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

[FrogReaver]

Lot's of talk about melee Rangers sucking.

My take is you start out at range with a bow and cast hunters mark. Stow your bow at the end of your turn. If any enemies approach too close, pull out your 2 swords, using nick and dual wielder feat you make 4 attacks with hunters mark most likely finishing off whatever enemy ventured too close.

 

[ECMO3]

Lot's of talk about melee Rangers sucking.

My take is you start out at range with a bow and cast hunters mark. Stow your bow at the end of your turn. If any enemies approach too close, pull out your 2 swords, using nick and dual wielder feat you make 4 attacks with hunters mark most likely finishing off whatever enemy ventured too close.

Powerwise Rangers are fine and they remain one of the most flexible classes in the game. I hate all the Hunters Mark class abilities and make for a lot of what are going to be "dead levels" for a lot of builds that aren't designed around HM.

 

[Minigiant]

Powerwise Rangers are fine and they remain one of the most flexible classes in the game. I hate all the Hunters Mark class abilities and make for a lot of what are going to be "dead levels" for a lot of builds that aren't designed around HM.

You shouldn't be designed around HM.

That's the whole reason why WOTC gave you free preparation and knowledge of it.
So you can use HW without sacrificing you preparations and slots.
Precise and Relentless Hunter is to scale that free feature so it is still useful at high levels.

The main issue with Rangers is WOTC wont create new ranger spells nor convert old 1e, 2e, or 3e ranger spells.

Magic Fang
Hunter's Mercy
Hunter's Eye
Blades of Fire
Bladethrist
Scent
Stalking Brand
Towering Oak
Decoy Image
Arrow/Blade Storm

 

[OB1]

Lot's of talk about melee Rangers sucking.

My take is you start out at range with a bow and cast hunters mark. Stow your bow at the end of your turn. If any enemies approach too close, pull out your 2 swords, using nick and dual wielder feat you make 4 attacks with hunters mark most likely finishing off whatever enemy ventured too close.

The '24 Ranger playing in my group right now is running her character pretty similar to this. Round 1 Ranged and Hunters Mark. Round 2 move in with dual shortswords (to get an endless advantage loop, instead of a third attack with nick) and go to town. It's been pretty effective and she's thrilled with the new Ranger and even more so with the new Gloom Stalker.

 

[Mistwell]

On a dual wielder, hunter's mark does good damage. At level 5 potentially +4d6 per turn. And it is worth noting, that aftet 3 atacks, the ranger can still use ensnaring strike and drop concentration on HM.

Yeah was just thinking that. Ranger can really dish out the damage with dual weapons. Thrown dual weapons too.

 

[Horwath]

Powerwise Rangers are fine and they remain one of the most flexible classes in the game. I hate all the Hunters Mark class abilities and make for a lot of what are going to be "dead levels" for a lot of builds that aren't designed around HM.

this is the problem.
Rangers will not have problems with dealing damage, they will have problems with boredom,
it will just be HM, attack, attack, attack, throw some bonus action non-concetration spell, HM, attack, attack...

if there needs to be focus of HM; then put it in ALL into hunter subclass, throw all these features of base class into Hunter subclass and give broad abilities to base class that are not focused on single spell.

 

[niklinna]

People keep telling me the ranger sucks but I keep rolling up ranger PCs and having fun with them.

Well that's one person!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

this is the problem.
Rangers will not have problems with dealing damage, they will have problems with boredom,
it will just be HM, attack, attack, attack, throw some bonus action non-concetration spell, HM, attack, attack...

if there needs to be focus of HM; then put it in ALL into hunter subclass, throw all these features of base class into Hunter subclass and give broad abilities to base class that are not focused on single spell.

Take away hunters mark and you are left with inferior fighters without heavy armour proficiency.

Rangers are boring because 5e has no job for them to do (and doesn’t need a job for them to do).

 

[TiQuinn]

Well that's one person!

It’s me, I’m the problem.

 

[niklinna]

It’s me, I’m the problem.

Nah you're good mate. It's all those darn other people wanting something more/different.

So many such people.

Apparently.

(I would be one of those people if I had any interest in D&D. I usually gravitate to the ranger-type characters. But the D&D ranger, in all its supposed variations and subclasses, I just bounce right off that. I might have liked it in 4e if there were not several much juicier options in that edition.)

Edit: Oops! Meant to say "were not".