D&D (2024) Ranger 2024 is a bigger joke than Ranger 2014:

[Minigiant]

Take away hunters mark and you are left with inferior fighters without heavy armour proficiency.

Rangers are boring because 5e has no job for them to do (and doesn’t need a job for them to do).

Only at low levels. not only at combat.

But Ranger has better skills from level 1, more support ability, more utility, more control, more AOE.

And once you get to level 5, the rangers damage gets closer to a fighter while keeping all of the above.

Again if the gripe is that the Ranger does not fight as well as the fighter well of course. The Fighter is called the fighter the main point of it is to fight. The range should not outshine the fighter at damage and tanking.

But if you actually want rangery stuff the ranger does it pretty well. The real issue is that Wizards of the coast did not support Rangers with additional rangery spells over the 10 years of 5e.

 

[Scott Christian]

Nah you're good mate. It's all those darn other people wanting something more/different.

So many such people.

Apparently.

(I would be one of those people if I had any interest in D&D. I usually gravitate to the ranger-type characters. But the D&D ranger, in all its supposed variations and subclasses, I just bounce right off that. I might have liked it in 4e if there were several much juicier options in that edition.)

I would argue it is players always wanting more/stronger classes. That's it.

If the ranger suddenly had one or two powers that made it extremely strong, like a fireball arrow and time-slow arrow at level 3 and 5 respectively, everyone would be praising the ranger. Except of course new DMs, who might have difficulty with encounter creation.

The argument against any class, both for and against, almost always comes down to power. People may phrase it as role-limbo, not flavorful, or oddly progressed. But those seem to be masks for power.

 

[TiQuinn]

I would argue it is players always wanting more/stronger classes. That's it.

If the ranger suddenly had one or two powers that made it extremely strong, like a fireball arrow and time-slow arrow at level 3 and 5 respectively, everyone would be praising the ranger. Except of course new DMs, who might have difficulty with encounter creation.

The argument against any class, both for and against, almost always comes down to power. People may phrase it as role-limbo, not flavorful, or oddly progressed. But those seem to be masks for power.

I’ve never quite understood the idea that there needs to be a one for one class-role dichotomy. As I’ve described rangers in the past, they’re mobile, they’re resilient, and independent. They can fight, they can sneak, they can heal, they have knowledge in the wilderness or survival areas. But for some reason, that’s not a “role” because they’re not the best striker or best controller or best blaster - terms that represent one school of thought in games but not necessarily the one that D&D subscribed to outside of 4e, I suppose. So yeah, in terms of power, if you’re not the best at something, you’re not anywhere in that mindset — a well rounded class is irrelevant.

 

[mellored]

It does deliver on a dashing dual dagger dervish dishing damage to dastardly demons.

But if I want to do something besides damage...
I got Ensnaring Stike.

 

[Mistwell]

this is the problem.
Rangers will not have problems with dealing damage, they will have problems with boredom,
it will just be HM, attack, attack, attack, throw some bonus action non-concetration spell, HM, attack, attack...

if there needs to be focus of HM; then put it in ALL into hunter subclass, throw all these features of base class into Hunter subclass and give broad abilities to base class that are not focused on single spell.

And as I explore two weapon fighting and weapon masteries more I am realizing it's going to be anything but boredom for the Ranger. It's going to be tactics heavy. I suspect they will swap weapons a lot.

 

[Mistwell]

Only at low levels. not only at combat.

But Ranger has better skills from level 1, more support ability, more utility, more control, more AOE.

And once you get to level 5, the rangers damage gets closer to a fighter while keeping all of the above.

Again if the gripe is that the Ranger does not fight as well as the fighter well of course. The Fighter is called the fighter the main point of it is to fight. The range should not outshine the fighter at damage and tanking.

But if you actually want rangery stuff the ranger does it pretty well. The real issue is that Wizards of the coast did not support Rangers with additional rangery spells over the 10 years of 5e.

I genuinely believe ranger damage output will outperform fighter damage output up until around level 11 with two weapon fighting. I am still crunching numbers but it looks that way. They will be a damage dishing Cuisinart of destruction.

 

[mellored]

And as I explore two weapon fighting and weapon masteries more I am realizing it's going to be anything but boredom for the Ranger. It's going to be tactics heavy.

All light, finesse weapons are either Vex or Nick.
I.e. damage and damage.

And hunters mark encourages you to hit more accurately and more often.
I.e. damage.


Ranged has a few tactical options.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Take away hunters mark and you are left with inferior fighters without heavy armour proficiency.

Which is incorrect.
They are still halfcasters with a lot of tools in their arsenal.
Fighters (without subclass) don't have a lot to do either.

One common mistake i see here and on reddit is comparing rangers without subclass against other classes with subclasses.
Ranger is inferior oath of vengeance paladin... yes... but a gloomstalker or fey wanderer or beast master has other abilities.

Rangers are boring because 5e has no job for them to do (and doesn’t need a job for them to do).

Maybe. But a ranger is quite a good generalist. Their main attributes align with the most useful ones. Dex, Wis, Con, and a bit of Str.
They can be good in melee and on range. They are quite good at skills.

Maybe the ranger is not the best at anything. But they are great at two pillars. Combat and exploration.
The paladin excels in combat and social situations while also not being the best anywhere.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Nah you're good mate. It's all those darn other people wanting something more/different.

So many such people.

Apparently.

(I would be one of those people if I had any interest in D&D. I usually gravitate to the ranger-type characters. But the D&D ranger, in all its supposed variations and subclasses, I just bounce right off that. I might have liked it in 4e if there were several much juicier options in that edition.)

And I have tried 4 different ranger builds, focussing on dex, wis, and str main. Having high and low con. Having all different subclasses and weapon masteries.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Which is incorrect.
They are still halfcasters with a lot of tools in their arsenal.

Eldritch Knight with slightly more spells and slightly less armour.