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

[Don Durito]

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.

Well if you can't please everyone you might as well default to just making a better game.

 

[Azzy]

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.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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]

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]

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.

 

[cmad1977]

Ranger should just be a fighter subclass.

There. I said it.

Ranger should be split into 2 subclasses.
Hunter ranger(fighter)
Beastmaster(Druid)

Maybe 1 more... but it’s not a distinct class anymore.

 

[Mecheon]

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

 

[jmartkdr2]

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.

 

[AliasBot]

Ranger should just be a fighter subclass.

There. I said it.

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.

 

[Don Durito]

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.