D&D (2024) The Lackluster Ranger

[UngeheuerLich]

only if that feat comes with +1 ASI added to it.

Why? The cleric does not get that either.

Int bonus to athletics at level 1 for free is better than having heavy armor you don't need.

 

[Minigiant]

didn't know that tactical mind was at-will ability

Doesn't have to be at will.

Can't have everything

 

[abirdcall]

The 2024 Fighter's Primary class features are Second Wind, Action Surge, Extra I, II, and III, and Indomitable. Weapon Mastery I am guessing is its' only Secondary class feature. As for the 2024 Rogue, I think Sneak Attack is its' only Primary class feature. If I was designing a non-magical Ranger, I think I would pilfer some of their Secondary class features instead. Like the Rogue's Evasion, Uncanny Dodge, Elusive and Steady Aim, just so the Ranger could be more like Legolas from LoTR.

Reliable Talent is really good, unique to the Rogue, and now comes online sooner.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Legolas is an elf DEX archery fighter

Whilst you're not wrong, this is a great illustration of why Ranger has a class has so many problems, both conceptually and in execution.

Even Aragorn, who is explicitly a Ranger, and even the main inspiration for the class existing, is in 5E D&D terms, is most assuredly not a Ranger (or not a single-class one), and the 2024 version is only further away from him.

Ranger is a class that exists because it's a sacred cow at this point, not because it serves any actual role. That's not to say it couldn't serve an actual role - it totally could - but as implemented in 5E (either version), it doesn't. It's particularly a problem, because of all D&D's classes, it's unquestionably the one that least fulfils the "class fantasy". You can handwave and say things "Well they have too much cultural baggage!" and stuff, but that's putting the cart before the horse. The reality is, a lot of players like the idea of being a "Ranger", and it immediately conjures ideas of being this cool deadly sneaky forest-dweller with a bow and maybe a pet big cat or the like, but that is absolutely not what a D&D Ranger wants to be. Instead it's this odd, hard-to-make-work-well class which is ultra-reliant on magic, and tagging enemies with magic, to be effective, and where you have to know what you're doing to not end up with a character who is going to be the least effective in the party in combat and social, and possibly even exploration.

With 5E's other classes, it doesn't feel like you really need a "difficulty to play" measurement like PF often gives its classes (in both 1E and 2E) - they're reasonably easy to make fairly effective in fairly obvious way. But Ranger is, despite having a very accessible "class fantasy", significantly harder to make work well and even working well, it's middle of the pack (outside of that one ultra-optimized Fey Wanderer deal).

 

[Scribe]

Ranger is a class that exists because it's a sacred cow at this point, not because it serves any actual role. That's not to say it couldn't serve an actual role - it totally could - but as implemented in 5E (either version), it doesn't. It's particularly a problem, because of all D&D's classes, it's unquestionably the one that least fulfils the "class fantasy". You can handwave and say things "Well they have too much cultural baggage!" and stuff, but that's putting the cart before the horse. The reality is, a lot of players like the idea of being a "Ranger", and it immediately conjures ideas of being this cool deadly sneaky forest-dweller with a bow and maybe a pet big cat or the like, but that is absolutely not what a D&D Ranger wants to be.

I wonder now, has Wizards actually said what THEY think the Ranger should be? It does feel like there is a disconnect.

 

[Corinnguard]

Instead it's this odd, hard-to-make-work-well class which is ultra-reliant on magic, and tagging enemies with magic, to be effective, and where you have to know what you're doing to not end up with a character who is going to be the least effective in the party in combat and social, and possibly even

This is probably one reason why I would prefer to play a non-magical Ranger over a spellcasting Ranger. A Ranger ought to be relying on their skills and their training when out in the open. There was this one session where my group was in a race with a cultist and his henchmen in order to find the location of a wizard's tomb, and the cultist had something of a head start. I had decided to have my Bugbear Ranger/Rogue (Urban Bounty Hunter background) scout ahead and track him down. So, I was making a lot of skill checks in Insight, Investigation, Perception, Nature and Survival to do just that. Eventually we tracked the cultist to the wizard's tomb and are now trying to find him after he had been captured and taken by some Yuan-Ti. Anyhow, it felt more rewarding (to me) to rely on skill than magic as a Ranger.

 

[Minigiant]

Whilst you're not wrong, this is a great illustration of why Ranger has a class has so many problems, both conceptually and in execution.

Even Aragorn, who is explicitly a Ranger, and even the main inspiration for the class existing, is in 5E D&D terms, is most assuredly not a Ranger (or not a single-class one), and the 2024 version is only further away from him.

Ranger is a class that exists because it's a sacred cow at this point, not because it serves any actual role. That's not to say it couldn't serve an actual role - it totally could - but as implemented in 5E (either version), it doesn't. It's particularly a problem, because of all D&D's classes, it's unquestionably the one that least fulfils the "class fantasy". You can handwave and say things "Well they have too much cultural baggage!" and stuff, but that's putting the cart before the horse. The reality is, a lot of players like the idea of being a "Ranger", and it immediately conjures ideas of being this cool deadly sneaky forest-dweller with a bow and maybe a pet big cat or the like, but that is absolutely not what a D&D Ranger wants to be. Instead it's this odd, hard-to-make-work-well class which is ultra-reliant on magic, and tagging enemies with magic, to be effective, and where you have to know what you're doing to not end up with a character who is going to be the least effective in the party in combat and social, and possibly even exploration.

With 5E's other classes, it doesn't feel like you really need a "difficulty to play" measurement like PF often gives its classes (in both 1E and 2E) - they're reasonably easy to make fairly effective in fairly obvious way. But Ranger is, despite having a very accessible "class fantasy", significantly harder to make work well and even working well, it's middle of the pack (outside of that one ultra-optimized Fey Wanderer deal).

No that's not the problem.

The Ranger has a role

The problem is that a large swath of the community keeps keeps trying to jam characters who don't represent that role into the Ranger then getting upset.

This includes the designers

The description of Rangers says what it is. But many fans went to design a ranger that doesn't match the description yet is redundant with many of the existing elements of the game.

The only ones who have a point are people who want a beastmaster or trapper class.

But making a another Fighter but Green is redundant.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

No that's not the problem.

The Ranger has a role

The problem is that a large swath of the community keeps keeps trying to jam characters who don't represent that role into the Ranger then getting upset.

LOL you're proving my point 100%.

This is exactly the problem. There's a gigantic mismatch between what a Ranger should be, and what a Ranger is, in D&D, and both 3E and 5E have the problem worse than 2E did (4E's Ranger was less of a mismatch, because 4E did things so differently). You're acting like people are just doing it to be difficult, when in fact it's the design of the Ranger that is essentially "being difficult".

The description of Rangers says what it is. But many fans went to design a ranger that doesn't match the description yet is redundant with many of the existing elements of the game.

Nah. The description in both 2014 and 2024 is vague and meaningless, and the name Ranger is flatly the wrong name to give the class that exists in D&D 5E. Warden (ignoring its previous D&D usage) or Wilder (again ignoring previous D&D usage, but it was obscure) or something would have been more apposite and massively diminished expectations.

If you try and push against player and cultural expectations, as the Ranger's design essentially does, rather than rolling with them, you're just pissing in the wind, and that's a great way to get drenched with piss!

But making a another Fighter but Green is redundant.

D&D has a bunch of classes that only exist to create a relatively slight difference. Sorcerer and Wizard being the prime example. Ranger should absolutely, as a chassis, be a Martial with Expertise, baseline extra mobility, baseline a non-magical way to increase damage done that's different to the further extra attacks of Fighters, or backstab or Rogues, and no baseline magic. Then 1-2 of the subclasses could be caster subclasses as per EK/AT etc. By ditching the half-caster stuff you could open up the design space a great deal, and then Beast Master, Trapper, etc. could fit in as non-caster Rangers.

 

[Minigiant]

LOL you're proving my point 100%.

This is exactly the problem. There's a gigantic mismatch between what a Ranger should be, and what a Ranger is, in D&D, and both 3E and 5E have the problem worse than 2E did (4E's Ranger was less of a mismatch, because 4E did things so differently).

The mismatch is due to the designers and community ignoring the description and saying I know better.

The Ranger is called a wandering warrior and viewed with primal Magic.

The Ranger is supposed to add its "wandering skills" bonus, Warrior bonus and Primal Magic bonus together.

But the 2014 designers didn't give any of bonus except the primal offensive combat bonus. 2024 is much better but the ranger still lacks primal skill and defense spells.


Add ~3 spells to the ranger list and it's fixed power wise.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The mismatch is due to the designers and community ignoring the description and saying I know better.

The designers wrote the description...

So again, you're putting the cart directly in front of the horse and saying "My horse won't pull this cart because he thinks he knows better!".