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.

 

[mellored]

For me, the Ranger should be a hunter first, and a spellcaster second. The planned relationship between the 2024 Ranger and Hunter's Mark seems to have those priorities reversed (at least with respect to weapon damage) in a way that I don't really see a reason for.

So something like an Eldritch Knight, but with druid spells.

 

[Chaosmancer]

you're not the first person to mention this so may i ask (as an open question), why the hate for conjure barrage/volley? was it the specific implementation? the fact they're spells? something else?

i haven't been keeping up with all the various class previews so i may be lacking additional context.

They gave them as free spells in the playtest, but since they wrote them as class abilities instead of an additional spells known chart, people got confused and thought they were giving spells as class abilities.

If you look, they got them at level 9 and level 17, when they gained the spell levels and didn't get any other features. So, they weren't replacing anything, just a free spell on level up.

But, it all worked out, as now we get expertise and then the Hunter's Mark improvement instead.

 

[Rocker26a]

"I will never be satisfied until Hunter's Mark is removed from the class entirely?"

It's a separate issue to the whole spellcaster thing, but. I do kinda think giving up on Hunter's Mark would help immensely. I feel like Ranger is still crying out for a signature class feature, their own Rage, Smite, Wild Shape, etc. And Hunter's Mark just. Isn't it. It cannot fill those shoes.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Most rogues aren’t picking Survival and Nature for their expertise. On top of that, Rogues don’t have the utility spells that Rangers have for exploration.

So yes, Ranger will be better at exploration that the average rogue.

This dodges the issue. Any Rogue that focuses on exploration (and there are many) will be just as good as a Ranger would have been. The party won’t be lamenting not having a Ranger in tow.

Real talk: how many tables are going to have someone playing the Scout Rogue, the intentional option for people who want a non-magical Ranger, alongside a Ranger? And competing for exploration limelight?

Relevance? Since when is the question related to having the two options in the same party?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yes, this exactly.

For me, the Ranger should be a hunter first, and a spellcaster second. The planned relationship between the 2024 Ranger and Hunter's Mark seems to have those priorities reversed (at least with respect to weapon damage) in a way that I don't really see a reason for.

Like look at all the other cool stuff they're going to be capable of with no magical explanation.

But if they want to hit a little harder with that arrow or sharpened steel..they gotta start hand-jiving.

To be fair, Hunter’s Mark has a strong benefit for actual hunting, and doesn’t require a spell slot most days with this new version.

 

[Kinematics]

Every single attempt to homebrew a new ranger that I have seen has struggled with the idea of the class identity. That WotC also struggles with this is therefore not surprising.

However they have shown that they can come up with creative new ideas. Primal Knowledge and Brutal Strike for Barbarian, Tactical Mind and Tactical Shift for Fighter, Cunning Strike for Rogue... They've found ways to add something new and interesting to spice up a number of different classes, even if some people are still disappointed with them.

I think the main issue with Ranger is that they didn't manage to find something to really do that for them. The first of the playtest Rangers was really well received, but that seems to be more that they fixed some of the issues with subclasses, and got rid of Natural Explorer.

The other class improvements expanded on part of the core elements of the classes — Rage for Barbarian, Sneak Attack for Rogue, and both Weapon Mastery and Second Wind for Fighter. Even Smites for Paladin, even if it got somewhat nerfed. But Ranger doesn't really have that core functionality to draw on. They got rid of Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer (both of which had significant issues), but they just replaced it with Hunter's Mark, which, even if you accept it being a reasonable spell, is nothing more than a single spell.

In one particular Ranger homebrew I was a part of, my attempt to find some generalized concept for the class ended up with the idea that "Ranger is to searching as Rogue is to hiding". Hunter's Mark is vaguely adjacent to that idea, but I'd prefer a broader feature that Hunter's Mark was a part of, rather than Hunter's Mark being basically the entire feature.

Further, trading damage for effect (like Cunning Strike or Brutal Strike do), or charges (free castings or spell slots, like Smite) for effect, might also be a way to help expand on the flavor of the class in various ways. Rather than "just" a spell, have a spell that can unlock various other flavorful effects.

 

[Incenjucar]

It may just be a hangup on the part of the designers-that-be. Rangers have a lot of possibilities and plenty of real world and fictional examples to use as a basis. Could be some design doc sitting in a drawer that outlines that ranger has to be X and cannot be Y for 5E.

 

[CreamCloud0]

i wonder if there's any potential in ranger being like, an AoE crowd control martial? make that their niche, that's kinda been a consistent lurking theme throughout their set of abilities in 5e hasn't it? hail of thorns, conjure volley/barrage, steel wind strike, and in the original hunter abilities you've got volley and whirlwind attack.

then again that would require wizards to allow martial AoE attacks to exist.

 

[Incenjucar]

Amusingly, in 2E the more rangery ranger was the ninja, especially when you used the Pathfinder kit to emphasize tracking.

 

[Minigiant]

This dodges the issue. Any Rogue that focuses on exploration (and there are many) will be just as good as a Ranger would have been. The party won’t be lamenting not having a Ranger in tow.

Relevance? Since when is the question related to having the two options in the same party?

Nah.

Ranger spells traditionally allowed rangers to bypass the limitations of reality or known Medieval/Renaissance technology.

Like how some old Ranger spells helps you track even if weather destroys tracks. Or breathe underwater. Or ignore altitude sickness or planar suffocation.