D&D (2024) Ranger 2024 is a bigger joke than Ranger 2014:

[Paul Farquhar]

you could make a decent investigator character focused on rituals and navigating nature

This sounds exactly like the sort of thing people coming into the game would expect from a class called “Ranger”. They would expect the class called “fighter” to be the one who is good a fighting.

 

[Horwath]

This sounds exactly like the sort of thing people coming into the game would expect from a class called “Ranger”. They would expect the class called “fighter” to be the one who is good a fighting.

maybe.

but on the HM and concentration, maybe few more spells could be added to the list that can be used instead of HM at higher levels with favored enemy

5th level: Summon beast
9th level: Elemental weapon
13th level: Summon elemental
17th level: Swift quiver

in addition, 3rd, 4th and 5th level spell from this feature can only be cast once per long rest no matter how many usages of Favored enemy you have

 

[Vaalingrade]

This sounds exactly like the sort of thing people coming into the game would expect from a class called “Ranger”. They would expect the class called “fighter” to be the one who is good a fighting.

As much as they talk about 'class fantasy', they really don't care about concepts that aren't the weird brand that is exclusive to D&D.

 

[KryHavok]

I liked the Ranger changes, but I’m sad a Drizzt build — TWF beast master — isn’t feasible.

That said, if I read Bestial Fury correctly, the 11th level BM Ranger can do:

Beast: move
Ranger: move
Ranger: Action Attack
Ranger: Extra Attack: command beast to Beast: Beast Strike
Beast: Bestial fury: Beast Strike
Ranger: Bonus Action: command beast to beast strike
Beast: Beast Strike
Beast: Bestial fury: Beast Strike

If you have Hunter’s Mark up the beast moved 20ft straight toward the enemy, beast of the land is doing 1d8 + 2 + WIS + 2d6 all of which is force damage. That seems … decent.

 

[Minigiant]

I liked the Ranger changes, but I’m sad a Drizzt build — TWF beast master — isn’t feasible.

It isn't feasible because it would likely be OP if it worked

The idea of a fully capable TWF warrior and a fully capable pet companion with access to magic not being the top 3 offensive and defensive build in an RPG in a fantasy is almost a fantasy itself.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

It isn't feasible because it would likely be OP if it worked

The idea of a fully capable TWF warrior and a fully capable pet companion with access to magic not being the top 3 offensive and defensive build in an RPG in a fantasy is almost a fantasy itself.

We often hear that having a fully competent beast companion with its own actions would be way too strong, but for simplicity sake I let my 2014 BM players (casuals) gain control of their beast like it was just a follower acting like another PC.

Its not like the 2014 beastmaster AND the CR 1/4 beast are so powerful that the two of them with full actions are gamebreaking...It adds to the fight what? 7-8 damage per round and a little more HP ?

It's still not as annoyingly versatile as a fly-by familiar or permanent invisible imps.

 

[ECMO3]

Other classes rely on their spells more for combat. Rangers rely on martial attacks as well, and those don't require concentration.

Hunter's Mark is a spell, so if you are using your class features then you are relying on spells. In that respect I think some Rangers rely on weapon attacks more than others, but in 2024 pretty much all Rangers rely on spells extensively.

Those are there because Hunter's Mark was identified as an iconic ability for rangers and those abilities help keep that ability relevant. If Hunter's Mark had been implemented similarly as a class ability instead of a spell I think the discussions would look different just based on that paradigm shift.

I don't find HM to be an iconic Ranger spell, I don't think it was a spell at all until 5E AFAIK. Perhaps they intend to make it a class defining spell, but if so it is a bland attempt and one much of the community appears dissatisfied with.

I think spellcasting generally is a more iconic Ranger trait than HM spell specifically.

At least the ranger capstone actually improves what's been determined to be an iconic ability of the class.

HM is a spell, not an ability and the improvement is an objectively pathetic improvement on a very weak for the level spell.

A Barbarian gets +4 in two abilities and a Ranger gets +4 or so damage per round when using a spell that he will logically only be using against weak opponents when not using a more potent spell.

I think wizard players and sorcerer players would be complaining as to why rangers get an ability so useful for magic and they don't being the studies it to death guy or the naturally gifted in magic guy.

Wizard and Sorcerer class abilities are FAR, FAR more effective with spells than Ranger abilities. I don't think any Sorcerer would give up metamagic for damage not ending concentration on a 1st level spell and I don't think any Wizard would take advantage on weapon attacks while concentrating in exchange for Spell mastery.

This serves to highlight how pathetically weak these are as spell boosts compared to what other classes get/have at that level.

Implementing it that way would be and obvious buff to the class's spellcasting ability and not thematic for rangers.

Spells are thematic for Rangers and spells in general have been part of the Ranger class far longer than the Hunter's Mark spell specifically has been.

Further when talking about thematics, Hunter's Mark is not thematic at all. It is one of the most bland and flavorless spells in the game!

That falls into a vocal minority argument. We don't have those numbers. Or at least I don't.

The numbers floating around here (which may not be true) are that only 15% are happy with the new Ranger, making it the worst class in 2024 and worse even than the revised Ranger for 5E.

 

[ECMO3]

In the Drizzt discussion it is important to remember that Gwenhyvar (sp?) is actually a 1E figurine of wonderous power. It is a magic item, not a class ability.

In that respect we should not be using Drizzt+Gwen as iconic for a Ranger any more than we use his magic bow or his unicorn figurine or his anklets of speed as part of a Ranger build.

 

[Minigiant]

We often see that having a fully competent beast companion with its own action would be way too strong, but for simplicity sake I let my 2014 BM players (casuals) gain control of their beast like it was just a follower acting like another PC.

Its not like the 2014 beastmaster AND the CR 1/4 beast are so powerful that the two of them with full actions are gamebreaking...It adds to the fight what? 7-8 damage per round and a little more HP ?

It's still not as annoyingly versatile as a fly-by familiar or permanent invisible imps.

It's a fine line.

A lot of the Ranger across D&D is always been something that if one or two things are tweaked the entire class becomes overpowered and one of the top classes in the game. That's what happened in 0e and 4e.

When TSR and WOTC played safe when designing a Ranger it doesn't hit those broken boundaries.

 

[Minigiant]

In the Drizzt discussion it is important to remember that Gwenhyvar (sp?) is actually a 1E figurine of wonderous power. It is a magic item, not a class ability.

In that respect we should not be using Drizzt+Gwen as iconic for a Ranger any more than we use his magic bow or his unicorn figurine or his anklets of speed as part of a Ranger build.

To me the iconic Beastmaster Ranger is Dar the Beastmaster.

A regular warrior and tracker who can swap companions and have an eagle or big cat pounce from the bushes or sky and maul someone.

After that Warcraft's Rexxar.