D&D 5E Ranger Rating Thread

[Gladius Legis]

What's wrong with Favored Foe? I think it's a brilliant replacement for Favored Enemy.

The concentration part of it. It puts the Ranger back on Square One, a class whose features still compete with each other.

At the very least the concentration part should've been eliminated at level 6, if they were worried about Ranger dips for it.

 

[Sacrosanct]

One word: Concentration.

The concentration part of it. It puts the Ranger back on Square One, a class whose features still compete with each other.

At the very least the concentration part should've been eliminated at level 6, if they were worried about Ranger dips for it.

I disagree that the concentration thing makes it bad. It still frees up that spell slot that would normally be used on hunter's mark to be used for something else. For example, now using favored foe along with zephyr strike for the same spell slot cost as hunter's mark all by itself.

 

[BacchusNL]

I legitimately do not understand the love for Gloom Stalker. The flavor is cool, but the mechanics are not compelling to me at all.

I assume the draw is the invisibility to darkvision in darkness? In the campaigns we play the only creatures who don't carry a readily available light source essentially at all times are those that are incapable of doing so. And many of those have alternate senses. Further, the ability is just bad if you have PCs that don't have darkvision in the party because they'll be carrying light sources. I suppose it's decent for scouting, but you still need Stealth.

If those orcs are carrying around torches instead of shields because they are afraid of rangers lurking in shadows which their normal darkvision already covered....then didn't the ability already pay itself off by removing their AC? Your standard orc also carries a greataxe, so in combat that torch will have to be put down.

And that's pretty much a worst-case-scenario. Best case scenario; DM's rule this as "you have greater invisibility active when you are in darkness vs non-truesight enemies". A bit like being a rogue with bonus action hide, it's one of those "YMMV" abilities, I think.

 

[Minigiant]

Can I do 2?

Look like a Ranger

1. Hunter
2. Horizon Walker
3. Gloom Stalker
4. Fey Wanderer
5. Beast Master
6. Swarmkeeper
7. Monster Slayer

Play like a Ranger

1. Horizon Stalker
2. Gloom Stalker
3. Swarmkeeper
4. Hunter
5. Fey Wanderer
6. Beast Master
7. Monster Slayer

 

[Flamestrike]

One word: Concentration.

Beast masters need their bonus action to command their beast to attack. Monster hunters need it for Slayers eye. TWF guys need it for the off hand attack.

My Beastmaster can now has the option to use a bonus action to command the beast to attack on round 1 AND gain a damage buff for my own attacks.

 

[AcererakTriple6]

Beast masters need their bonus action to command their beast to attack. Monster hunters need it for Slayers eye. TWF guys need it for the off hand attack.

My Beastmaster can now has the option to use a bonus action to command the beast to attack on round 1 AND gain a damage buff for my own attacks.

Hunter's Mark is one bonus action. It applies an extra 1d6 damage to all of your attacks, as long as the target is alive. If you manage to kill it, you're not getting punished for having to use a bonus action to move it to another creature, that's a benefit.

The problem is that this feature is strictly worse than Hunter's Mark, other than its trigger. Still concentration, no chance of an extended duration, less damage overall, and no added benefit for tracking.

I would be fine if they just did the UA version of Favored Foe without the "no concentration" casting. I would be fine if they made this feature not be concentration. However, they did neither of those things, and this feature really, really sucks. It's got all of the same problems as Hunter's Mark, while being strictly worse.

 

[Flamestrike]

Hunter's Mark is one bonus action. It applies an extra 1d6 damage to all of your attacks, as long as the target is alive. If you manage to kill it, you're not getting punished for having to use a bonus action to move it to another creature, that's a benefit.

The problem is that this feature is strictly worse than Hunter's Mark, other than its trigger. Still concentration, no chance of an extended duration, less damage overall, and no added benefit for tracking.

Damage isnt the Rangers problem though. Rangers are just fine for damage at low level for damage (top tier actually). Rangers run into problems at middle and high level, where there just isnt enough in the class to justify sticking with it.

On round 1, my 3rd level Beastmaster has the option of either [weapon attack and Favored foe] and [Direct the beast to attack] or Hunters mark and attack.

Beast of the land Charge: 1d8+1d6+4 (and Save or be knocked prone) and weapon attack 1d8+3+1d4 (total 22 damage)
or
Hunters mark and Weapon attack: 1d8+1d6+3 (total 11 damage)

I get that in subsequent rounds Hunters mark starts to pull even and even pull ahead, but in many cases (for Beastmasters) using Favored foe is a niche ability that lets it get its Beast doing its schtick on round 1.

 

[Charlaquin]

I legitimately do not understand the love for Gloom Stalker. The flavor is cool, but the mechanics are not compelling to me at all.

I assume the draw is the invisibility to darkvision in darkness? In the campaigns we play the only creatures who don't carry a readily available light source essentially at all times are those that are incapable of doing so. And many of those have alternate senses. Further, the ability is just bad if you have PCs that don't have darkvision in the party because they'll be carrying light sources. I suppose it's decent for scouting, but you still need Stealth.

Bonus to initiative, bonus damage on turn 1, free Darkvision or improved Darkvision if you already have it, invisibility against creatures with Darkvision in darkness, Wis save proficiency (!!), an extra attack if you miss, and a self-targeting Protection style? What’s not to like? Every single feature is very valuable, whereas most subclasses have at least one “meh” level.

 

[AcererakTriple6]

Damage isnt the Rangers problem though. Rangers are just fine for damage at low level for damage (top tier actually). Rangers run into problems at middle and high level, where there just isnt enough in the class to justify sticking with it.

On round 1, my 3rd level Beastmaster has the option of either [weapon attack and Favored foe] and [Direct the beast to attack] or Hunters mark and attack.

Beast of the land Charge: 1d8+1d6+4 (and Save or be knocked prone) and weapon attack 1d8+3+1d4 (total 22 damage)
or
Hunters mark and Weapon attack: 1d8+1d6+3 (total 11 damage)

I get that in subsequent rounds Hunters mark starts to pull even and even pull ahead, but in many cases (for Beastmasters) using Favored foe is a niche ability that lets it get its Beast doing its schtick on round 1.

Damage isn't, but concentration is. The majority of their spells are concentration, which makes this yet another option for a concentration feature that they do not need.

 

[Flamestrike]

Damage isn't, but concentration is. The majority of their spells are concentration, which makes this yet another option for a concentration feature that they do not need.

Then dont use it. Without it, Rangers are just fine at low levels for damage anyway.

 

[Kobold Stew]

To those who said "concentration".

Thanks for explaining your concern; I'll admit I don't share it. You're replacing an ability that has no combat uses with one that does have combat uses. You are freeing up a need for Hunter's mark, though hunter's mark remains, is valuable, and can be used as a stronger alternative. It gives every ranger who takes it more spell functional spells and spell slots...

I'll admit I don't see the problem. Yes, it requires tactical choices by the player in combat. That's a win. It doesn't simply provide a bonus to damage which would add to that provided by a spell, which would be broken.

I see the concentration as a balancing mechanism, and it's working like it should.

 

[6ENow!]

Just these three in order:

Gloom Stalker
Hunter
Beast Master

I don't play nor have seen any other subclass chosen. Personally, they have no appeal at all to me. shrug

 

[Gladius Legis]

To those who said "concentration".

Thanks for explaining your concern; I'll admit I don't share it. You're replacing an ability that has no combat uses with one that does have combat uses. You are freeing up a need for Hunter's mark, though hunter's mark remains, is valuable, and can be used as a stronger alternative. It gives every ranger who takes it more spell functional spells and spell slots...

I'll admit I don't see the problem. Yes, it requires tactical choices by the player in combat. That's a win. It doesn't simply provide a bonus to damage which would add to that provided by a spell, which would be broken.

I see the concentration as a balancing mechanism, and it's working like it should.

I don't see how 2.5/3.5/4.5 extra damage per round, on only one hit per round, is something so strong that should require concentration to balance it out. And on top of that, very limited uses per day to balance it out.

I can understand maybe at the low levels, but past Lv. 6 I really don't see how it would be remotely overpowered with concentration gone. All it's doing at that point is preventing the Ranger from considering the spells on its list (quantifiably more than half its current list) that also require concentration.

Class features competing directly with each other is an example of Bad Design 101. A well designed class has features that complement each other and synergize with each other.

I disagree that the concentration thing makes it bad. It still frees up that spell slot that would normally be used on hunter's mark to be used for something else. For example, now using favored foe along with zephyr strike for the same spell slot cost as hunter's mark all by itself.

Zephyr Strike is also concentration, though. You still can't use it with Favored Foe active.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Zephyr Strike is also concentration, though. You still can't use it with Favored Foe active.

ah, you're right. I just never have seen it used as a durational spell in actual play, but always that first strike round 1 spell That's probably why I had it mistaken. so you can totally use zephyr strike as a bonus action, attack the creature, then trigger Favored Foe letting zephyr strike drop

 

[doctorbadwolf]

One word: Concentration.

You know...I don't think the ranger actually needs a damage boost. The more I think on it, the more I think that Favored Enemy should have given a utility option that is useful defensively or in terms of movement/stealth/etc or help a group tactic to take down broad types of enemies.

Stuff like Advantage against Fear and forced movement, you and allies within X ft of you can move as a reaction without OA when an enemy comes within 5ft of them, allies have advantage against a large or larger creature that you hit on your turn, or against a target that you're within 5ft of, stuff like that.

Each one would be useful in a range of situations, but wouldn't just add damage, which is boring and not needed on a class that does plenty of damage.

 

[AcererakTriple6]

Then dont use it. Without it, Rangers are just fine at low levels for damage anyway.

I agree, but the issue with not using it is that the alternative is on average so useless that it never comes up. They shouldn't have replaced a non-combat feature with a combat feature, but if they were going to, they at least should have made the replacement good.

 

[Einlanzer0]

Hunter's Mark is one bonus action. It applies an extra 1d6 damage to all of your attacks, as long as the target is alive. If you manage to kill it, you're not getting punished for having to use a bonus action to move it to another creature, that's a benefit.

The problem is that this feature is strictly worse than Hunter's Mark, other than its trigger. Still concentration, no chance of an extended duration, less damage overall, and no added benefit for tracking.

I would be fine if they just did the UA version of Favored Foe without the "no concentration" casting. I would be fine if they made this feature not be concentration. However, they did neither of those things, and this feature really, really sucks. It's got all of the same problems as Hunter's Mark, while being strictly worse.

That's.... as it should be, because Hunter's Mark is a spell. This feature is a win-win-win in that it beefed up Rangers at 1st level while also making Hunter's Mark less necessary for all Ranger builds but also not making it useless. Rangers now have a non-magicky way to increase their damage from 1st level, something they needed, while their magicky way of doing so is just a slightly superior alternative.

I'm genuinely confused why people seem to think this wasn't the right approach. As a bonus, it also scales in damage so it eventually does renter Hunter's Mark mostly pointless.

The original Ranger was a butchered mess because it was all over the place in terms of combat, not particularly effective, and MASSIVELY OP at the exploration pillar if and when it ever came up. These alternate features fix both problems quite handedly.

 

[Flamestrike]

I agree, but the issue with not using it is that the alternative is on average so useless that it never comes up.

It's not that useless:

You have advantage on Wisdom (Survival) checks to track your Favored enemies, as well as on Intelligence Checks to recall information about them, you also learn one language of your choice that is spoken by your Favored enemies, if they speak one at all.

What really irks me about the Favoured Foe feature is that it makes the Rangers already weak capstone even worse, in that now the Capstone only works when you're using the Favoured foe feature (and aren't concentrating on anything else).

What I would have liked to have seen is a feature that encourages sticking with Ranger. I would have done something like this:

• At 1st level the feature lets you know Hunters Mark and cast it Wisdom mod per day without expending a slot.
• At 6th level Hunters Mark no longer requires Concentration.
• At 14th level you have advantage on saves and effects originating from or caused by your Favoured foe.

 

[AcererakTriple6]

It's not that useless:

What really irks me about the Favoured Foe feature is that it makes the Rangers already weak capstone even worse, in that now the Capstone only works when you're using the Favoured foe feature (and aren't concentrating on anything else).

What I would have liked to have seen is a feature that encourages sticking with Ranger. I would have done something like this:

• At 1st level the feature lets you know Hunters Mark and cast it Wisdom mod per day without expending a slot.
• At 6th level Hunters Mark no longer requires Concentration.
• At 14th level you have advantage on saves and effects originating from or caused by your Favoured foe.

It's not completely useless, I've seen the language see some use before, but I have absolutely never seen any ranger in my group (either my player or fellow player) use Favored Foe's other features.

Their capstone sucks still, which is disappointing. I will just use my homebrew rule still (you gain the bonus from the capstone against anyone you have Hunter's Mark on).

The feature you recommend is basically what I would have preferred, but the 6th level bonus seems a bit too good (I would limit it to the hunter's mark from that feature, so it effectively it works as the UA Favored Foe, but is less abusable for multiclassing).

 

[Flamestrike]

The feature you recommend is basically what I would have preferred, but the 6th level bonus seems a bit too good (I would limit it to the hunter's mark from that feature, so it effectively it works as the UA Favored Foe, but is less abusable for multiclassing).

Its' shunted out to 6th level though, so it's not something one can just dip to get.

Seeing as Paladins at that level gain +Cha to saves in a 10' radius (wow) it seems about on par.