D&D 5E Ranger reaching tier 4

[Quartz]

Hunter's Mark really comes into its own at higher tiers because it can be upcast to last all day.

 

[Ashrym]

Vanish isn't useless, but it's 1/3rd of a Lv. 2 Rogue feature 12 levels too late.

I think the idea wasn't the level the powers came online but the number of actual powers known, without stepping on rogues' toes. Slow spell progression and slow scout / skill progression went hand-in-hand with the heavier combat focus.

Rangers were obviously given a skill attachment along with the shamanistic attachment to go along with the combat abilities and maintain the idea they are meant to be scouts. I had one DM who used to do the long term campaigns in specific settings. Not have a ranger was rare he often had two in the campaign in those groups. The favored enemies and terrain seemed relevant a lot.

I think perception on those class features makes a difference. If a person believes they should always have those benefits then it feels like a penalty without them. If a person understands it's a bonus because of a focus on those enemies and in those terrains then and every other terrain or enemy is the standard then ignoring those features gives a better idea of the general capabilities and effectiveness of the class.

It's awkward because it's a major component of the class identity and it's a situational bonus. That was the same problem backstab and sneak attack thieves and rogues had in the past, and why that was changed for rogues. In hindsight, I've changed my position and I think it would have been better to just give free survival proficiency with expertise in it, an ability similar to "know your enemy", and spell casting in a subclass. It's a bit of a change on my previous opinion. The ranger works, imo, but doesn't need to be as situational as it is, and the spell subclass does give the option to have either a spell or spell-less ranger. Maybe I'll make a stab at house-ruling a posting a version.

I don't necessarily agree the levels some of the abilities given are out of line with a skilled character above the base and below the rogue. A half-skill monkey so to speak. It's also kind of like saying ASI's should give +4 at 16th level because an ASI gives +2 at 4th level and 16th level is higher than 4th level. It's the number of ASI's given that matter and not the levels, much like class abilities. Some class abilities are ribbons, some are an expansion on abilities and not really dependent on level, and some are significant to the levels they are given.

I actually still like hide in plain sight. It gives an ability that would normally only be possible with magic. The only thing that's really an issue is how long it takes to hide. That makes it situational again, but still a very significant advantage over wanting to hide when there's no place around to use for concealment. I might have some ideas on that too, thinking of a house ruled version.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

D&D is a group effort. Even if a character of a particular class underperfoms, it could just as well be a different character who dies as a consequence. The ranger may not be the king of DPR but if things go south he's got ways to get out of Dodge faster than many other characters.

 

[abirdcall]

1 class needs to be the weakest. The ranger is close enough in power to the rest not to matter.