log in or register to remove this ad

 

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

Alas, making the "perfect Ranger" for D&D is likely an exercise in futility. There are just too many different ideas of what "a ranger" is supposed to be in pop media. Should the ideal Ranger be based on Legolas? (Yes.) Should it be based on Aragorn? (Also yes.) Should it be based on Princess Mononoke? (Still yes.) Should it be based on Hank from the D&D cartoon? (Yes again.) Can it be all of them at once? (Absolutely not how dare you...)

I don't envy Wotc.
That, is, I think probably a good argument for making them subclass - because you could have a series of different subclasses to do different takes on the ranger.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

NotAYakk

Legend
The problem with Rangering is that like the Dwarf Baker with expertise in baking tools it gets forced off screen. The Ranger is so good that there is no point to it.

It's like if you had a subclass 'Duelist' with the feature: "Whenever you fight a duel you win".
And there are level 2 spells that generate impossibly good cupcakes. Level 4 spells are required to make impossibly good pies and other baked goods. Level 6 needed for cookies (we don't know why cookies are level 6, but they are).

Sure, there are going to be niche's for the baker that can't be handled by magical baked goods. Sometimes. When the DM specifically arranges a baking competition in an anti-magic zone or a magic-allergic dragon who wants a pie.
 

Horwath

Hero
If only they gave 3rd level scouts feature with skills instead of 1st level rangers "overpowered" natural explorer.

1st level deft explorer: bonus proficiency and expertise in Nature and Survival.
6th level explorer: +5ft speed, swim and climb speed,
8th level: Dash as a bonus action
10th level: Endurance: halve effective exhaustion levels(round down), remove one exhaustion level after short rest. Hide as a bonus action
14th level:
 

Ok. It is worse than hunter's mark regarding not being able to track your marked foe, which I don't really like.
I also think, that inventing a new feature is unnecessary. Why not just use hunter's mark as a free action when you hit with an attack?
Maybe at level 1 it was just too strong. I don't think so.
Also the artificer is a half caster that can cast their first level spells at level 1.
Another thing is that it autoscales with the number of attacks you do, so scaling is not necessary.

On the other hand, it is better than favoured enemy and makes the ranger level 1 a good choice.
 

NotAYakk

Legend
Okay, but what if I'm playing a Beast Master or Drakewarden and one of my attacks is from my pet and wouldn't trigger HM? That leaves two attacks, and if one misses than FF and HM are pretty close together. Heck, at higher levels the FF damage die scales so it's ahead in some circumstances.

FF is an optional feature that fits well with certain Ranger builds, for which I'm very thankful. Other builds may still want to use HM, and it still exists for them. This is literally the best of both worlds.
Sure, now it takes a foe that is up for 3 rounds instead of 2 for HM to catch up and start passing it.

The claim was Foe was better than HM on a single big foe. It is less worse on a big foe than on a bunch of little foes.

It is better than HM when you want to use the ranger's other concentration spells, and value Foe lowly, so you might as well toss on an extra bit of damage on top of the other concentration spell hit. Or when you are losing concentration every round anyhow, and have something good to use your bonus action on.

Even the d8 version is worse than HM with 2 attacks in almost any reasonable scenario.

And, if someone goes to the hospital with a gaping chest wound, and they do a half-assed job of fixing their hangnail, that is better than not fixing the hangnail. I think it is fair to point at the gaping chest wound and say "um, you aren't doing your job, you just fixed a hangnail, and you didn't even do a good job at fixing the hangnail".
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
it shouldn't.

1e had it right: the Ranger there was a Fighter-with-extras, and gated behind some pretty serious stat requirements to make them less common.

Some idiot named Drizz't came along during 2e and mangled the Ranger archetype. It has yet to recover.
1e did have it right but..

The 1e ranger was an Upgrade class. D&D doesn't do those any more.


For us old-timers that's because it was originally supposed to BE a (sub-class of) Fighter

The problem is the Ranger was a Fighter+.

Which made the Fighter a Ranger-.

Essentially WOTC doesn't know how to balance TSR's Fighter and Ranger without angering people. THEN you have the Druid, Bard, and Rogue sneaking in the conversation.
 


I have to say that this seems rather clunky to me. It is a Hunter's Mark lite which competes with the acual Hunter's Mark... I don't get it...

Was there something terribly wrong with the UA version?
Unearthed Arcana said:
Favored Foe
1st-level ranger feature (replaces Favored Enemy)
You can call on your bond with nature to mark a creature as your favored enemy for a time: you know the hunter’s mark spell, and Wisdom is your spellcasting ability for it. You can use it a certain number of times without expending a spell slot and without requiring concentration— a number of times equal to your Wisdom modifier (a minimum of once). You regain all expended uses when you finish a long rest. When you gain the Spellcasting feature at 2nd level, hunter’s mark doesn’t count against the number of ranger spells you know.

Perhaps add a stipulation to Beastmasters that the hunter's mark triggers from the pet's attacks as well.
 

Horwath

Hero
Ok. It is worse than hunter's mark regarding not being able to track your marked foe, which I don't really like.
I also think, that inventing a new feature is unnecessary. Why not just use hunter's mark as a free action when you hit with an attack?
Maybe at level 1 it was just too strong. I don't think so.
Also the artificer is a half caster that can cast their first level spells at level 1.
Another thing is that it autoscales with the number of attacks you do, so scaling is not necessary.

On the other hand, it is better than favoured enemy and makes the ranger level 1 a good choice.
Favored enemy should be deleted from writers minds, permanently.
It was a dumb idea few editions ago, and it is dumb now.

an extra tool proficiency in addition to language would be more useful than favored enemy.
Sad thing is that extra language is best part of favored enemy.
At least you can RP a smart guy that knows how to speak in many cultures.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
It does. They're called subclasses now.

People will want manuvers and imp critical still for their fighter.

As this topic proves my point, many people want a ranger that doesn't lose a drop of combat ability compared to a "normal fighter".

People will just say the Ranger subclass sucks at fighting compared to the Champion and Battlemaster. To many, rangers are only seen in the combat lens.
 

There really isn't a way within the current framework of D&D to model the Ranger being good at exploration other than through skills. For some reason Rogues can get Expertise at Survival and Perception and Barbarians can (assuming the variant feature from UA made it into publication) but Rangers still can't unless they use optional game features to take feats or multiclass.

If there were real exploration rules then the ranger could be plugged into them in some way - but even then it's going to be an issue because lots of games would probably never use those rules.
 
Last edited:

jmartkdr2

Adventurer
I agree with @Sir Brennen , I think the Ranger should just be a subclass of Fighter (same for the Barbarian and the Monk, but that's another topic.) But I'm not on the design team, so my opinion should be taken with an equally-small grain of salt.

Alas, making the "perfect Ranger" for D&D is likely an exercise in futility. There are just too many different ideas of what "a ranger" is supposed to be in pop media. Should the ideal Ranger be based on Legolas? (Yes.) Should it be based on Aragorn? (Also yes.) Should it be based on Princess Mononoke? (Still yes.) Should it be based on Hank from the D&D cartoon? (Yes again.) Can it be all of them at once? (Absolutely not how dare you...)

I don't envy Wotc.
On the other hand: 13th Age pulls it off, so we know it's doable.
 

People will want manuvers and imp critical still for their fighter.

As this topic proves my point, many people want a ranger that doesn't lose a drop of combat ability compared to a "normal fighter".

People will just say the Ranger subclass sucks at fighting compared to the Champion and Battlemaster. To many, rangers are only seen in the combat lens.
I don't think it's a major issue, but probabl all the Fighter subclasses should be designed so that they have some kind of identity and non-combat functionality besides just new ways to hit things.

I think a Ranger sub-class is probably a good example of what a Fighter subclass should be.
 

I think concentration is unnecessary.
I wanted to say, that it still has uses for the ranger subclasses that uses bonus actions every turn. But the fey wanderer apparently does not need to use a bonus action anymore.
 


jmartkdr2

Adventurer
It's basically conceptually the same as the 4e Ranger and lots of people hated that and said it wasn't a real ranger.
I have a hard time seeing this - the classes are very different. Partially because the games are very different, but mostly because the design goals for the classes are so obviously different it would have been amazing if the end results were similar.
 

Horwath

Hero
also,

replacement of 3rd level god awful primeval awareness;
Track: advantage on Survival checks for tracking creatures.

or proficiency in cartographer tools. Anything is better than default...
 

I have a hard time seeing this - the classes are very different.
Really. The same basic three things. Archer/Two Weapon Dervish or Beastmaster. Pretty much entirely martial (The Ranger can pick up a spell in 13th Age but they have no real connection to traditional ranger magic). If you're going into melee you pretty much have to be a Two Weapon Fighter unless you're using a pet. The main distinction is that 13th Age Ranges are all Dex based (which is going to disappoint people who prefer Rangers to be Strength based).

Sure there's a whole lot of different ways the concepts are mechancially implemented but that's really not the point. If you like the way 13th Age implements the Ranger you may be happy with it (unless of course the fact that it's an utter snorefest to play turns you off), but if you wanted something different you won't be. And there's plenty of something different takes on the Ranger to want.

Edit: And in any case, part of the way that both 13th Age and 4E make their own niche for the Ranger is by taking things away from the Fighter, which also caused a backlash. In 5E the Fighter can already do Two Weapon Fighting and Archery as well, if not better, than the Ranger, so these are not specific Rangery things.
 
Last edited:

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
I don't think it's a major issue, but probabl all the Fighter subclasses should be designed so that they have some kind of identity and non-combat functionality besides just new ways to hit things.

I think a Ranger sub-class is probably a good example of what a Fighter subclass should be.

But then you'll cross the people who don't want additional flavor injected into the fighter and prefer the fighter to default as a blank slate killing machine.

That is essentially why the ranger and paladin and barbarian crossed the bridges from subclass to class. To keep the Fighter pure.

So now you have a Fighter as a 100% combat class with no flavor glue to it outside if combat ability. And then you have people who want a 50% exploration and 50% combat class in the Ranger to match the Fighter in combat.
 

Lidgar

Adventurer
I'm mostly referring to people posting dumb memes instead of even trying to have a discussion.
Sorry, but the title of your post (GARBAGE) does not exactly elicit rational discourse. You may have a perfectly valid point, but it comes across as clickbait to me.
 

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top