D&D (2024) The Lackluster Ranger

[ECMO3]

honestly, capstone at 20th level is so irrelevant for that as it is not seen in 99% of the games.
Capstone should be at 11th level with possible improvements or extra usages later.
11th level means it cannot be taken by 2 classes for multiclass character.

I don't think there is any data to support the 99% of games. I would agree it is probably most games, but there are a substantial number of people who play to 20th level.

About haldf of the games I play (I would guess over half) now go to 20th level. It is something I see pretty regularly and while my PCs don't get the capstone because they multiclass, many other PCs at the table to.

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't think there is any data to support the 99% of games. I would agree it is probably most games, but there are a substantial number of people who play to 20th level.

About haldf of the games I play (I would guess over half) now go to 20th level. It is something I see pretty regularly and while my PCs don't get the capstone because they multiclass, many other PCs at the table to.

There's data from beyond. IIRC level 16+ combined was less than 1%.

70% 1-7, 10% reach level 10.

 

[James Gasik]

But more importantly, once you reach 20th level, how long do games continue playing? How long do you get to use that capstone ability anyways?

The idea of a max level ability as a "reward" for mastering a class is great hypothetically speaking, but in practice, it's probably not very relevant.

 

[CreamCloud0]

But more importantly, once you reach 20th level, how long do games continue playing? How long do you get to use that capstone ability anyways?

The idea of a max level ability as a "reward" for mastering a class is great hypothetically speaking, but in practice, it's probably not very relevant.

i'd say the idea probably functions better in video game environments, where progression and content isn't tied to level as directly, so you often get to take that capstone and really play around with it.

i'd be interested in seeing a version of 5e similar to what was mentioned upthread where character level outstrips class level, where you have say, 30 character levels and 12 levels of class progression for each class, so you get all your features in those 12 levels and things just keep scaling up off character level, so you're expected to have class capstones.

personally i liked the idea of more things scalling of off PB/LR, that even if you're a figher 18/cleric2, that you still use your channel divinity as a 20th level cleric.

 

[Horwath]

But more importantly, once you reach 20th level, how long do games continue playing? How long do you get to use that capstone ability anyways?

The idea of a max level ability as a "reward" for mastering a class is great hypothetically speaking, but in practice, it's probably not very relevant.

I would say, if you every get there, it's for a session, a last fight.

Sure, some people play 20+ games, but, how many are those? 1/10000?

That is why I said, capstone should be 11th level.

 

[Minigiant]

Overall I think the issue is the designers not the community know where they want to place ranger offensively.

If I were to map martial offense by spike and control

	Passive		Active
Spikey	Rogue		Paladin
		Monk
Smooth	Barbarian	Fighter	(Ranger??)

Ranger seems to be wanting to be designed for smooth active buffs but no one wants to commit to it

 

[James Gasik]

I miss 4e's take on this. You have a class, but it doesn't provide any capstone, just more abilities. It's at levels 11 and 21 that you get new abilities that define your character.

The Thief of Legend can steal anything, even his own soul. A warrior might become the Dread Pirate Roberts- even if he should die, he has an understudy he has mentored to take his mantle, replacing the original so that their legend may endure.

I understand that some people don't like their D&D games being so mythic, but that's why you have break points- when ogres and trolls stop being threats, you can move up to giants, or even dragons. And from there, to powerful extraplanar threats, where you're sailing the decapitated head of a dead god through the Astral Sea on route to a showdown with the would be emperor of the Githyanki as a stepping stone to dealing with Tiamat herself.

If you don't want the game to shift into overdrive, you don't really have to. You can stay playing a game where the best ability your class can give you is upgrading d6's to d10's for bonus damage.

And if you do want the game to feel epic, you can advance to something like the ability to steal the sound of a cat's footfall or the ambition of a mighty warlord.

 

[Retros_x]

Its the same like with (2014) monk. Players who only compare damage numbers in blank room scenarios will complain that they are too weak compared to a fighter, but with their utility and flexibility suddenly their strength shines if you a) play them accordingly and b) have a campaign where it matters (not just hack n slash in empty rooms).

I've played both monk and ranger in 5e14 and had tons of fun, did not feel bad at all. Honestly more fun than fighter, although that class is supposed to be better. I've not played 24 versions yet, but in my opinion class reworks for monks should focus on flexibility and class reworks for rangers should focus on utility. Its ok to not make as much damage as the damage dealing focused classes.

 

[Corinnguard]

Its ok to not make as much damage as the damage dealing focused classes.

Agreed. If you are a Ranger, it's sort of your job to explore and scout ahead of your party. You are the one who knows the quickest routes around difficult terrain, ensures that your party won't get lost in the wilderness, forages for supplies when the supplies you got from a town run low, and looks for signs of trouble.

Not everyone in an RPG is into combat. Some are explorers and some are the party's face.

 

[James Gasik]

Speaking to the class itself, there's nothing wrong with the Ranger, beyond the usual issue of most people having their own ideal of what the Ranger is/should be in their heads- it's a class that has struggled with it's identity, and generally changes the most with each new revision (2024 being the exception).

You could play a Ranger and have a lot of fun with it's mix of combat prowess, skill focus, and magic. The issue (if there is one, not everyone agrees) comes down to people who wanted something different from the Ranger- and the fact that the class isn't terribly exciting. There's nothing about the Ranger that stands out. For people who want a "WOW" factor to a class, they're not going to be happy with it.

They'll gravitate towards other classes- Druids turning into great huge beasts, Paladins being invincible burst damage machines, Rogues with the big crits and making godlike skill checks, Wizards turning reality inside out in brief spurts, or Monks making concepts like "encounter distance" laughable.

But the Ranger? He's not crackling with mystical energy or making a thousand attacks per turn or inverting encounter balance. He's just doing the best he can with the tools at his disposal.

At the end of the day, I think most people wish those tools were better/different, but at least they work.

The Ranger isn't the best at anything it does, not really. But that doesn't make it a bad class. At worst, it's boring or superfluous. The "fifth party member", if you will.

But it's still early. We have more subclasses to see, and I'm sure the class will have it's devotees, just like the Monk has over the years. Granted, the current Monk seems to have found it's groove at last, and may outshine the Ranger, but the Ranger has never really been a class for glory hounds anyways.

---

Ranger has always been that class I've always thought about playing, but never actually did. It always felt like it was missing something, or that some of it's mechanics were unwieldly, begging questions like "will I fight my favored enemy this session? Will we ever travel in my favored terrain? Will the party need my abilities to succeed?".

And the answer, too often, was "no, not really". I don't see that changing now, sadly, which is a bit frustrating, but that's fine. Not every class has to be for me.

Scout Rogues and Oath of the Ancients Paladins still exist. I can play a Druid and never even touch Wild Shape- heck, the Druid in my current campaign throws javelins about as often as he casts spells (magic javelins, but javelins all the same)!

So in a way, everyone has options to work with that can scratch the Ranger itch in a way that suits them. "Ranger" is more of a concept, an idea, than a class. If the current class doesn't suit you, well, there's more than one way to fulfill that fantasy.

It doesn't make the Ranger bad, just maybe, not the Ranger for you and me.