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

[Charlaquin]

Sure, this isn’t the strongest damage buff, but consider what it’s replacing. A language (which the ranger now gets two of from Deft Explorer anyway) and advantage on checks to track monsters of a specific type. Compared to that, +1d4 per round at the cost of concentration is a pretty significant improvement. It’s nowhere near as powerful as the UA version, but that was way overpowered.

 

[NotAYakk]

Sure, this isn’t the strongest damage buff, but consider what it’s replacing. A language (which the ranger now gets two of from Deft Explorer anyway) and advantage on checks to track monsters of a specific type. Compared to that, +1d4 per round at the cost of concentration is a pretty significant improvement. It’s nowhere near as powerful as the UA version, but that was way overpowered.

I'm also lighter than an elephant.

Doesn't mean I'm not heavy.

The base Ranger class was strictly dominated in combat by 3 other classes at level 1. This admittedly does make it not strictly dominated.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm also lighter than an elephant.

Doesn't mean I'm not heavy.

The base Ranger class was strictly dominated in combat by 3 other classes at level 1. This admittedly does make it not strictly dominated.

Right. The goal of the ranger changes has always been to close the perceived gap in efficiency between rangers and other combatants (which is mostly focused on the Beastmaster), to address the problem of favored enemy and favored terrain being useless except in specific campaigns, and to prevent rangers from completely obviating exploration challenges. These alternate features accomplish those goals. It doesn’t make the ranger a top-tier damage dealer, but that was never one of the goals.

 

[jmartkdr2]

... why did they drop Eldritch Armor? Too much variety in the Warlock class?

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

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.

 

[Mistwell]

Actually, I hear from my inside sources that WotC is fairly neutral about the Ranger class. It’s specifically @Gladius Legis they hate, and the Ranger is just collateral damage.

I heard this too. In fact, I heard it on the Internet, so it must be true!

 

[Reynard]

Hot take: people that complain about the Ranger would complain about ANY Ranger from WotC. It's just a meme now.

 

[jmartkdr2]

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.

While I've seen the same thing - it's also the class I've seen cause people stop playing a character 'because it isn't fun' the most (as in, the only one I've seen people say "this class isn't fun.")

 

[Lidgar]

 

[Gladius Legis]

Nice to know some people in this thread are apologists for bad design.