log in or register to remove this ad

 

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


log in or register to remove this ad

Azzy

Newtype
I've seen about four rangers in the course of the last six years in campaigns I've run, and any number in AL games I've played in, and none of them have wanted for power. Last session, for a mid-tier group, the ranger did over 40 points of damage in one round, without rolling a single crit. I just don't get the "rangers are underpowered" argument.
I had a player with a ranger character in the first 5e campaign I ran and I have another player playing a ranger in my current campaign, I also played a ranger in my group's previous campaign. Never saw rangers as underpowered in actual play, either. In the last session, the 5th-level ranger did about 20-ish damage per round and and did the majority of the damage against a banshee while his arrows were doing half damage (the barbarian got a javelin in for about 3 points of damage).

My issues with the rangeris that many of the base class' feature are boring and situational.
 

I have also played with a default hunter ranger and he pulled his weight easily... Did a lot of damage, but felt a bit underwhelming, because his versatility was low.
I guess the ranger with alternate features will be better. You always need to remember: if you make the ranger better than the fighter and the paladin, it is also problematic. But I guess, no concentration would still be ok...
As it is, the ensnaring strike spell can be combined well enough with that feature, as the one ends when you want to start the other...
 

Xeviat

Adventurer
Supporter
My issues with the rangeris that many of the base class' feature are boring and situational.

This. Especially their high level features. Hide in Plain Sight is really basic for a high level ability, especially when the 3.5E version was actually cool.

Looks like I'll still be using some of my own ranger modifications.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Well if you can't please everyone you might as well default to just making a better game.
I don't believe the "you can't please everyone" angle.
Sure you can't but you could get close.
I believe the Ranger's problem is that no one big in the original design team loved rangers. And there was less spotlight on classes not in the classic 4. So they didn't even tryhard to design it and mostly rehashed 3.5e. They did this rather than try to emulate rangers from fiction and the media. It only got 2 subclasses.

The ranger still works despite this. However it should be better.
 


I think a Ranger sub-class is probably a good example of what a Fighter subclass should be.
And I still think the design space of Ranger is big enough that it shouldn't be relegated to sub-class, because its certainly a workable one that RPGs have gotten right previously

It just, 5E cannot seem to get it right.

Maybe 1 more... but it’s not a distinct class anymore.
5E's inability to do it right does not make it no longer a class. They just need to look at its problems and solve them rather than make more problems like this. Revised ranger was widely accepted just, they refuse to publish it for some stupid reason

Also I don't mean to be mean but... Beastmaster would not fit under druid. At all. You're fighting alongside a creature, probably with a weapon, not being a caster sitting back and blapping. Different ideas. Different themes
 
Last edited:

jmartkdr2

Adventurer
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.
Or neither archer nor two-weapon, beastmaster is optional, you can go all-in on casting or be a non caster...

I mean, rangers have always had archery, two-weapon fighting and animal companions. If that's you're criteria for them all being the same, then I don't see you would get around that and still have rangers at all.
 


Or neither archer nor two-weapon, beastmaster is optional, you can go all-in on casting or be a non caster...

I mean, rangers have always had archery, two-weapon fighting and animal companions. If that's you're criteria form them all being the same, then I don't see you would get around that and still have rangers at all.
I don't know what you mean. You can't go all in on casting and if you don't pick archery, beastmater OR two-weapon fighting you'd have a pretty weaksauce character. This is a pretty clear part of the design. As for the rest I already explained it to you. I'm not going to do it again just because you choose to ignore it.
 
Last edited:

Nah. Rangers are skilled experts that do most of their work on the fringes of civilization, and succeed in combat by identifying and exploiting the weak points of their enemies, rather than through straight-up might or martial prowess.

Ranger should be a Rogue subclass.
They already are. That part's covered. The whole benefit of making them subclasses would be to cover different concepts. You could even call them all rangers. Rangers of the Crescent Moon Conclave, Rangers of the White Tiger Conclave etc, if you wanted.
 

And I still think the design space of Ranger is big enough that it shouldn't be relegated to sub-class, because its certainly a workable one that RPGs have gotten right previously

It just, 5E cannot seem to get it right.
I think it potentially is...I just think it's a struggle to do in 5E - especially as there's very little room for things that aren't magic to be clearly distinguished.

In 4E they made Two-Weapon Fighting and Archery specific rangery things. But 5E gave these back to the Fighter who is just as good as the Ranger. So the way they fight can't be the basis for the class.

So exploration? What even is Exploration - I don't think exploration in the sense of the pillar lines up with wilderness adventure - exploration is more commonly meant in the sense of exploring dungeons. (Wilderness adventure is a dubious thing to build a class around as many games won't feature them).

Magic? We already have enough casters and Rangers were never really much in the way of casters before. Gishes? - same problem really. However, Rangers have almost always had some magic so many people expect them to have some.

Skills? We already have a class that's supposed to be all about skills, but they're not just about skills' although traditional ranger skills are overlapping but different so there is some promise there. (Though if we want Rangers to shine at Ranger skills they need either Wis primary, Expertise or both). However Rogues also have a specfiic way in which they fight - they're not just delimited by skills.

The Pet: You could definitely build a class around a character having a pet, but
many people will complain about forcing all Rangers to have a pet. It still seems the most promising thing out of the list so far. And this is probably the only Ranger concept that can't be done with another class.
 
Last edited:

I think it potentially is...I just think it's a struggle to do in 5E - especially as there's very little room for things that aren't magic to be clearly distinguished.
I mean from a 'what if we went back to scratch' type of dealio, I'd probably look at working on the taking the idea of Hunter's Mark and.... Doing better with it

I'm gonna be interested to see what Baldur's Gate 3 does with them given they've flat out said they're working on how to make it better.

Oh, and we haven't even gotten to the bottom of the iceberg of "things people will not like about Tasha's" because, yeah, rangers got a bit bleh'd, but..... Other stuff has problems as well
 

jmartkdr2

Adventurer
I don't know what you mean. You can't go all in on casting and if you don't pick archery, beastmater OR two-weapon fighting you'd have a pretty weaksauce character. This is a pretty clear part of the design. As for the rest I already explained it to you. I'm not going to do it again just because you choose to ignore it.
I guess the question I asked remains: what does a non-archer, non-two-weapon, non-beastmaster ranger need to be to be a good ranger? Can you give examples?

On second thought, ignore that. It doesn't matter and is the wrong direction to take this. I really don't want to discuss how well 13th Age works as an overall game, I want to talk about what a good ranger for 5e would look like.

What I would do is steal an idea form 13th Age and give rangers more than one subclass, so each player can pick and choose what ranger iconic abilities matter to them, and put them together to build the character they want. I'd probably go with something like "you get a major and a minor talent" each giving benefits at different levels.

I'll post my thought on talents if anyone asks.
 
Last edited:

I guess the question I asked remains: what does a non-archer, non-two-weapon, non-beastmaster ranger need to be to be a good ranger? Can you give examples?
Well I imagine some who would prefer their Ranger not to be focused around any of those things are thinking of...

Aragorn_profile.jpg
 

I mean, it is more casts of something in the same league as HM. But it isn't really better at the HM job than HM is. You'd use this because it is there, and disposable.
I have no problem switching to plan B, whenever plan A gets knackered.
Rangers as a class are not exactly swimming in spell slots.

The utility in being able to generate an effect similar to HM, while being able to expend my limited spell slots on Absorb Elements, is a substantial positive.
 



vincegetorix

Jewel of the North
Well I imagine some who would prefer their Ranger not to be focused around any of those things are thinking of...

View attachment 127997

I, for one, would like to have the ranger be 1) spell-less, 2) merged with the ''warlord'' idea without the whole domain management/mass battle thing. You know, being an expert adventurer bolstering the combat efficiency of a small unit (aka the usual D&D party size) in the usual environments D&D characters usually face (wilderness, haunted ruins etc)...like movie-Aragorn!
 

Having played Baldur's Gate 3 early access, I actually like the direction that game took the Ranger. By the looks of it now, considerably more than what Tasha's Cauldron is doing with it.
The video game creators also have the distinct advantage of knowing how many of every enemy a Ranger could meet.
 

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top