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

[Horwath]

It's gotten positive ratings on surveys, positive reviews on people reviewing it, and high level of people playing it on all objective measures of classes people play.

it is popular, because it's a popular fantasy trope.

But it is on many polls worst sub-class of the worst class in PHB.
Not in idea, but in execution.

if it's not the worse, WotC would not al ready made 3 or 4 variations of the ranger class in various UAs.

 

[Weiley31]

A party with a Ranger (Outlander) in Chult:

DM: You move at 10 miles per day because of the difficult terrain of the jung..
Ranger: Nope. We move at normal speed as per the DMG; 24 miles per day.
DM OK then, this is a hexcrawl and you need to make Survival checks or you get los...
Ranger: Nope. I never get lost. I also have a good idea of whats around me (ruins, settlements, terrain features etc) in the local area at all times.
DM: OK, food and water are hard to...
Ranger: Nope. I can feed myself and up to 10 people with no checks required.
DM: OK, screw it, where do you want to go?

DM: Rocks from the Heavens fall in and and you die.
Ranger: You can't do that!
DM: I'm the Dungeon Master, I can do anything I want.
Ranger: Yeah, except be a terrible one!

DM kicks the Rangers' Player into the huge pit in the middle of the room and smirks as the the screaming slowly fades from the air. When the police and the players' parents come the next few days to ask questions, they are told by the DM the player just stopped showing up after the last session. Devastated, the case is never solved.

 

[Mistwell]

As others have already pointed out, you are reading way too much into this.

I am just reading what you wrote and responding to it with data.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

although due to the way roles worked in 4E, a Ranger would probably wipe the floor with a Fighter in a 1 on 1 fight).

Fighters are absolute beasts in 4e, and could put out very close to Striker damage if focused on that. Combine that with better armor and HP, and it’s hard to say who’d win.

The main problem for the defender is that it does more damage in a group than on its own.

 

[Chaosmancer]

As long as you can relate your proficient Intelligence or Wisdom check to your terrain, you can double the proficiency bonus.

It is not far fetched or fanciful to use your knowledge of herbal remedies available in the area, sources of clean water, natural anti-biotics etc to benefit a Medicine check to treat an injured person in that terrain.

In fact the Ranger/ survival expert knowing local remedies, healing herbs etc to treat an injury is so common, it's virtually a trope.

I mean, Aragorn himself did this in LoTR.

I would have no issue with it at all. It goes to the RAI, doesn't break RAW and importantly also goes to the RAF.

Two things, covering them in order of importance.

1) You have completely changed my entire point. I was going along with it, but I need to stop right here and remind you what the original point was.

IDENTIFYING THE INJURY

That does not use knowledge of local remedies, healing herbs or clean sources of water. That, in fact, does not deal with treating the wound at all, except that you have a much harder time treating a wound if you don't know the source.


2) If, because I know the forests, I know that Deepwood moss as anti-venom properties that makes it perfect for dealing with things like giant spider bites.... why can't I have a stock of Deepwood moss that I can use at any time to get expertise on the Wisdom check? Honestly, since I have to have proficiency in medicine anyways to get the expertise, wouldn't I know of other, similar natural remedies? Like that Frostflowers of the tundra have similiar effects to Deepwood Moss? I am trained in medical knowledge, and knowing which remedies can be substituted sounds like something I'd know.


And heck, this is all just from knowing that the plants exist, what if I had proficiency in Nature and a Herbalism kit, shouldn't anyone be able to get expertise on the medicine check then? I'm an expert on plants, where they are in the natural world, and how to apply them.



And so, we end up circling back. Why can I only get this expertise when it directly involves mountains, when that seems to be the least important part of the requirement. And, I know quite a few DMs who would not allow this. You don't get expertise on treating this wound just because you are in the mountains, because the wound itself is not something related to the mountains, and you as the player don't get to add in useful medical herbs nearby your location. Because the moment you do, then you can just go around and collect those herbs, and get expertise on every medical check. Which they would say breaks RAI.

 

[Dr Magister]

Having re-read the Ranger rules in the PHB, I'm inclined to agree with those who think this isn't that bad. Given the severely limited number of spell slots Rangers get, especially at lower levels, having a weaker version of Hunter's Mark that doesn't use them up is still pretty decent.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

There was just a thread on the same topic on the forums of D&D Beyond. The discussion went absolutely nowhere, just like every other Ranger discussion I've ever read. Hopefully this one does not end up that way.

Rangers can deal similar amounts of damage to other classes (Paladin, Fighter, Rogues, Barbarians) if built correctly. However, their features are underwhelming in comparison, they are typically "restricted" to ranged combat, and it is very easy for a DM or other player to accidentally invalidate their lower level features and spells.

 

[Orius]

The Ranger's problem is that it was overpowered in 1e and every attempt to fix it since has failed. Look at any discussion on the Ranger by edition:

1e: Rangers are awesome!

Not 1e: Rangers suck!

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

The Ranger's problem is that it was overpowered in 1e and every attempt to fix it since has failed. Look at any discussion on the Ranger by edition:

1e: Rangers are awesome!

Not 1e: Rangers suck!

I don't think 1e and 5e are comparable enough to say that the reason people are still complaining about the Ranger is because of 1e. I never played 1e or any previous edition, and I think the ranger in 5e is poorly designed.

 

[Don Durito]

The Ranger's problem is that it was overpowered in 1e and every attempt to fix it since has failed. Look at any discussion on the Ranger by edition:

1e: Rangers are awesome!

Not 1e: Rangers suck!

Yes. Basically. That's the orginal Ranger concept (And the Paladins too really). Fighter+

The least problematic way to carry over that concept is not as a class, but as an extra-class addition like a Prestige Class in 3.5 (Which I believe they seriously considered but chickened out of) or a subclass.

The other issue is that fictional rangers tend to be members of organisations - like the Nights Watch in a Song of Ice and Fire or of course the Dunedain. Even the 1e, 2e Rangers oftens seem to suggest something of the sort with their alignment restrictions