D&D 5E Ranger

I think TWF is viable for the Ranger, but I thnk an archery Ranger can be extremely powerful. The Archery feat is very powerful, and the archery styles +2 to hit offsets the penalty to an extent, which is more than GWF types get. Plus the Ranger gets some good archery boosting/based spells.

As for a non-magical ranger, isn't that a fighter with the Outlander background? Heck, go Battlemaster and you're close to an Iron Heros Ranger.

Well, yeah archery -- the Dex synergy is hard to pass up. I just wish S&B or GWF got similar love.

And sure, you can clone a non-magical ranger by putting together other class elements. That's pretty much always been the case. It's also not really the point. The ranger should be the best at being a ranger, not a fighter with add-ons! I consider it a design flaw if one class with some customization can do another class' schtick better than the original class.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

gweinel

Explorer
From what i have read i also find the ranger a disappointment.

First of all, 5e ranger is too magical for my taste. It is a martial/caster class. The iconic rangers i have in my mind from Aragorn to Drizzt hardly cast a spell. Moreover, "Primeval Awareness", the ability that a ranger can use instead of a spell is a big casters detect. I don't have problem rangers to be able to have a magic trick that helps them sometimes, but this ranger isn't an one that i can indetify.

Also the beastmaster seems to be underwhelming. Before everything else, someone who had played a class with an animal companion (or a summoner) in 2nd or 3rd edition how can have fun with this? I am not saying that 3rd e animal companion was super balanced but it was fun to play. I consider the implement of the animal companion feature as a failure. Not to mention the lack of the animal companion ability to the druid (which comes in contrast with the image at Ph). Well, just my opinion ofc.
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️‍⚧️
Ranger has been my favorite class for all of D&D, but the mechanics haven't always lived up to the concept. I loved the 1E ranger; hated the 2E and 3E rangers; came back to like the 3.5E and 4E (Beastmaster particularly) rangers. The 5E ranger I give a B-.

I do wish the fighting styles had a bit more flavor; the class overall seems to skew toward TWF as the best return on investment for the class as a whole and I'd like to see other styles be equivalent choices.

The Beastmaster seems a bit underwhelming, but I can see how it balances out in the action economy and provides a number of options in play. The Pack Tactics feature of the wolf seems to be handy for cooperative combat especially at 5th level and beyond.

I'm generally of a similar mind (though I don't mind spellcasting rangers at all). The 1e ranger was awesome. The 2e ranger was weak compared to the other fighter subclass on the same XP schedule - the paladin. The 3e ranger was clearly unfinished business. The 3.5 ranger finally hit his stride, and I'd say was even improved by Pathfinder, particularly with its alternate archetypes. And as far as 4e goes, the ranger was, I thought, one of its best classes.

But in 5e? I'm thinking he's a bit lackluster compared to the paladin again, which has become pretty exciting compared to its 3e version. I like the exploration aspects of the class and I'm glad they've finally chosen to re-emphasize those. It seems like it has been a long time, maybe since 1e, that the ranger has seemed to fill that niche so well. But the rigidity of the action economy with the beastmaster just chafes.
 

Andor

First Post
And sure, you can clone a non-magical ranger by putting together other class elements. That's pretty much always been the case. It's also not really the point. The ranger should be the best at being a ranger, not a fighter with add-ons! I consider it a design flaw if one class with some customization can do another class' schtick better than the original class.

What does that mean though? What is a non-magical Ranger and what is his schtick?

Plus, unless you're playing in the Order of the Stick world, Rangers and Fighters did not graduate from adventurers U with Degree titles specifying their class name and which sub-class they minored in.

Consider that you meet the following fellow in a Tavern. He's a tall, bearded human wearing studded leather armour and carrying a Long bow and an axe. He tells you he's an outdoorsman and hunter and even studied a little Druidcraft.

Is he:
  • A Ranger?
  • An Oath of Ancients Paladin?
  • A Totem path Barbarian?
  • A Fighter who took Ritual Magic, or Magical Initiate?
  • A Bard?

Could they tell each other apart?

For my money classes don't exist inside the gameworld. A Ranger in world is someone who identifies himself as a Ranger. That might be a Fighter with the Outlander background, it is probably not a Ranger with the Charletan background even if he has gotten good at sneaking away through the woods when his scams go south.
 

For my money classes don't exist inside the gameworld. A Ranger in world is someone who identifies himself as a Ranger. That might be a Fighter with the Outlander background, it is probably not a Ranger with the Charletan background even if he has gotten good at sneaking away through the woods when his scams go south.

In character, sure. I agree with you.

In the meta-game world of D&D, the part with the rulebooks, there should be some separation between what some classes do best and what other classes do best. Otherwise, we should probably be using a classless system. Class is the mechanical means of distilling an archetype.

I want the ranger to be the best at being a stealthy, outdoorsy, wilderness warrior. He's not the best warrior; the fighter is. He's not the best at being at one with the wilderness -- the druid does that. He's not best at stealth; the rogue does that. But the ranger should combine the traits and do so in a way that can't be matched by others. Sure, you should be able to build a capable outdoorsman using a fighter or rogue class, or make a decent warrior out of a druid. But if the ranger isn't just a touch better at the combination, there's no reason to have the class in the game at all. My vision of the ranger says he doesn't need magic to hit that archetype. A magic-using ranger is OK -- I've played that class and enjoyed it -- but I'd still like an option that I see as a ranger that doesn't involve spellcasting.

If we're playing a classless game, it's a different story, of course. This is D&D we're talking about, though.
 

Andor

First Post
In character, sure. I agree with you.

In the meta-game world of D&D, the part with the rulebooks, there should be some separation between what some classes do best and what other classes do best. Otherwise, we should probably be using a classless system. Class is the mechanical means of distilling an archetype.

Well, yes and no. Classes perform several functions, one of which is archtype portrayal, others include bundleing mechanics, simplifying balance and world building. In 5e in particular part of the Archtype portrayal niche has been split off into the background mechanic.

Which I think is a good thing. For example 3e had half a dozen half-baked "Adventuring Errol Flynn" classes from the swashbuckler to the Dread Pirate. In 5 you just give a character the Sailor or Pirate background and you are good to go.

I want the ranger to be the best at being a stealthy, outdoorsy, wilderness warrior. He's not the best warrior; the fighter is. He's not the best at being at one with the wilderness -- the druid does that. He's not best at stealth; the rogue does that. But the ranger should combine the traits and do so in a way that can't be matched by others. Sure, you should be able to build a capable outdoorsman using a fighter or rogue class, or make a decent warrior out of a druid. But if the ranger isn't just a touch better at the combination, there's no reason to have the class in the game at all. My vision of the ranger says he doesn't need magic to hit that archetype. A magic-using ranger is OK -- I've played that class and enjoyed it -- but I'd still like an option that I see as a ranger that doesn't involve spellcasting.

If we're playing a classless game, it's a different story, of course. This is D&D we're talking about, though.

Sneaky, outdoorsy, warrior who is not as good as a rogue at sneaking, not as good as a druid at outdoorsy, and not as good as a fighter as a warrior, but still better than any of them in his element is an awfully narrow niche to hit. The solution, ever since AD&D, has been spells. And because it's such a narrow niche and the other classes are so good at what they do, the spells have been coming earlier and earlier in every edition until now in 5th they come at 2nd level.

It is possible to do it as a mundane class? Yes, but you need niche protection which really only happens only by using 3e style ability siloing where only Rangers can track because shut up.

And of course there is the question of "Is that really what a Ranger is?" The nature of what a Ranger is or should be has been probably the most debated core class since AD&D. Some people don't like spells, some want more spells. Some think Ranger = Archer. Some love TWF. Some think you should be Beastmaster/Dr. Doolittle.

You could honestly split it up into several classes, in fact that's been done too, with the Scout, Seeker, etc. What you wind up with is a battle on Mt. Nerdrage for which class is the true heir to the Mantle of Ranger. Usually with long awkwardly written yet erudite articles trying to explain why the Ranger should be X without ever quite admitting that really, we all just want to be Aragorn.

With all that in mind, I think that the 5e Ranger is a great class that hits a lot of the right notes. It's not perfect, because it's trying to be too many things to too many people, but I don't require perfection. I do think that the beastmaster probably should not need to spend his action to get his wolf to bite people. Klarg doesn't need to spend an action to get Ripper to bite people, why should the PCs?
 

Hjorimir

Adventurer
That's how I read it as well. Our 5th level Ranger took two weapon fighting and dual wielder feat, so he is attacking with twin battleaxes and getting a second attack for three total attacks all with Str damage on them. Odds are two will hit at least, so he is able to get Colossus Slayer on the second hit. And then he usually can add Hunter's Mark to the first hit as well. So, when he hits with all three attacks, he's doing on average

First hit: Magic Battleaxe 4.5 (weapon) +4 (strength, we did rolling and he got a 16 and bumped it with his race) +1 (magic battleaxe) +3.5 (hunter's mark) = 13
Second hit: Magic Battleaxe 4.5 (weapon) +4 (strength) +1 (magic battleaxe) +4.5 (Colossus Slayer) = 14
Third hit: Normal Battleaxe 4.5 (weapon) +4 (strength) = 8.5
Total = 35.5 Average

It's not too shabby at all.
Hunter's Mark applies d6 damage on each hit, not just the first hit of the turn. So 7 to that and you're at 42.5 if all 3 attacks hit.
 

With all that in mind, I think that the 5e Ranger is a great class that hits a lot of the right notes. It's not perfect, because it's trying to be too many things to too many people, but I don't require perfection. I do think that the beastmaster probably should not need to spend his action to get his wolf to bite people. Klarg doesn't need to spend an action to get Ripper to bite people, why should the PCs?

With that we're in agreement, I think. While the ranger could be changed to hit my own vision, it's pretty good as is across a number of interpretations. My own fixes for the beastmaster issue are in the other thread.
 

Also the beastmaster seems to be underwhelming. Before everything else, someone who had played a class with an animal companion (or a summoner) in 2nd or 3rd edition how can have fun with this? I am not saying that 3rd e animal companion was super balanced but it was fun to play. I consider the implement of the animal companion feature as a failure. Not to mention the lack of the animal companion ability to the druid (which comes in contrast with the image at Ph). Well, just my opinion ofc.

Agreed.

If you're the DM, allow the companion to act and attack on his own, and have the beastmaster's features grant the companion extra attacks or actions when he uses them.

If you're the player, try to convince your DM to see reason, or failing that, ask him if he would allow characters with Handle Animal to train animals to defend them--then buy a dog or raise a dire wolf or griffon, and play a hunter.
 

Plane Sailing

Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
I do have the PHB.

The Ranger has always been one of my favourite classes (and one of the ones I'm most frequently disappointed with when the class design has been a bit meh).

As I was reading through the PHB, with every class I was thinking "this is great! I can't wait to play one of those!".

Then I got to the ranger and... it was 'meh' all over again. I didn't find anything in the class which was exciting or even really interesting. Even the 'favoured enemy' has become utterly toothless. Advantage when tracking and recalling information about them. Hoo. Ray. I'm struggling to find any reason why to play one. Even the 'natural explorer' is hampered because you can only be any good in one natural environment. Would it have killed the class to make it good at exploring at all terrains? That would at least make them worthwhile additions to a party.

I'm almost thinking that if I wanted to play a ranger as I visualise them, my best bet would be to play a 'barbarian' and reskin rage as 'singleminded focus'. Then I can have a big, tough, fast loner.

So sad.
 

Remove ads

Top