D&D 5E Is WotC over-thinking the Ranger?

[ChrisCarlson]

Coming into this a little late. But I think the ranger is a perfectly functional class. Having played, and seen it play, across multiple games (both hunters and beastmasters), I think the hand-wringing and complaints are either misplaced, hyperbole, or white room craft. At the table, I've seen nothing but good to great gameplay out of the class.

I honestly don't know what all the grousing is about. Perhaps some of it is previous-edition baggage or expectations? I dunno.

<shrug>

 

[OB1]

Coming into this a little late. But I think the ranger is a perfectly functional class. Having played, and seen it play, across multiple games (both hunters and beastmasters), I think the hand-wringing and complaints are either misplaced, hyperbole, or white room craft. At the table, I've seen nothing but good to great gameplay out of the class.
<shrug>

Couldn't agree more Chris. Using a Ranger well just takes a bit of imagination especially when selecting spells. I have an 11th level Hunter kicking some as* in my homebrew campaign right now, and he rarely if ever casts Hunter's Mark.
And a Beastmaster Ranger is basically an Army Ranger with his own Predator Drone, ie. someone highly effective working in a small group behind enemy lines. I'm thinking of running a Wood Elf Beastmaster with Underdark as his favored territory for OotA and have no concerns that I'll be able to keep up with the rest of the party.

 

[EditorBFG]

Every other class gets a combat feature at 1st level. Why doesn't the ranger? The majority of D&D players responding to surveys think the ranger is underpowered, and anecdotally, many of us had the same reaction to to the ranger only, while not seeing any problem with any other class. If it takes that much more work or imagination or DM cooperation to play the class properly as opposed to other classes, that is a failure of game design. Again, players are experts on their own gaming experience, so if you are happy with the ranger, that's awesome for you, but perception of this problem is widespread, and we need a fix for our own games at the very least.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Every other class gets a combat feature at 1st level. Why doesn't the ranger?

To me, at least, this has a hint of 4e-ism. It's kinda requesting to homogenize the classes. All classes need X at Y level. 5e is clearly not that. For example, some classes get their specialization at 1st. Some 2nd. Some 3rd. Why is there not the same cry to have all classes provide their specialization at the same level? 5e classes aren't built on a generic, plug-n-play template.

Besides all that, having played, and seen in play, rangers, I can only say that IMX they hold their own in combat just fine. And if the complaints that beastmaster is underpowered is the thing, that's not til 3rd level. So are we saying its not the specialization that's the problem? Its that the class doesn't get enough bang out of the gate before the choice even shows up?

The majority of D&D players responding to surveys think the ranger is underpowered,

I don't recall seeing this reported anywhere. Do you have a link?

 

[Minigiant]

Every other class gets a combat feature at 1st level. Why doesn't the ranger?

It does. Rangers get a d10 HD, martial weapons, medium armor, and and shields.

Before you can compare it fighters, rangers also get 3 skill proficiencies from class. This ties it for the second most skills from class with bards and the most from a non-expertise class. This aspect is often ignored but the ranger is often the most skilled in a party after the rogue and bard and the second least penalized party scout as it has the second highest Dex and skills combo.

Add in the bonus language and FE bonuses and rangers are excellent party skill monkeys and decent rogue replacements.
---
As for the beastmaster, the simple answer is the game is just missing pet buffs spells.

The complex answer is subclass is only 1/3 to 1/4 of the class. So the beast by default is just 25-35% of the ranger's power. The best balanced fix is the option to pure more of the ranger: spells, fighting style, skill class features, into the beast companion.

 

[Wereox]

I agree that the new Ranger is a bit confusing and very underwhelming in terms of power. Maybe they tried to make the Ranger more appealing, but they didn't do that great of a job.

 

[cmad1977]

Coming into this a little late. But I think the ranger is a perfectly functional class. Having played, and seen it play, across multiple games (both hunters and beastmasters), I think the hand-wringing and complaints are either misplaced, hyperbole, or white room craft. At the table, I've seen nothing but good to great gameplay out of the class.

I honestly don't know what all the grousing is about. Perhaps some of it is previous-edition baggage or expectations? I dunno.

<shrug>

And here's someone who gets it.

 

[AriochQ]

Re: Pets, I would prefer to see something like this

- Through non-verbal cues, curt verbal commands, and gestures a ranger pet will act according to the rangers wishes. So long as the pet is able to see or hear the character, the Ranger can direct the pet to Attack, Defend a person or location, Dodge, or move to a location in visual range as part of their normal turn. This does not require use of a Action or Bonus Action.

 

[halfling rogue]

I have a couple thoughts after reading this thread:

1) I asked Mearls on twitter some time ago (when Basic was the only rules released) about if they ever would add the Ranger class to Basic (due to the emphasis of the core 4 + Ranger I saw on the website). He responded that they thought about adding Ranger to Basic due to it being the next most popular class but rejected it to keep Basic lean. Looking back on this I'm wondering if they did include a Basic Ranger, creating a foundational "This Is A Ranger" structure as they did for the core four, then perhaps some of this discussion might be different. Instead of "fix the Ranger" it might be "fix the subclasses". Then again, I could be wrong.

2) This is certainly more subjective, but when I look to create a character I want to know if D&D can allow me to do it. And so far, it has. If I want a Ranger who resembles Robin Hood or Legolas, I can do it and be happy with it. So I think a lot of the "I hate the Ranger" might be highly subjective. It meets my needs so I don't squawk. It doesn't meet others so they speak up.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Bah! What does a halfling rogue know about true and proper ranging, anyways?...