D&D (2024) The Lackluster Ranger

[Minigiant]

Which fighter aspects is the Ranger heavily leaning upon? And which D&D setting is low magic power/low magic frequency?

Most non-spellcasting ranger homebrews and 3PP don't give them high fantastical aspects.

So when placed in a high fantasy world, they ability to make a hut or find berries doesn't help them kill a sea dragon underwater, track a teleporting or flying fey, or see a demon in the darkness.

They end up as just archers and light skirmishers with quirky useless tricks in GH, FR, or a MTG setting.

You make that sound like it's a bad thing. You might as well as say that the Paladin is a fighter wearing holy raiments and doing holy tricks. The Barbarian is a fighter with anger management issues. And so on..

Barbarians and Paladins are almost purely combat classes. So if you have 3 90% combat classes.

Wait Monks.

FOUR 90% combat classes and the Rogue, sticking a nonspellcasting Ranger class that is ~75 combat and low powered wilderness exploration in the mix will have it struggling to find a niche. And that's how you create a class that lackluster.

You would either have to enforce up more robust expiration system like Level Up does. Or commit to your non spellcasting Ranger being blatantly fantastical and have scaling high-powered fantastical aspects embedded into its base class.

However many homebrewers don't do this.

They just create a limited fighter who lacks heavy armor but can create grass tents, cheap mundane tools, and potions and speak to animals with gestures.

Because what they really only want is a fighter that can craft potions and has a high stealth bonus.

 

[Corinnguard]

Most non-spellcasting ranger homebrews and 3PP don't give them high fantastical aspects.

So when placed in a high fantasy world, they ability to make a hut or find berries doesn't help them kill a sea dragon underwater, track a teleporting or flying fey, or see a demon in the darkness.

They end up as just archers and light skirmishers with quirky useless tricks in GH, FR, or a MTG setting.

Probably because not every setting, homebrewed or official, is a high fantasy setting. Some DMs and players like adventuring in a low magic setting where they are less reliant on magic and more on skill. There is no one-size-fits all version of the Ranger or any of the classes when it comes to homebrewing or making an official version of a class.

However many homebrewers don't do this.

I find this hard to believe. There probably are Brewers who will inject a decent amount of exploration into the adventures they create for their players.

They just create a limited fighter who lacks heavy armor but can create grass tents, cheap mundane tools, and potions and speak to animals with gestures.

At least they weren't relying on magic.

Because what they really only want is a fighter that can craft potions and has a high stealth bonus.

Pretty much.

 

[DavyGreenwind]

I think the 2024 Ranger has a lot of its power in the subclasses. Interestingly, I made some level 1 pre gen characters for some people that had never played before (8 classes), and the table unanimously agreed that the ranger seemed the strongest. (Level 1 mind you). I think it's capable of being good at anything.l, depending on the build.

 

[Minigiant]

Probably because not every setting, homebrewed or official, is a high fantasy setting. Some DMs and players like adventuring in a low magic setting where they are less reliant on magic and more on skill. There is no one-size-fits all version of the Ranger or any of the classes when it comes to homebrewing or making an official version of a class

There shows the problem.

Most of the complainers play in tables that are more combat that average or less exploration than average.

In a game when Fighters, Monks, and Barbarians are 90% combat, a Ranger will and must look weaker in an 90%+combat campaign

A ranger cannot beat a fighter or barbarian in damage and toughness because that's mostly all they have.

I find this hard to believe. There probably are Brewers who will inject a decent amount of exploration into the adventures they create for their players.

The point is you cannot expect a DM to use both use the homebrew Ranger and the homebrew adventure of the designers of that homebrew rangers.

That's the issue

An A5e Ranger at a A5e table is an excellent ranger.

An A5e Ranger at a normal 5e table is a fighter wearing green (or brown).

5e, 5.5e, and even ToV's exploration system is based around spells.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I think the 2024 Ranger has a lot of its power in the subclasses. Interestingly, I made some level 1 pre gen characters for some people that had never played before (8 classes), and the table unanimously agreed that the ranger seemed the strongest. (Level 1 mind you). I think it's capable of being good at anything.l, depending on the build.

There are many constraints on that observation! I wonder if that consensus would still be held after this crowd had actually used these characters for a bit.

With 2024 particularly, there are not really any classes that are super duper behind the curve IMO (Monk: Way of the Four Elements, looking at you). Doesn't mean that everything is hunky dory though. There is a Zeno's Arrow Paradox problem here (that's a parable for perfection is the enemy of just getting on with things...), but it's still a useful exercise to sweep the cockroaches out of the corner.

Sorry about the random analogies.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

There shows the problem.

Most of the complainers play in tables that are more combat that average or less exploration than average.

In a game when Fighters, Monks, and Barbarians are 90% combat, a Ranger will and must look weaker in an 90%+combat campaign

A ranger cannot beat a fighter or barbarian in damage and toughness because that's mostly all they have.



The point is you cannot expect a DM to use both use the homebrew Ranger and the homebrew adventure of the designers of that homebrew rangers.

That's the issue

An A5e Ranger at a A5e table is an excellent ranger.

An A5e Ranger at a normal 5e table is a fighter wearing green (or brown).

5e, 5.5e, and even ToV's exploration system is based around spells.

You think so? There are a few warts on the A5e Ranger. I don't think failure to stand up in the combat tier is an issue. Granted, I only briefly looked at the class, so there is a pretty strong chance I've missed something. What are the particular bits that you are concerned about?

 

[Minigiant]

You think so? There are a few warts on the A5e Ranger. I don't think failure to stand up in the combat tier is an issue. Granted, I only briefly looked at the class, so there is a pretty strong chance I've missed something. What are the particular bits that you are concerned about?

I didn't say the A5e ranger is weak in combat.

I said the A5e Ranger's rangery bits are in the DM book.

So if the DM lets a player use the A5e ranger but doesn't use the A5e Adventure and DM books, the ranger loses access to many of their rangery stuff.

And this goes for many lower magic ranger homebrews.

You essentially have 2 groups of people who for different reasons would independently design what would be played as a "fighter in green" in a 5e table because base 5e and 5.5e lacks a subsystem for wilderness exploration obstacles that don't require magic.

 

[Corinnguard]

5e, 5.5e, and even ToV's exploration system is based around spells.

There can't be that many spells that buff exploration compared to combat.

You essentially have 2 groups of people who for different reasons would independently design what would be played as a "fighter in green" in a 5e table because base 5e and 5.5e lacks a subsystem for wilderness exploration obstacles that don't require magic.

And if 5e and 5.5e had such a subsystem for wilderness exploration that didn't require magic, what then?

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I didn't say the A5e ranger is weak in combat.

I said the A5e Ranger's rangery bits are in the DM book.

So if the DM lets a player use the A5e ranger but doesn't use the A5e Adventure and DM books, the ranger loses access to many of their rangery stuff.

And this goes for many lower magic ranger homebrews.

You essentially have 2 groups of people who for different reasons would independently design what would be played as a "fighter in green" in a 5e table because base 5e and 5.5e lacks a subsystem for wilderness exploration obstacles that don't require magic.

Fair enough. Not being a player of A5e, what are the aspects of the adventure/DM books that gives an extra 'boost' to that Ranger?

 

[Minigiant]

There can't be that many spells that buff exploration compared to combat.

Not a ton. Not compared to combat.

But wilderness exploration without magic has fewer core rules in 5e.

Without magic. It's very "Mother May I?" where viability of actions varies heavily from DM to DM.

And if 5e and 5.5e had such a subsystem for wilderness exploration that didn't require magic, what then?

Then those types of classes work better.

Without those subsystems, those homebrew non-spellcasting Rangers stink at ranging

And the other side. If you don't run any real exploration game, the 5e Ranger becomes lackluster because 25-35% of it is tied to being good at exploration.

Fair enough. Not being a player of A5e, what are the aspects of the adventure/DM books that gives an extra 'boost' to that Ranger?

Obstacles and Challenges with well designed rules to overcome them without magic at challenge levels the DM can understand.

Base D&D has practically no exploration rules outside of Tier 1 except

Poisons
Traps

I mean the designers hinted at ways to deal with higher level exploration challenges like planar travel or hazardous environments without casting spells or finding magic items, then they went back on it.