D&D (2024) The Lackluster Ranger

Wrathful Smite is only d6/ level vs 2d8 a real smite.

You also need to blow a feat on it. Paladins and Rangers get that free so opportunity cost they've picked up GWM as well plus smite/HM or both if you're an avenger.

Wrathful Smite is only 1d6 with a 1st level slot, but you have both higher level slots and more slots than a Paladin of equal level, and you are getting cantrip scaling for one attack on top of that. At high level a Bladesinger is also adding Intelligence damage to every attack on top of that while in Bladesong. You do use a feat for it.

GWM is more damage if you are using a heavy weapon, but not more damage if you are not. Further it is available to those casters as well (although not really compatible with Bladesong).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Wrathful Smite is only 1d6 at 1st level, but you have both higher level slots and more slots than a Paladin of equal level, and you are getting cantrip scaling on top of that. At high level a Bladesinger is also adding Intelligence to every attack on top of that while in Bladesong. You do use a feat for it.

GWM is more damage if you are using a heavy weapon, but not more damage if you are not. Further it is available to those casters as well (although not really compatible with Bladesong).

Touche. I know bladsinger is up there along with MC bladesinger. Figher splash or 6/7 iirc.
 

Every other thing people requests is not backwards compatible to the 2014 nonPHB ranger content.
  1. You can't make spells option
  2. You can't make Hunter's Mark not a spell
  3. You can't make the range's focus on Rangers the beast
  4. You can't make the ranger a full Martial
  5. You can't force a new exploration system
  6. You can't add a new survival system and make it mandatory in order to make the Ranger valid in every campaign if it was survival based.
Dunno. They tried to make the warlock a half caster.

It failed, but it shows bigger changes could of happened.


Though at this point, I can only see them adding new spells. Like a level 3 Hunter's Mark that deals 2d6 damage and lets you track better.
 

Every other thing people requests is not backwards compatible to the 2014 nonPHB ranger content.
  1. You can't make spells option
yes you can.
make 1/2 caster a subclass
  1. You can't make Hunter's Mark not a spell
see SW5E scout class.
It's an at will ability that is weaker than HM, but imitates it.
and if you really want to, you can stack HM on it.
  1. You can't make the range's focus on Rangers the beast
you can, but not one wants it by default, hence subclass.
or in that direction, remove tracking bonuses from HM as that is given by Ranger's focus and add that HM remove range and cover penalties.
  1. You can't make the ranger a full Martial
see the 1/2 caster subclass solution
  1. You can't force a new exploration system
  2. You can't add a new survival system and make it mandatory in order to make the Ranger valid in every campaign if it was survival based.
This is game design failing.
is it too late now to introduce it? Probably. They had 10 years of 5E to refine it. They didn't.
They could make all adventure require one character to have expertise in Survival or similar bonus or they would have complications or if no one had Survival to have really bad time.
 


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?
maybe,
but only if they burn ALL spell slots with some "smite like" spell into boosting their single target damage.
 



yes you can.
make 1/2 caster a subclass

see SW5E scout class.
It's an at will ability that is weaker than HM, but imitates it.
and if you really want to, you can stack HM on it.

you can, but not one wants it by default, hence subclass.
or in that direction, remove tracking bonuses from HM as that is given by Ranger's focus and add that HM remove range and cover penalties.

see the 1/2 caster subclass solution

This is game design failing.
is it too late now to introduce it? Probably. They had 10 years of 5E to refine it. They didn't.
They could make all adventure require one character to have expertise in Survival or similar bonus or they would have complications or if no one had Survival to have really bad time.

I mean the community would not let WOTC do it.

They tried to standardize subclasses. That was reverted.
They tried to make the warlock a half caster and that was reverted.
They tried to make hex and Hunter's Mark once per turn and scale with level That would reverted.
They try to give druids templates that was reverted.

The community voted down any major change BUT keeps harping on wanting major change on the ranger.
 

Dunno. They tried to make the warlock a half caster.

It failed, but it shows bigger changes could of happened.


Though at this point, I can only see them adding new spells. Like a level 3 Hunter's Mark that deals 2d6 damage and lets you track better.
Exactly.

WOTC's design was handcuffed by the community's desire that all the official and 3PP splat books be compatible with the 2024 version.

So WOTC would be forced to only put plug and play elements like spells.

The ranger is weak damagewise in Tier 3 because WOTC isn't allowed to create a new feature for it and they didn't give it new spells Their only options were.

Hide in Plain Sight (2014)
Lands Stride (2014)
Vanish (2014)
Tireless (Tasha's)
Nature's Veil (Tasha's)

WOTC didn't really add anything new class features in 2024 but Masteries. They mostly just modified 2014 or Tasha's stuff. Only Sorcerer got something wholly new in 2014 in Inmate Sorcery.

The best WOTC would be allowed to do is make Tireless or Vanish deal damage somehow
 

Remove ads

Top