Ranger has always been that class I've always thought about playing, but never actually did. It always felt like it was missing something, or that some of it's mechanics were unwieldly, begging questions like "will I fight my favored enemy this session? Will we ever travel in my favored terrain? Will the party need my abilities to succeed?".
And the answer, too often, was "no, not really". I don't see that changing now, sadly, which is a bit frustrating, but that's fine. Not every class has to be for me.
These questions don't seem relevant in the 2024 changes. Favored Enemy was updated to Hunter's Mark free uses and modifications. Favored terrain is now Expertise, Roving, and Tireless.
Each of those is applicable everywhere.
I think the important question is "Will I have fun?"
And since we know WotC is allergic to making changes to the PHB (RIP Revised Ranger), there's never going to be a class redesign. Hunter's Mark will likely be the, ahem, "benchmark" for Ranger spells for the next 10 years.
The ranger was changed for Tasha's and changed again in the 2024 updates.
I don't think that implies a resistance to change. I think demonstrates an inability to appease all ranger fans while remaining within WotC's goals.
Players were asking for Hunter's Mark to be a class ability in 5e. Listening to players isn't solving perceived issues. Players seem to perceive more or different issues regardless when it come to implementing rangers.
Changing rangers to a non-spellcasting class, for example, is likely going to cause some players to complain about the lack of magic and others to complain about balance between rangers, fighters, and rogues. It kind seems like lose-lose no matter what WotC does with the class at this point, unfortunately.
It's not a bad balance when your worst class is the bland but competent jack of all trades (is it really worse than the rogue anyway?)
Everyone is worse at skills compared to the rogue.
Skill focused characters tend to be weaker than their counterparts though. Rogues are generally weaker than other martial classes. Bards are generally weaker than other major spellcasters. Rangers are the jack of all trades class and generally seen as weaker.
Can't agree. They aren't full casters and too much doesn't take their one trick pony stuff; better hope you're not up against celestials, constructs, fiends, oozes, or undead all of whom commonly ignored charmed and frightened.
I have mixed thoughts on this.
Full casters are going to have similar issues. It's not like a glamour bard is going to be able to charm or frighten an immune target either. That's when it's time to break out a back up spell like entangle, ensnaring strike, or grasping vine; or an AoE like hail of thorns or conjure barrage.
Compared to full casters the access to higher level spells is clearly a comparative drawback, but compared to martial classes the ranger probably is the best controller with added benefits from fey wanderer.
Mmm - they aren't bards. They can stand up to sorcs and warlocks.
What is it that bards are really offering here? Both have expertise and fey wanderers add WIS + CHA bonuses to CHA checks. A bard might learn enhance ability but any ranger is guaranteed to be able to prep it on a short rest.
Either option taking expertise is at the cost expertise in a different skill.
Fey wanderers do make a good party face.
It would also be nice if Rangers were prepared spellcasters who can swap out a select number of spells with every long rest.
Edit: The 5e and 5.5e Ranger. LL's Ranger already is a prepared half-caster.
That's one of the changes to 2024 rules. Paladins and rangers both change prepared spells the same way. One spell per long rest.
www.gmbinder.com
www.gmbinder.com
