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

[Minigiant]

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!

the 4e ranger didn't suck. The 4e ranger was a top 3 class in 4e AND super easy to play AND required little system mastery.

The problem with the 4e ranger is it didn't need to exist in its original form. With "utility and noncombat magic" nerfed hard and the skill system streamlined in 4e, there was no need for a separate ranger from the fighter. There were no special skills, magic and training for the ranger to have. So the designers split the Fighter into 4 classes and artificially continued the ranger's (and rogue's) existence.

The ranger's problem is and always was: the D&D designers can't think of how to create the ranger mechanic.

Outside of copying Aragorn's and Dar's powers, they don't know what to do.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

"If built correctly". I'd rather they be able to do this right out of the box, no "building" required.

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.

I want my Ranger to be (or to be able to be) a melee sword-and-board tank, again right out of the box.

 

[Lanefan]

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

Each gated behind high stat requirements, to make the classes rare. Fine with me.

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

Were the Dunedain an organization as such or simply an ancient sub-race of Humans of whom Aragorn happened to be one?

In any case, having to be in an organization kinda blows up the 'lone ranger' concept: someone who was forced into that lifestyle by being driven out of society, or who was simply born into that lifestyle and it's all they've ever known.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

"If built correctly". I'd rather they be able to do this right out of the box, no "building" required.

You don't need to convince me. Both Fighters, Barbarians, Fighters, Rogues, Monks and Paladins are already good at damage right off the bat, but Rangers have to be ranged and use Hunter's Mark in order to match them.

I want my Ranger to be (or to be able to be) a melee sword-and-board tank, again right out of the box.

Again, you're preaching to the choir. I completely agree. Currently, a sword-and-board ranger is too MAD to be effective, dual wielding is just bad for rangers (who are supposed to be good at it), and they need at least a +2 in Dexterity to be decent in melee.

 

[Don Durito]

Each gated behind high stat requirements, to make the classes rare. Fine with me.

Well it's one way to do it. Not one I'm fond of, but there's a kind of balance to it. The problem is when you want to keep the concept and remove that particular balancing aspect, then the concept runs into trouble.

Were the Dunedain an organization as such or simply an ancient sub-race of Humans of whom Aragorn happened to be one?

They were called Rangers in setting so yes.

In any case, having to be in an organization kinda blows up the 'lone ranger' concept: someone who was forced into that lifestyle by being driven out of society, or who was simply born into that lifestyle and it's all they've ever known.

Not really. We're not necessarily talking about being members of an army.

In any case, I'm not saying that Rangers should necessarily have to be members of an organisation - but I do think that Rangers tend to work better if they have some kind of in setting identity. I always interpreted the Ranger in AD&D as something you could be, it wasn't just something written on your character sheet, it was something you're character could say and it be meaningful within the game world, eg. "I am a Ranger".

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

The PHB Ranger itself isn't in contention. The Hunter subclass might not feel very "rangery" but it's essentially fine.

The Beastmaster, on the other hand, was atrocious and was never fixed. Crawford preferred to just declare it to be fine and that were no problem to fix.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The PHB Ranger itself isn't in contention. The Hunter subclass might not feel very "rangery" but it's essentially fine.

The Beastmaster, on the other hand, was atrocious and was never fixed. Crawford preferred to just declare it to be fine and that were no problem to fix.

Most people don’t seem to agree with your assessment. That’s probably why the designers aren’t racing to “fix” the ranger. A light touch, like sturdier animal options, is all that is really needed.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Most people don’t seem to agree with your assessment. That’s probably why the designers aren’t racing to “fix” the ranger. A light touch, like sturdier animal options, is all that is really needed.

The beastmaster was let down by the quality of the available beast stat blocks, which look like they where dashed off in 5 minutes.

And we know that a lot of DMs didn't get the memo that they are expected to create stuff themselves.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The beastmaster was let down by the quality of the available beast stat blocks, which look like they where dashed off in 5 minutes.

And we know that a lot of DMs didn't get the memo that they are expected to create stuff themselves.

Beastmaster is unsatisfying because the animal is a lobotomised automaton.

 

[Gradine]

Can someone explain the appeal of a sword and board Ranger? This is literally the first I've ever heard of the concept, considering that dual wielding had basically always been their shtick.