D&D 5E The 2024 Ranger is Actually Pretty Good (with numbers)

[Minigiant]

added list is not the same as given usage and can't be equal. It's not like that is the ONLY spell of that level you can cast.

also, why does Favored enemy has 8 instances over 20 levels of Ranger?
Talk about overkill on focusing an entire class on a single (low level) feature.
A spell that is not that great to begin with and no one really likes the spell.

Cast HM and shoot two arrows.
Cast Spike Growth
Recast HM, stow now, draw sword, attack twice.

3 rounds. 3 spells. That's how low encounter Ranger is supposed to play.

 

[Ashrym]

added list is not the same as given usage and can't be equal.

Right. Those given uses are better for the ranger because they facilitate recasting the spell as needed. Those other classes lose spell slots to dropped concentration on recasts.

It's not like that is the ONLY spell of that level you can cast.

That's true for rangers too. They prepare between 2 and 15 spells on the class progression table and add whatever subclass spells they might.

also, why does Favored enemy has 8 instances over 20 levels of Ranger?

I'm not sure where you're getting that number from, but it's to improve it at higher levels.

Favored Enemy begins at 1st level and adds abilities at 13th, 17th, and 20th levels. The number of uses is equal to the proficiency bonus but separated from that bonus to prevent further dipping advantage.

Talk about overkill on focusing an entire class on a single (low level) feature.

I don't think the class is overly focused on that ability. It's seems like you might be but armor training, weapon specialization, other spells, fighting style, bonus skill and expertise fall far outside of a focus on Hunter's Mark.

Favored Enemy traits are a typical class trait though, and that's what the Hunter's Mark spell incorporated into the class represents.

A spell that is not that great to begin with and no one really likes the spell.

Then they probably shouldn't have been asking WotC to make it a class ability, maybe?

 

[Minigiant]

I don't think the class is overly focused on that ability. It's seems like you might be but armor training, weapon specialization, other spells, fighting style, bonus skill and expertise fall far outside of a focus on Hunter's Mark.

Favored Enemy traits are a typical class trait though, and that's what the Hunter's Mark spell incorporated into the class represents

It's a perception thing.

The Ranger's best damage is precasting a Summon X or Conjure X spell (unless you are BM then your Companion is your summon)

Hunter's Mark is for you are tracking, you can't precast, or your summons break.

There is a perception that because Summoner Mode Rangers are not top damage then Rangers should be able to use Conjure/Summon X and HM at the same time.

I don't think so
We should not raise Ranger to the OP standard of Vengeance Paladin and CME Wizard/Bard. Especially if we dub them as such.

 

[Horwath]

Right. Those given uses are better for the ranger because they facilitate recasting the spell as needed. Those other classes lose spell slots to dropped concentration on recasts.

Maybe the best would be to add that number of 1st level slots to ranger that can be used ONLY ON RANGER spells.
to prevent multiclass dip cheese.

That's true for rangers too. They prepare between 2 and 15 spells on the class progression table and add whatever subclass spells they might.

after a few spells of a given level rest is just maybe contingency.
after a 1st spell known, a slot is worth much more.

I'm not sure where you're getting that number from, but it's to improve it at higher levels.

Favored Enemy begins at 1st level and adds abilities at 13th, 17th, and 20th levels. The number of uses is equal to the proficiency bonus but separated from that bonus to prevent further dipping advantage.

as it is not tied to prof bonus, every instance of +1 usage at levels 5,9,13,17 is using your class resource pool that could be used on something else. even if trivial as +1 skill or few extra tools/languages.

I don't think the class is overly focused on that ability. It's seems like you might be but armor training, weapon specialization, other spells, fighting style, bonus skill and expertise fall far outside of a focus on Hunter's Mark.

Favored Enemy traits are a typical class trait though, and that's what the Hunter's Mark spell incorporated into the class represents.



Then they probably shouldn't have been asking WotC to make it a class ability, maybe?

for me in 5E and it's variants, best version is from Scout class from SW5E:

RANGER’S QUARRY​

Spoiler: Quarry

Scout: 1st, 5th, 9th, and 17th level
You learn how to effectively read and track your prey. Once on each of your turns, you can choose a creature you can see within 120 feet and mark it as your quarry (no action required). For the next hour, you gain the following benefits:

• Once per turn, when you hit the target with a weapon attack, you can deal 1d4 additional damage to it of the same type as the weapon’s damage. This die changes as you gain scout levels, as shown in the Ranger’s Quarry column of the scout table.
• You have advantage on any Wisdom (Perception) or Wisdom (Survival) check you make to find it while it’s on the same planet as you.

You can only have one creature marked in this way at a time. Beginning at 5th level, you can use your reaction to mark a creature when it enters your line of sight, provided it is within range of your Ranger’s Quarry.

The duration increases to 8 hours at 9th level and 24 hours at 17th level.

Honestly, I would add Insight to the list as it represents primal sense when someone is afraid/nervous/twitchy.

add that as base feature and bonus spellcasting per Long rest can go to Cure wounds or similar utility.

 

[Clint_L]

It is a DM problem. I would rather not have to make enemies congenitally stupid, or have NPCs come to the rescue, just because the enemies use sensible tactics. It's not much fun if the DM's biggest challenge is "how can I make these enemies dumb enough for the players to have a chance?", and it's not much fun for the DM to say "you all die like Boromir game over" either.

Ever played BG3, or even BG1? Bows absolutely massacre, because when you take the battlefield into account it matters more that you can reach your target than how much damage you do if you can manage to hit them.

And concentration? Stay out of reach and behind cover and you won't get hit, so won't need to make concentration checks.

You could just create the encounter such that missile weapons are not able to dominate. You have unlimited power over the narrative. I'm not sure what BG has to do with it - your players are not playing a video game that doesn't have a sentient DM.

I create encounters that are designed to be suitably challenging for the specific party that is playing the campaign.

 

[TwoSix]

It is a DM problem. I would rather not have to make enemies congenitally stupid, or have NPCs come to the rescue, just because the enemies use sensible tactics. It's not much fun if the DM's biggest challenge is "how can I make these enemies dumb enough for the players to have a chance?", and it's not much fun for the DM to say "you all die like Boromir game over" either.

Ever played BG3, or even BG1? Bows absolutely massacre, because when you take the battlefield into account it matters more that you can reach your target than how much damage you do if you can manage to hit them.

And concentration? Stay out of reach and behind cover and you won't get hit, so won't need to make concentration checks.

I don't think there's much debate that ranged is superior to melee, overall.

I think the question is, how often do the situations where ranged superiority becomes an overwhelming factor (encounter spaces where the enemy starts 150'+ away, the enemy has multiple ranged attackers, and room to kite) actually come into play? That seems incredibly campaign specific. In a dungeon crawl with non-humanoid monsters, it might be near zero. In a game of outdoor exploration against mostly intelligent humanoids, incredibly common.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I think the question is, how often do the situations where ranged superiority becomes an overwhelming factor (encounter spaces where the enemy starts 150'+ away, the enemy has multiple ranged attackers, and room to kite) actually come into play?

I would assume an average of 1/3 of all attacks are ranged, for the purpose of mathematical modelling, since it's common for at least the first round to begin at range, and combats typically last 3 rounds. That's assuming the character wants to close, of course. Even in tight dungeons I've observed that ranged PCs can usually kite.

But the thing is, a Dex ranger can be good at melee AND range, whereas a Wis ranger is not. The difference between 14 Dex and 16 Dex may not be much at level 1, but the difference between 14 Dex and 20 Dex at level 8 is huge.

 

[TwoSix]

But the thing is, a Dex ranger can be good at melee AND range, whereas a Wis ranger is not. The difference between 14 Dex and 16 Dex may not be much at level 1, but the difference between 14 Dex and 20 Dex at level 8 is huge.

That doesn't surprise me. Unless a class has specific features pointing them in a melee direction (like paladin smites or barbarian rage/reckless), Dex builds are pretty much always better. That's been true for 10 years, and nothing in the little bit I've seen of '24 material seems likely to make that change.

 

[Minigiant]

But the thing is, a Dex ranger can be good at melee AND range, whereas a Wis ranger is not. The difference between 14 Dex and 16 Dex may not be much at level 1, but the difference between 14 Dex and 20 Dex at level 8 is huge.

The main strength of the ranger is that is a good switch hitter.

 

[TwoSix]

This comment seems odd to me - it's like a comment I would see on the World of Warcraft forums, where people are looking for optimal group composition to run a raid or something.

But D&D is usually played by groups of friends who are looking to build a good story together. We aren't recruiting strangers to fill a party niche. Don't most groups support whatever each player wants to play?

I would certainly hope so.

We have some individuals who will make a character based on "Oh, I think the party might need a healer" or "We look light on skills". But certainly nothing like a group expectation.

If you want to play a blasting cleric or a melee sorcerer, you do you!

I don't play with people who actually care if we "beat" the adventure. We're there for the experience. If we TPK, that's awesome.