D&D 5E It's official, WOTC hates Rangers (Tasha's version of Favored Foe is GARBAGE)

[cbwjm]

I just can’t see it being worth taking, ever, unless I’m in a game where languages and stuff like knowing about dragons or undead just never matter, because Hunters Mark is so much better.

I’d rather keep just not using HM on low-hp targets, saving it for brutes and bosses, than use this option. It’s just...bad.

Spells known for rangers are so small that I almost always have something I want to take other than hunter's mark. I'd be keen for this option for that reason.

 

[Flamestrike]

But the Hunters Mark using ranger is strictly better off, dealing 1d6 damage on most attacks, only failing to do so in the occasional round where they have to switch targets.

if it’s concentration and 1/round, it should deal 1d6 to start with.

Action economy. You're forgetting the action economy.

Presume TWF Ranger 2. Assuming all attacks hit (favours Hunters mark), 2 rounds of combat.

Favored foe: Four attacks, for 4 hits: 4d6+12+2d4 (31 damage).

Hunters mark: (bonus action Hunters mark, then hit, hit hit) 3 hits 6d6+9 (30 damage)

You're actually ahead after 2 entire rounds of wailing on the same target, (even assuming circumstances that favour Hunters Mark over Favoured foe) hitting twice per round.

 

[Minigiant]

So hunting, exploring, hunting with a pet, and exploring with a pet.

I'm not entirely thrilled with this chosen design space. It's extremely DM dependant. If you're a forest ranger who hunts giants and you don't need to go to the forest or face a giant, what unique things can your character do instead? Nothing. And when you find a forest, what does the ability do? If it works nothing happens. The ability turns a potential encounter into no encounter. Your class ability is to void XP. And if you face a giant, what can you do? Talk to it. That's the big benefit. You speak Giant. Your ability as a hunter is that you kind of know stuff about them, you know how to track them, and you can talk to them. You are the Diplomatic Hunter. In the game about fighting monsters, your really special skill is... avoiding adventure and talking to foes.

Except they can't really expand or alter this explorer-hunter role, because they run into Fighter (more martial), Druid (more nature magic), Rogue (more skill based), Bard (more hybridized), or Barbarian (more natural martial).

It's DM dependent because the Ranger class features are open ended and nonspecific. It's you skip these 4 situations or you get a bonus to a skill check that we don't get description of its effects nor the DCs in the DMG. It's all on the DM to invent all of it.

A ranger who hunts dragons isn't resistant to acid, fire, cold, lightning ,and poison.
A falconer ranger can't order a hawk to harrass a mage or speak through it's beak.
A Ranger lord can't call upon the armies of a local lord.
The Desert runner isn't resistant to fire, have +2 AC in light armor, and +5ft walking speed.

Rangerering ironically is mostly jammed into spells. And since rangers are only half casters, wild full casters outclass it.

From my point of view a Rogue (Thief) Outlander with the Healer feat is totally decent Ranger.

Sure. If you DM is very nice and makes everything a Survival skill check with a beatable DC.

 

[Islayre d'Argolh]

Sure. If you DM is very nice and makes everything a Survival skill check with a beatable DC.

With the Outlander feature the PC can provide food to the entire party without any skill check. As a Thief he can climb faster than anyone on trees or cliffs. As a Healer Thief he can gives back a substancial amount of HP in and out of combat (the hands of the king can heal !).
Thoses gifts are not tied to expertise in Survival.
The Scout subclasse from Xanatar's seems to me like another official statement that the Rogue is a perfectly good framework for the Ranger.

 

[Minigiant]

With the Outlander feature the PC can provide food to the entire party without any skill check. As a Thief he can climb faster than anyone on trees or cliffs. As a Healer Thief he can gives back a substancial amount of HP in and out of combat (the hands of the king can heal !).
Thoses gifts are not tied to expertise in Survival.
The Scout subclasse from Xanatar's seems to me like an official statement that the Rogue is a perfectly good framework for the Ranger.

The issue is well..

That's only Rangering in Tier 1. Mundane Rangering.

What about Tier 2, Tier 3, and Tier 4 Rangering.

How does a scout rogue deal with a sudden firestorm leaking out the Elemental Plane of Fire onto the plains?

How does the scout ranger chase down underwater shark-men to "encourage" them to leave the king's wood?

How does the scout ranger travel through a swamp infested by a dragon's elemental aura?

How does a scout ranger question witnesses if the only ones are chipmunks and oak trees?

This essential the issue. Few people imagine fantasy Rangering. They see the ranger only dealing with issues of the real world and not a high fantasy high magic one. And this pushes "The Ranger should be a fighter subclass" or "The Rogue should be the ranger".

Even through the Original ranger was an Aragorn clone, it made sense. At higher level you'd expect the ranger to transition from the mundane to magical. Gaining spells and access to magical utility items would make sense for a level 8 ranger deep in Tier 2.

 

[Don Durito]

The Ranger is not exactly all that flexible at high levels either though. They may have the spells on the spell list but they're very limited in what they can learn. This means that the spells you need for high level rangering, the situationally useful ones like the ability to breathe underwater, are probably not the ones you picked because they're only situationally useful.

And of course the Druid is just plain better at that.

This is a reason why Ranger magic would be better done as Ritual Casting.

 

[Islayre d'Argolh]

The issue is well..

That's only Rangering in Tier 1. Mundane Rangering.

What about Tier 2, Tier 3, and Tier 4 Rangering.

This essential the issue. Few people imagine fantasy Rangering. They see the ranger only dealing with issues of the real world and not a high fantasy high magic one. And this pushes "The Ranger should be a fighter subclass" or "The Rogue should be the ranger".

Even through the Original ranger was an Aragorn clone, it made sense. At higher level you'd expect the ranger to transition from the mundane to magical. Gaining spells and access to magical utility items would make sense for a level 8 ranger deep in Tier 2.

I must admit i don't really care about Tiers 3 & 4 : from my point of view 5e is a perfect game when campaigns end around level 9 or, eventually, level 11.
And if you really want your Thief or Scout to feel like a magical wanderer there's good stuff to do with Magic initiate (Druid) or Ritual caster (Druid).

 

[Minigiant]

The Ranger is not exactly all that flexible at high levels either though. They may have the spells on the spell list but they're very limited in what they can learn. This means that the spells you need for high level rangering, the situationally useful ones like the ability to breathe underwater, are probably not the ones you picked because they're only situationally useful.

And of course the Druid is just plain better at that.

This is a reason why Ranger magic would be better done as Ritual Casting.

That's one of my main gripes with the class. If Ranger's real class features are spells then it get outclassed by real casters.

Favored Foe attempts to make a spell into a class feature. However there isn't enough space for a class feature equal to a 1st level spell.

I must admit i don't really care about Tiers 3 & 4 : from my point of view 5e is a perfect game when campaigns end around level 9 or, eventually, level 11.
And if you really want your Thief or Scout to feel like a magical wanderer there's good stuff to do with Magic initiate (Druid) or Ritual caster (Druid).

It isn't all high levels. You can swim and fight underwater, talk to animals and plants, and resist damage at low levels.

The issue is that D&D doesn't describe fantasy wilderness encounters. So DMs are forced to do it themselves with no frame of reference.

 

[akr71]

Beyond the Genie Warlock and maybe some spells, there is nothing in this book that interests me. Some of it downright turns me off. I was excited to hear about decoupling culture from heritage, but their implementation is less of a rules set and more of "m'eh, just choose a bunch of stuff."

My only recourse is to vote with my wallet by not buying this book. It is optional after all.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

• It doesn't invalidate Hunter's Mark. Yeah, I think that's a significant positive.

How does it not? It is basically a Hunter's Mark lite. It is very awkward overlapping design.