D&D 5E Ranger fight: PHB vs. UA

Which version?


Celondon

Explorer
The most recent UA Ranger has significant balance issues and power creep, especially when looking at MCing.

The Ranger as written in the PHB has a couple of abilities that are incredibly niche and provide little in the way of tangible bonuses -- namely Favored Enemy, Natural Explorer and Primeval Awareness. On top of that, there are issues with their Spells being overly limited. Add in the clunkiness of the Beastmaster spec and you have a problematic class.

Favored Enemy has out of combat advantages, but does little in combat. Advantage on Knowledge checks and Tracking is just an "Okay" bonus. The main benefit comes in identifying the weaknesses of a given monster in a combat situation.

Natural Explorer let's you travel and survive in your favored environment better than others, and you can extend that to your party members, as well. It's a good ability, but again, has no combat utility.

Then, there is Primeval Awareness. Use a spell slot to know if a specific type of monster is present somewhere nearby. Note it doesn't say where, specifically nor how many of that creature type there are. Only a binary "Yes/No".

The Ranger DOES have some good class abilities -- Hide in Plain Sight, Vanish and Foe Slayer, but those come fairly late and don't make up for the weaknesses in other areas.

The Rangers spell selection is pretty cool. They have a lot of abilities which increase their combat damage or alter terrain or hamper opponents. However, nearly all their effective spells are Concentration effects. Hunter's Mark, Silence, Barkskin, Spike Growth, Conjure Woodland Beings, Grasping Vine, Stoneskin -- all Concentration effects. Hunter's Mark or Swift Quiver is necessary for the Ranger to be competitive in terms of damage done compared to Fighters, Barbarian's and Paladins meaning a great many of your spells will be ignored in favor of one of these two in most combat situations. Even in non-combat situations, you end up having to decide whether or not casting Goodberry to help heal a party member is worth the loss of several d6 potential damage in the next combat. There are simply too many restrictions on an already fairly limited pool of effects for the Ranger.

Lastly, we have the Beastmaster. In theory, they aren't bad, but in practice, the pets do not have enough survivability and the fact the Ranger himself has to give up actions to command the beast every turn or it stands there stupidly means that in actual play it just *feels* bad and is relatively ineffective.

You can make a Ranger that is fun to play -- I've played one up to level 7 and enjoyed it immensely. I went into it, however, knowing the weaknesses of the class and was therefore not disappointed by it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


El Mahdi

Muad'Dib of the Anauroch
For me, neither the PHB Ranger, or either UA Rangers, have gotten it right yet (so I didn't vote for either option). There are aspects of each though, that I do like. I seem to be in the minority, but I like the 2d6 Hit Points and Ambuscade of the latest UA iteration. I think those fit the Ranger and are something I'd like in my ideal version.

I think there should have been four poll options: PHB version, UA version #1, UA version #2, and None of Them.
 

G

Guest 6801328

Guest
I didn't vote because neither choice accurately expresses my stance. I don't like the PHB Ranger very much, but I wouldn't want to replace it with the UA version. Nor do I think it's even a fair comparison as one is a "finished" class and the other is a rough sketch.

I am glad, however, that they are experimenting with new ideas.

I wish I could know that they read forums like this one and incorporate good ideas. It would make posting homebrews a lot more fun.
 


ChrisCarlson

First Post
In most cases, from what I have seen, people have expectations that don't match to what the designers intended.
I attribute a good chunk of this malaise towards the 5e ranger to the last edition. In 4e it was a striker class. A damage-dealing machine (often the leader in many DPR challenges) with a few explorer ribbons tossed onto it as window dressing. But the 5e ranger, IMO, is more of an explorer first who can also fight well.
 


Greg K

Legend
I attribute a good chunk of this malaise towards the 5e ranger to the last edition. In 4e it was a striker class. A damage-dealing machine (often the leader in many DPR challenges) with a few explorer ribbons tossed onto it as window dressing. But the 5e ranger, IMO, is more of an explorer first who can also fight well.

A think it goes further back. During 3e, there was a lot of clamor for a non-spellcasting ranger. WOTC gave one in Complete Warrior that drew ire, because it still had spell-like abilities. They provided a second version that substituted fighter bonus feats for spells in Complete Champion. I preferred the Complete Champion version, but WOTC was very late to the party with it given that the same thing was already on messageboards back in 3.0 including as a suggestion from one third party designer (I think it Monte, but I might be wrong)
 

Greg K

Legend
Given the choices, the PHB version. However, I am not going to mark it in the poll. The first UA version was on the right track for me until 9th level (not that I am completely happy with the mechanics for Poultices at 3rd level)
 

I'm A Banana

Potassium-Rich
Ranger fight: PHB vs. UA

iu
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top