D&D (2024) The Lackluster Ranger

[mellored]

Ok. Question for all: should rangers be top damage dealers at all tiers? Or should they step back a bit behond pure single target martials once they become competent spellcasters?

IMO, make them a bit more of glass cannons.

I.e.
Remove the level 10 THP, remove shield proficiency, and replace with scaling Hunter's Mark die.

In contrasting paladins who have heavy armor and healing.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

IMO, make them a bit more of glass cannons.

I.e.
Remove the level 10 THP, remove shield proficiency, and replace with scaling Hunter's Mark die.

Yes. I do agree. Just a reminder to not overpower ranger. We are glad that the fighter finally is an absolute beast.

In contrasting paladins who have heavy armor and healing.

 

[Zardnaar]

Any dual wielder.
Free hunters mark + nick work out damage anything else.

Does really well as ranged too, but rogues edge them out.

It's really the lack of a tier 3 boost that keeps them down. If your campaign ends before 10, rangers are fine.


Kind of think hunters mark should scale with proficiency bonus or the same as monks dice.
And then add a new capstone.

Well twf leans towards an extra d8 damage on hunter while beastmaster can be tripping over bonus actions.

I liked the 2014 hunter it was the BM that sucked. Hordebreaker+sharpshooter was very good.

 

[ECMO3]

Ok. Question for all: should rangers be top damage dealers at all tiers? Or should they step back a bit behind pure single target non spellcasting martials once they become competent spellcasters?

No.

When we talk about "half-casters" we generally think of a martial with a little bit of casting ability. I think that should be the Paladin.

I personally think the Ranger should be the opposite side of that coin: A caster with a bit of martial ability. I think they need more boons to their spells, and not really Hunter's Mark. Get rid of Hunter's Mark as a spell, but give the Ranger extra spell slots like what Favored Foe does now and at higher levels make them higher level slots, or alternatively a free casting of a spell they choose after each short rest. Then take the abilities related to Hunter's Mark and apply to other spells or all spells (like Concentration on any spell can't be broken by damage). Finally give them more spells off the Wizard and Sorcerer list. Things like Magic Missile, Shield, Mirror Image ....

That might not be popular but that is what I think the "Ranger" should be.

 

[Corinnguard]

I personally think the Ranger should be the opposite side of that coin: A caster with a bit of martial ability. I think they need more boons to their spells, and not really Hunter's Mark. Get rid of Hunter's Mark as a spell, but give the Ranger extra spell slots like what Favored Foe does now and at higher levels make them higher level slots, or alternatively a free casting of a spell they choose after each short rest. Then take the abilities related to Hunter's Mark and apply to other spells or all spells (like Concentration on any spell can't be broken by damage). Finally give them more spells off the Wizard and Sorcerer list. Things like Magic Missile, Shield, Mirror Image ....

Wouldn't this make the Ranger into the druidic equivalent of the Bladesinger Wizard?

 

[ECMO3]

Wouldn't this make the Ranger into the druidic equivalent of the Bladesinger Wizard?

Kind of. I think the Bladesinger is really in a class of its own as it is a full caster that competes with a full martial in capability (was better than a full martial prior to 2024). I would like the Ranger to be more control or utility oriented caster than the Bladesinger subclass encourages.

Note: To be clear a Bladesinger can be an awesome controller, like any Wizard, but the subclass drives you towards weapon combat.

 

[Corinnguard]

Note: To be clear a Bladesinger can be an awesome controller, like any Wizard, but the subclass drives you towards weapon combat.

Could you see a Wizard subclass that drives you towards stealth and some of the abilities of the Rogue?

 

[Zardnaar]

Kind of. I think the Bladesinger is really in a class of its own as it is a full caster that competes with a full martial in capability (was better than a full martial prior to 2024). I would like the Ranger to be more control or utility oriented caster than the Bladesinger subclass encourages.

Note: To be clear a Bladesinger can be an awesome controller, like any Wizard, but the subclass drives you towards weapon combat.

Apparently fighter or Paladin 1/bladesinger is great or EK 7/BS3.

 

[mellored]

I personally think the Ranger should be the opposite side of that coin: A caster with a bit of martial ability.

Rangers as spell casters doesn't seem right IMO. A large chunk of people want them without any spells.

There's Valor bard, pact blade, war cleric, Shillelagh Druid, Bladesinger. So it's covered.

Yes. I do agree. Just a reminder to not overpower ranger. We are glad that the fighter finally is an absolute beast.

I don't think scaling Hunter's Mark damage will make them OP.

Paladins get +1d8 on all their attacks at 11, without a cost.

 

[Minigiant]

Ok. Question for all: should rangers be top damage dealers at all tiers? Or should they step back a bit behind pure single target non spellcasting martials once they become competent spellcasters?

No

The top damage dealers should be the pure martials: fighter, rogue, and eeergh barbarian if you squint.

The half casters, Artificer, Ranger, and Paladin should be burning spells to almost catch up.

You don't get to have utility, defense, and healing spells and be top 3 damage. That's bad design.