this is a nerf: PT6 gave 1 expertise, the spell Conjure Barrage always prepared, and +2 land types for Explorer. These had problems, but it's a lot to lose for one additional expertise.
• At 10, Tireless (as in PT6) -- THP and reduced Exhaustion.
• NEW: At 13, Damage no longer breaks concentration with Hunter's Mark.
• At 14, Nature's Veil -- invisibility. At 18, Blindsight.
• NEW: At 17, advantage vs person marked with Hunter's Mark.
• NEW: Damage of Hunter's mark increases to d10, not d6. (This too is a nerf from the playtest, which gave +WIS to hit, and +WIS to damage.)

The clear expectation is you are using Hunter's Mark, occupying your concentration and taking your first Bonus action every combat, from levels 1-20.

SUBCLASSES
Beastmaster

• command Primal Beast as a bonus action, and higher level abilities as in PT6, apparently.
• stat blocks level up with you (as in Tasha's and PT6). Beast gets Hunter's Mark benefits at 11.

Fey Wanderer

• vague on specifics; apparently just as in Tasha's.

Gloom Stalker

• as in PT6, Psychic damage bonus a limited number of times per day. +WIS to initiative (cf. Assassin and Barbarian)
• Umbral Sight, darkvision bonus, and invisible in the dark.
• NEW: psychic damage goes up at level 11. Mass fear option of Sudden Strike mentioned, nothing about Sudden Strike.

Hunter.

• Hunter's Lore at 3: know if there are immunities/resistances of creature marked by Hunter's Mark.
• NEW: Hunter's Prey at 3: you have a choice and can change your choice every short/long rest.
• NEW: Defensive Tactics at 7: you have a choice, and again can choose after a rest. The choices are Escape the Horde, Multiattack defense (not Evasion, Uncanny Dodge, and Hunter's Leap, as in PT6).
• NEW: At 11, Hunter's mark now "splashes" damage onto another target.
• NEW: you can choose to take resistance to damage, until the end of your turn.

 

[Minigiant]

Like the handaxe?

Handaxe IMHO should be split into 0throwing axe and handaxe.

Just like the ranger design altogether, there was a gap made for DMs to create new weapons but few DM do. And the ones who do design outside the gaps.

I think that the DMG should encourage and offer guidance for custom weapon properties.

There are so people like @Horwath who would love if there was a build a custom weapon system.

Might get people to get into Bastions as they'd need a forge and a arcane tower to make a magic one.

Or a nice questhook.

 

[Horwath]

There are so people like @Horwath who would love if there was a build a custom weapon system.

Not as much as custom weapons system but more of a consistency in cost of each property.
And why finesse and STR based 1Handed weapons have same damage, and no, I do not count Versatile as a weapon property as much as a "legacy" trait when 2Handed melee attacks had 1+1/2 STR Bonus to damage.

Also weapon masteries should have been tied to characters and not weapons.
That is you learn few masteries and there are few weapons for each mastery where you can apply it.

 

[Minigiant]

Not as much as custom weapons system but more of a consistency in cost of each property.
And why finesse and STR based 1Handed weapons have same damage, and no, I do not count Versatile as a weapon property as much as a "legacy" trait when 2Handed melee attacks had 1+1/2 STR Bonus to damage.

Also weapon masteries should have been tied to characters and not weapons.
That is you learn few masteries and there are few weapons for each mastery where you can apply it.

Backwards compatibility.

DMs were supposed to add in their own or older edition variants but that never happened.

So we are stuck with a weapon table that is missing part of it.

 

[Scott Christian]

There's nothing in the kit that makes me go "OMG that's amazing", but there's also nothing that makes me say "Wow that's worthless." It's a collection of solid and useful features. The base class gives mobility, Expertise, temp HP, bonus action Invisibility, and more. The subclasses have the more damage focused features, with Hunter no longer being locked into a particular mode and Beast Master getting a pet that scales far better.

Maybe that's enough. If the class is effective in play and evokes the intended theme, maybe it doesn't need those features that look amazing in isolation on paper. Or maybe it'll be boring and middling. I'm not sure we'll know which until 6-12 months after release, when people have given it substantial actual play, and I'm not confident enough to lay a bet which way it'll go.

This. 100%.

I think the problem comes from everyone looking at the other classes, where the word "enhanced" is used about a million times. Then, this ranger, doesn't look as "enhanced" as the other classes.

On a side note, the backwards compatibility for the PHB is not really compatible as promised. I realize some core rules were changed (surprised for example), but all these classes seem like the 2nd edition splat books of classes. Not exactly like them, but definitely in the same vein.

 

[Rocker26a]

I think the problem comes from everyone looking at the other classes, where the word "enhanced" is used about a million times. Then, this ranger, doesn't look as "enhanced" as the other classes.

I just think Ranger was what they really could've done with impressing us on, every version has been mediocre to some degree, had very vocal criticism, so it's a bit unfortunate to have gotten to this point and it's just the same old story. Like even if it's functional, I think there was a reasonable call for more than that.

 

[Scott Christian]

I just think Ranger was what they really could've done with impressing us on, every version has been mediocre to some degree, had very vocal criticism, so it's a bit unfortunate to have gotten to this point and it's just the same old story. Like even if it's functional, I think there was a reasonable call for more than that.

Fair point. Maybe within that ruleset, it's just difficult to make 4 sub-classes of fighters, 4 sub-classes of paladins, 4 sub-classes of barbarians, 4 sub-classes of monks, and 4 sub-classes of rangers without overlapping greatly. Hence, maybe one of the classes falls between the cracks.

 

[Rocker26a]

Fair point. Maybe within that ruleset, it's just difficult to make 4 sub-classes of fighters, 4 sub-classes of paladins, 4 sub-classes of barbarians, 4 sub-classes of monks, and 4 sub-classes of rangers without overlapping greatly. Hence, maybe one of the classes falls between the cracks.

I dunno! I don't even think it necessarily has to be dramatically different (even though it's not to my personal taste), like even the same general idea but a little stronger could be just fine. And maybe let some stuff arrive together at earlier levels. So they don't have to break formula and put stuff on levels that they'd normally leave blank.

 

[Scott Christian]

I dunno! I don't even think it has to be dramatically different, like even the same general idea but a little stronger could be just fine. And maybe let some stuff arrive together at earlier levels. So they don't have to break formula and put stuff on levels that they'd normally leave blank.

I agree with you. But there are only so many knobs and dials to turn because of the core mechanics. Maybe once you start going down the control board, there are only so many knobs and dials to turn up for the ranger.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The sad thing is, that the ranger will be perfectly fine. They just overhyped it.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Fair point. Maybe within that ruleset, it's just difficult to make 4 sub-classes of fighters, 4 sub-classes of paladins, 4 sub-classes of barbarians, 4 sub-classes of monks, and 4 sub-classes of rangers without overlapping greatly. Hence, maybe one of the classes falls between the cracks.

i'm not sure if it's a huge issue that there's some conceptual overlap, it allows them to approach tropes from multiple directions, building on the different foundations of different classes allows the same concepts to be expressed and played in different ways.