D&D (2024) 2024 Player's Handbook reveal: "New Ranger"

"More than any other class, the ranger is a new class."

​

It has been a year (less a day) since we last saw the Ranger in UA Playtest 6. There still could be a lot of change. My sense is that they are more or less happy with three of the subclasses (Fey Wanderer, Beastmaster, and Gloom Stalker), but many questions remain: Will anyone be happy with the favored enemy/relation to the land abilities? Will Hunter's Mark be foregrounded in multiple abilities? Will rangers at least get a free casting of the Barrage/Volley spells? For the Hunter, will the "Superior" abilties at levels 11 and 15 continue to be things you didn't choose at lower levels? For the Gloom Stalker, will they pull out 3rd level invisibility from "Umbral Sight"? Any chance for a surprise substitution of the Horizon Walker? Let's find out.

OVERVIEW

• "widely played, but ... one of the lowest rated"
• Spellcasting and Weapon Mastery at 1 (as with Paladin). Spellcasting can change spells after long rest (not every level)
• NEW: Favored Enemy: Hunters Mark always prepared, and X castings per day. (was level 2 in PT6, where it was WIS times/day)
• NEW: Fighting Style at 2 (no limits on choice). or you may choose two cantrips (again, like Paladin).
• NEW: Deft Explorer at 3: expertise in a proficient skill, +2 languages. NO INTERACTION WITH LAND TYPES. This is a nerf from PT6, where at least you got a bonus to Intelligence (Nature) checks.
• Extra attack at 5, Roving at 6 (+10' move, Climb Speed, Swim speed).
• Two more expertise options, at 9, presumably. Compared to the playtest, this is a nerf: PT6 gave 1 expertise, the spell Conjure Barrage always prepared, and +2 land types for Explorer. These had problems, but it's a lot to lose for one additional expertise.
• At 10, Tireless (as in PT6) -- THP and reduced Exhaustion.
• NEW: At 13, Damage no longer breaks concentration with Hunter's Mark.
• At 14, Nature's Veil -- invisibility. At 18, Blindsight.
• NEW: At 17, advantage vs person marked with Hunter's Mark.
• NEW: Damage of Hunter's mark increases to d10, not d6. (This too is a nerf from the playtest, which gave +WIS to hit, and +WIS to damage.)

The clear expectation is you are using Hunter's Mark, occupying your concentration and taking your first Bonus action every combat, from levels 1-20.

SUBCLASSES
Beastmaster

• command Primal Beast as a bonus action, and higher level abilities as in PT6, apparently.
• stat blocks level up with you (as in Tasha's and PT6). Beast gets Hunter's Mark benefits at 11.

Fey Wanderer

• vague on specifics; apparently just as in Tasha's.

Gloom Stalker

• as in PT6, Psychic damage bonus a limited number of times per day. +WIS to initiative (cf. Assassin and Barbarian)
• Umbral Sight, darkvision bonus, and invisible in the dark.
• NEW: psychic damage goes up at level 11. Mass fear option of Sudden Strike mentioned, nothing about Sudden Strike.

Hunter.

• Hunter's Lore at 3: know if there are immunities/resistances of creature marked by Hunter's Mark.
• NEW: Hunter's Prey at 3: you have a choice and can change your choice every short/long rest.
• NEW: Defensive Tactics at 7: you have a choice, and again can choose after a rest. The choices are Escape the Horde, Multiattack defense (not Evasion, Uncanny Dodge, and Hunter's Leap, as in PT6).
• NEW: At 11, Hunter's mark now "splashes" damage onto another target.
• NEW: you can choose to take resistance to damage, until the end of your turn.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

So....

Is there any reason not to take 1 level in rogue as a capstone for ranger?

 

[Henadic Theologian]

-Switching spells on a long rest is useful, half of the time I felt picking the Ranger spells weren't going to be good choices either. At least you can get one that's effective to have for the day.
-I guess the fighting styles opening up, does make the strength ranger more viable, as you can get Great Weapon Mastery. Though it might be amusing for a Ranger built around having a cantrip like Thorn Whip or Shillelagh.
-I'm pretty sure no one's truly satisfied about Hunter's Mark
-The Beastmaster Ranger art is one that we can say without a doubt is an Aasimar, as she's a Planetar descendant.
-Changing the Hunter's options on a long or short rest is a good one, just like changing the land option for the Circle of the Land or the beast options for Wildheart. I wonder if certain other subclasses in the future can switch choices on rests (well we know the Battlemaster can't).

Yeah the Beastmaster art is the best Ranger art we've seen. Both Aasimar Ranger and the Beast.

 

[mellored]

So....

Is there any reason not to take 1 level in rogue as a capstone for ranger?

Hunter with their splash will be happy with the +2 damage bump * 4 = +8

But that's probably about it.

 

[Minigiant]

So....

Is there any reason not to take 1 level in rogue as a capstone for ranger?

Well spell known.. no.
Spell slots go up... well no.

no.

 

[Marandahir]

Splash HM is officially my least favorite thing of 2024. Even if it is mechanically better than Volley.

...



Cut HM however... could be pretty fun on ranger...

Yeah, who the HECK teaches their Ranger a move that always results in "Ranger Was Flopping Around! No Effect!"
Especially one where you can't remove it without flying to Blackthorn City or somethin'

 

[GarrettKP]

Maybe unpopular opinion: I actually like the Ranger.

Sure, the capstone could be better. But overall I think they nailed it.

Hunters Mark as a core class feature is fine and how most players play the class anyway. If you were playing a melee Ranger, you were already taking Resilient Con or War Caster to maintain concentration on spells anyway, and the sustained 1d6 added damage over 2-4 attacks a turn will add up (4 because Beast Masters, 2-3 for everyone else).

On top of HM giving you a core damage boost, the Ranger subclasses all boost damage at level 3, with many getting more damage buffs at level 11. And from what we saw in the playtest, all those layer on HM, with Beast Master being the only one that may conflict with you BA on turn 1.

With fairly aggressive scaling on the free uses of HM, even at lower levels if you drop concentration you can usually pop it back up again easily.

So with HM, Subclass features, and Weapon Mastery, the Ranger should easily be able to keep up, damage wise, with the other martials, maybe even exceeding them with certain builds.

The rest of their kit gives them good maneuverability, good skill boosts, and some decent survivability in tier 3 with Tireless and Natures Veil.

All in all, I think it’s a good kit that will play fine at the table. The capstone isn’t great, sure. But I’ll take 95% good features, especially when the 5% bad is the one you’ll play with the least.

Now if Rangers get some “Smite” style spells by dropping concentration from things like Hail of Thorns and Lightning Arrow, I think they will be just fine.

 

[pukunui]

EDIT: Seems like the ranger is still a mixed bag. I like that they've incorporated the optional rules from Tasha's, but I don't like the emphasis on hunter's mark or the inclusion of the gloomstalker in the PHB. I currently ban that subclass from all my games, and I always feel more conflicted about banning stuff from the PHB than I do from supplements. (I also tend to ban the assassin and necromancer, but at least one of those isn't in the PHB now.)

I dunno. This, along with the new dragon designs (which I really dislike), is pushing me into a "wait and see" mode, whereas I was previously excited about this revision. I may end up just cherry picking stuff I like from the revision and running some sort of hybrid 2014/2024 game.

Or I'll just have to keep heavily house ruling the ranger like I currently do ...

 

[Asisreo]

Wow, I'm very impressed. WoTC managed to design a Ranger even I, 2014 Ranger's strongest warrior, don't like.

Honestly, I wish Hunter's Mark didn't change at all so they could put those buffs on the base Ranger chassis. Because it was never Ranger's best spell past level 5 and now its still not the Ranger's best spell and its taking up three features.

HM is not synonymous to Paladin's Smite, but by making it a spell, they've convinced themselves that it is.

I've played two rangers who never used HM. Now I'm practically forced to either use it or x out the features on my character sheet.

 

[Argyle King]

And for you, that makes sense. I'm just saying that while WotC has to ensure that the game doesn't break from multiclassing, they can't ASSUME that players will be using multiclassing when accounting for access to classic archetypes, because multiclassing is a layer of complexity that is simultaneously complex (and thus creates options paralysis), keyed-in for players more interested in bells and dials and levers in their game, and also intimidating in the sense of setting you up for potentially an extremely different power scaling than your compatriots due to power progression between classes and from level to level not following a linear pattern.

Assume multiclassing? No.
Though, generally speaking, I don't believe that multiclassing as a concept is all that complicated. I suppose that it does take some thought to weigh being great at one thing versus good at two things, but that shouldn't particularly matter if "bounded accuracy" is a reality of the game.

To be fair, I will admit to having a different point of view when it comes to what I find complicated and what I don't find complicated. For example, I found neither the 2014 Druid nor 4th Edition to be complicated; in contrast, the Yugioh card game makes no sense to me at all. So, it could be that I'm struggling to understand how other people are looking at D&D.

That being said, I feel that some 5e class design tends to include levels that aren't very exciting.

I would also posit that some of the struggle to balance aspects of 2014 D&D came from design assumptions that don't make sense to me. For example, supposedly, a creature capable of quick movement and/or having reliable access to alternative modes of movement has no effect on CR. That doesn't seem logical to me, and my belief is that it is more difficult to gauge the power of player options if the methods for measuring the potential targets against which those options will be used is based upon faulty reasoning.

 

[Minigiant]

Wow, I'm very impressed. WoTC managed to design a Ranger even I, 2014 Ranger's strongest warrior, don't like.

Honestly, I wish Hunter's Mark didn't change at all so they could put those buffs on the base Ranger chassis. Because it was never Ranger's best spell past level 5 and now its still not the Ranger's best spell and its taking up three features.

HM is not synonymous to Paladin's Smite, but by making it a spell, they've convinced themselves that it is.

I've played two rangers who never used HM. Now I'm practically forced to either use it or x out the features on my character sheet.

This is the crux of my issue with WOTC's Ranger design.

Rangers have 3 exclusive 1st level spells in 2014 (one more with XGTE)

1. Ensnaring Strike
2. Hail of Thorns
3. Hunter's Mark

They could have let a ranger player choose one of these spells and branch them from there. Imagine the thorns being drenched in poison. Ensnaring vines moving to a new target. etc.

Or they could have created a new ranger spell, a defensive buff or a trap spell, and branched from there to other nature warrior archetypes. Or other types of Marks.

Rather that branch out into other possible flavors of one of the classes that iconically branched out with choice, they zoomed into a version of the ranger that would 100% work and was at least liked by some players.

They didn't care about hitting or expanding much of the ranger's fantasy. Nor getting the original flavors to work.
They just wanted to not get yelled at for making the ranger a weak class.

I fear for the monk and sorcerer, the other flavorful but historically weak classes.