Juriel
First Post
This is hilarious.
Still, Ranger isn't totally useless, because you can get an extra language from 1st level Favored Enemy!
D&D 5E Ranger
This is hilarious.
Still, Ranger isn't totally useless, because you can get an extra language from 1st level Favored Enemy!
pming
Legend
Hiya.
After reading the above, I have a question. Why are you looking to play a ranger if you are focused on "doing damage and casting spells"? Thats NOT what a ranger's forte is.
I'm seeing more and more threads in this forum where someone says "Class X sucks/is lame/is underpowered/just plain bad/etc"...and then they proceed to explain why they think so. It turns out most of the time it's because they are actually trying to get one class to 'fit' into another classes niche/forte.
For the ranger class in this thread...rangers are not about doing damage. They are not front line fighters, they are not sneaky thieves, nor are they spellcasting clerics or magic-users. They have a focus on wilderness survival, with the flavour of wilderness "protection". When you are face to face with a hulking beast trying to smush you into paste? You want a Fighter. When you are down to 1hp from a bad battle? You want a Cleric. When you are trying to find out information about how corrupt the local city guardsmen are? You want a Rogue. When you are lost in the wilderness because the Magic-Users teleport malfunctions? Now you want a Ranger. You don't want a fighter, cleric, etc...you want a Ranger.
Are rangers as effective at dishing out damage as some other classes? No. Not just no, but h3ll no! That's not what a ranger "does". He can hold his own, sure, but he sure has heckfire isn't going to muster up damage point-to-point as effective as a class that is focused on dealing damage over a prolonged and varied grouping of combats (Fighter and Barbarians, generally).
So, stop trying to "damage-per-round-balance" all the classes against eachother. It's pointless and silly. The classes are NOT supposed to be balanced that way; each has their own area in the game where they shine...and there are a LOT of areas in a game for every class and race to shine (at least in any decent campaign that isn't just a series of combat encounters, that is...).
^_^
Paul L. Ming
After reading the above, I have a question. Why are you looking to play a ranger if you are focused on "doing damage and casting spells"? Thats NOT what a ranger's forte is.
I'm seeing more and more threads in this forum where someone says "Class X sucks/is lame/is underpowered/just plain bad/etc"...and then they proceed to explain why they think so. It turns out most of the time it's because they are actually trying to get one class to 'fit' into another classes niche/forte.
For the ranger class in this thread...rangers are not about doing damage. They are not front line fighters, they are not sneaky thieves, nor are they spellcasting clerics or magic-users. They have a focus on wilderness survival, with the flavour of wilderness "protection". When you are face to face with a hulking beast trying to smush you into paste? You want a Fighter. When you are down to 1hp from a bad battle? You want a Cleric. When you are trying to find out information about how corrupt the local city guardsmen are? You want a Rogue. When you are lost in the wilderness because the Magic-Users teleport malfunctions? Now you want a Ranger. You don't want a fighter, cleric, etc...you want a Ranger.
Are rangers as effective at dishing out damage as some other classes? No. Not just no, but h3ll no! That's not what a ranger "does". He can hold his own, sure, but he sure has heckfire isn't going to muster up damage point-to-point as effective as a class that is focused on dealing damage over a prolonged and varied grouping of combats (Fighter and Barbarians, generally).
So, stop trying to "damage-per-round-balance" all the classes against eachother. It's pointless and silly. The classes are NOT supposed to be balanced that way; each has their own area in the game where they shine...and there are a LOT of areas in a game for every class and race to shine (at least in any decent campaign that isn't just a series of combat encounters, that is...).
^_^
Paul L. Ming
Combine that with the issue the the "wow" factor that did give rangers are not common in the stereotypical D&D game.
Unless you know you are playing in a game with a "ranger-friendly" theme, you aren't pulled by the potential from playing a ranger.
I would echo this.
For those who say "I cannot play Aragorn with this ranger!"...to me Aragorn is a Fighter with the wilderness background in 5e. And with that class you can play Aragorn just fine.
This Ranger doesn't have to fit that archetype...but he does need to be fun to play in his own right. With that, the problem I have about this ranger is that nothing excites me. The paladin looks very fun to play, this ranger just...doesn't.
I agree.
But I would have to add that the real problem in the 5e ranger doesn't fit the traditional D&D experience. The first things people think or worry about when making PCs aren't usually tracking, recalling racial info, foraging, and spooky vines.
Unfortunately for D&D rangers, many DMs don't do survival and wilderness. And some straight skip it. Sure many DMs will include it if they have a unsatisfied ranger player. But holding the campaign theme hostage isn't a cool class ability.
Juriel
First Post
So... what you're saying is, the Ranger class is useless for DnD in actual play? Yeah, that matches with the overall tone of the thread.
If wilderness survival comes up (which is increasingly less as levels go by, as people just start flying/teleporting, have magical knapsacks full of all the food and shelter they need, or can create it by snapping their fingers), someone's random Nature proficiency will get people through well enough. Not to mention that a Rogue/Bard could plonk their Expertise into Nature/Survival and be able to do it with double proficiency in any terrain, not just a few specific ones...
Ranger used to be 'the warrior that got more skills', but now everyone gets enough of those (from class, race, background, multiclass) that even that isn't their thing. So what it looks like, is that they're just a weak warrior.
Last edited:
pming
Legend
Hiya
Actual play? I fear that your experience with "actual play" and mine are separated by a very wide margin...
Wilderness survival comes up ALL the time. As in constantly. As in if the PC's aren't in a city or a dungeon/ruin, they're going to NEED to survive. As for the higher level stuff...maybe in your campaigns, but in mine, not so much. Magic can make a large difference in survivability...if the MU's happen to actually have spells for it. Using Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion is great and all...but it's also a 7th level spell (of which a wizard needs to be at least 13th level)...which any wizard will only ever have, at MOST, 2 of at level 20. So, "actual play" has the cards stacked against having all these perfect "survive the wilderness" spells, IME.
Flying? Since when did flying make wandering monster encounters disappear? Again, we obviously have differing experiences, but in mine, flying 'all the time' was basically assigning the party to a death sentence at some random point in the future. What do you meet when flying? You mean things like Roc, Dragons, Air Elementals, Cloud Giants, and other things like that. Getting knocked of the flying carpet at 1,000' is generally a bad thing...as is the wizard loosing consciousness because he (and everyone else in the party) just took 60 points of damage from a blue dragon fly-by.
Teleport? Reread the spell description. There's always a chance of failure...which can be very, very bad. Using teleport circles? Sounds good...but quite limited. Teleport is nice and quick, but definitely not the end-all be-all of high-level travel.
Rogue/Bard Expertise? Rogue, nope (Nature isn't one of their skills). Bard, sure (Bard skills are "Choose three"). However, Nature skill is knowledge only. You can use it to what type of plant you just found is, and if it's berries are poisonous...but you can't use it to find a plant that has edible berries. Meanwhile, the Ranger can do all that the Bard can (even if at a lower Proficiency bonus), but the ranger can also keep his group moving through difficult terrain without hindrance, while tracking the 5 ogres, all the while foraging for food for the whole group for the day. A bard? Well, I guess he can sing a song about how much he wishes he was a ranger at that moment...
Moral of the story: Rangers are pretty awesome at surviving in the wilds. If the Bard in the group is "out surviving" the ranger, if your group is flying all over the place without encounters, or if they are teleporting everywhere because the wizard "grabs nail out of one of the crates that just came from the City Across the Sea" and teleports there...well, that's not because of the "bad Ranger class", it's because you have a bad DM.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
Actual play? I fear that your experience with "actual play" and mine are separated by a very wide margin...
Wilderness survival comes up ALL the time. As in constantly. As in if the PC's aren't in a city or a dungeon/ruin, they're going to NEED to survive. As for the higher level stuff...maybe in your campaigns, but in mine, not so much. Magic can make a large difference in survivability...if the MU's happen to actually have spells for it. Using Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion is great and all...but it's also a 7th level spell (of which a wizard needs to be at least 13th level)...which any wizard will only ever have, at MOST, 2 of at level 20. So, "actual play" has the cards stacked against having all these perfect "survive the wilderness" spells, IME.
Flying? Since when did flying make wandering monster encounters disappear? Again, we obviously have differing experiences, but in mine, flying 'all the time' was basically assigning the party to a death sentence at some random point in the future. What do you meet when flying? You mean things like Roc, Dragons, Air Elementals, Cloud Giants, and other things like that. Getting knocked of the flying carpet at 1,000' is generally a bad thing...as is the wizard loosing consciousness because he (and everyone else in the party) just took 60 points of damage from a blue dragon fly-by.
Teleport? Reread the spell description. There's always a chance of failure...which can be very, very bad. Using teleport circles? Sounds good...but quite limited. Teleport is nice and quick, but definitely not the end-all be-all of high-level travel.
Rogue/Bard Expertise? Rogue, nope (Nature isn't one of their skills). Bard, sure (Bard skills are "Choose three"). However, Nature skill is knowledge only. You can use it to what type of plant you just found is, and if it's berries are poisonous...but you can't use it to find a plant that has edible berries. Meanwhile, the Ranger can do all that the Bard can (even if at a lower Proficiency bonus), but the ranger can also keep his group moving through difficult terrain without hindrance, while tracking the 5 ogres, all the while foraging for food for the whole group for the day. A bard? Well, I guess he can sing a song about how much he wishes he was a ranger at that moment...
Moral of the story: Rangers are pretty awesome at surviving in the wilds. If the Bard in the group is "out surviving" the ranger, if your group is flying all over the place without encounters, or if they are teleporting everywhere because the wizard "grabs nail out of one of the crates that just came from the City Across the Sea" and teleports there...well, that's not because of the "bad Ranger class", it's because you have a bad DM.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
Juriel
First Post
What?
Leomund's Tiny Hut (3rd level Bard, Wizard ritual)
Purify Food And Drink (1st level Druid, Cleric, Paladin ritual)
Locate Animals Or Plants (2nd level Bard, Druid, Ranger ritual)
I don't know how you manage to have trouble surviving, rituals cost you 10 minutes. Or a spell slot you won't miss from lv5 onwards, if it was That Critical to find the right berry.
Oh, sorry, I didn't know your GM was of the 'lol dragon lands on you' school of world building. I can see how that would hinder surviving, but not exactly in any fashion Ranger could help with.
Who cares about class skills? You picked it as part of your background package if you cared about it, apply Expertise, done.
However, Nature skill is knowledge only. You can use it to what type of plant you just found is, and if it's berries are poisonous...but you can't use it to find a plant that has edible berries. Meanwhile, the Ranger can do all that the Bard can (even if at a lower Proficiency bonus), but the ranger can also keep his group moving through difficult terrain without hindrance, while tracking the 5 ogres, all the while foraging for food for the whole group for the day. A bard? Well, I guess he can sing a song about how much he wishes he was a ranger at that moment...
No-one ever wishes they were a Ranger... And Ranger only has those skills if he has picked them, no different from Rogue or Bard. Who are BETTER than him in the vast majority of terrains.
Or they could be, but no-one has reason to want to specialize in 'hey guys we can eat this bark' - that's why you have backpacks full of gear.
And I'm glad if your group is getting something out of wilderness survival, I just don't see how you aren't using any of the tools to, well, get past it without hassle.
pming
Legend
Hiya.
As I said at the very beginning of my post...I fear that our two play experiences are too far apart.
Rogue thing: I still wouldn't let it go. The "expertise" ability is under Rogue and that's the skill list I'd allow a player to choose from (not race, background, or whatever else gives you 'skills' [feat or something in a future book]).
Flying: I use wilderness encounters. Random ones. I do not tailor them to fit the PC's level; if the dice say a group of 7 goblins encounter the 12th level party, then the party encounters 7 goblins. If the dice say a pair of blue dragons encounter the 2nd level party, then the party encounters 2 blue dragons. The wilderness is dangerous...unless you know how to survive in it, of course.
Spells: Yup, all very useful. But limited. Spells are limited. They work wonders, but they are subject to other considerations (time, material components, duration, etc). I have no problem with any of this, actually. The ranger can do all this stuff too...except his is via his class, not spell. IMHO, it's the same thing as a wizards Firebolt vs. a Heavy Crossbow bolt (other than a HC user will run out of bolts...I'm still not sure of the "unlimited Cantrip usage" thing...but that's another thread...).
Ranger: The ability "Natural Explorer" gives all the above (in one terrain; adding terrains as the Ranger gains levels). They don't "spend/choose abilities" of them; they get everything under it...move (with group) unhindered, forage for food, find shelter, track enemies, etc.
I'll reiterate my stance: Rangers are awesome at surviving (and helping the party survive) in the wilderness.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
As I said at the very beginning of my post...I fear that our two play experiences are too far apart.
Rogue thing: I still wouldn't let it go. The "expertise" ability is under Rogue and that's the skill list I'd allow a player to choose from (not race, background, or whatever else gives you 'skills' [feat or something in a future book]).
Flying: I use wilderness encounters. Random ones. I do not tailor them to fit the PC's level; if the dice say a group of 7 goblins encounter the 12th level party, then the party encounters 7 goblins. If the dice say a pair of blue dragons encounter the 2nd level party, then the party encounters 2 blue dragons. The wilderness is dangerous...unless you know how to survive in it, of course.
Spells: Yup, all very useful. But limited. Spells are limited. They work wonders, but they are subject to other considerations (time, material components, duration, etc). I have no problem with any of this, actually. The ranger can do all this stuff too...except his is via his class, not spell. IMHO, it's the same thing as a wizards Firebolt vs. a Heavy Crossbow bolt (other than a HC user will run out of bolts...I'm still not sure of the "unlimited Cantrip usage" thing...but that's another thread...).
Ranger: The ability "Natural Explorer" gives all the above (in one terrain; adding terrains as the Ranger gains levels). They don't "spend/choose abilities" of them; they get everything under it...move (with group) unhindered, forage for food, find shelter, track enemies, etc.
I'll reiterate my stance: Rangers are awesome at surviving (and helping the party survive) in the wilderness.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
If you play a halfling ranger, you can have a flying mount at level 3. Just sayin'. (Pteranodon if your DM allows dinosaurs, vulture otherwise. Incidentally, how come vultures are Medium while eagles are Small?)
That said, I freely admit that "halfling sky cavalry" is a fairly small archetype to justify an entire class.
That said, I freely admit that "halfling sky cavalry" is a fairly small archetype to justify an entire class.
Similar Threads
