D&D (2024) The Lackluster Ranger

[Minigiant]

Its the same like with (2014) monk. Players who only compare damage numbers in blank room scenarios will complain that they are too weak compared to a fighter, but with their utility and flexibility suddenly their strength shines if you a) play them accordingly and b) have a campaign where it matters (not just hack n slash in empty rooms).

The number one problem with rangers and most most nonprimary spellcasters is:

The designers are old school, prefer low level play,and don't have a clear idea of what a high level martial looks like.

This is why

1. The vast majority of named NPCs and villains are spellcasters
2. The majority of high level nondragon warrior monsters are pushovers.
3. The martial caster divide happens in Tier 3
4. The original ranger and monk capstone sucked
5. Any material inspired by any media from the last 20 years stinks at high level.
6. Most OSR games only go up to level 10-12 or slow support after.
7. Many newer games only go to level 10-12
8. The martials mostly just get more numbers past level 13.
9. The ranger is weak in Tier 3

Kyle Brink Was Right.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Kyle Brink Was Right.

referencing something i'm not aware of, they were right about what?

 

[Minigiant]

referencing something i'm not aware of, they were right about what?

That some people need to leave the leadership of D&D for it to evolve.

Not for the reasons he mentioned, but because the designers with clout think too similarly and aren't interested in solving fundamental issues with D&D.

 

[Horwath]

Speaking to the class itself, there's nothing wrong with the Ranger, beyond the usual issue of most people having their own ideal of what the Ranger is/should be in their heads- it's a class that has struggled with it's identity, and generally changes the most with each new revision (2024 being the exception).

You could play a Ranger and have a lot of fun with it's mix of combat prowess, skill focus, and magic. The issue (if there is one, not everyone agrees) comes down to people who wanted something different from the Ranger- and the fact that the class isn't terribly exciting. There's nothing about the Ranger that stands out. For people who want a "WOW" factor to a class, they're not going to be happy with it.

They'll gravitate towards other classes- Druids turning into great huge beasts, Paladins being invincible burst damage machines, Rogues with the big crits and making godlike skill checks, Wizards turning reality inside out in brief spurts, or Monks making concepts like "encounter distance" laughable.

But the Ranger? He's not crackling with mystical energy or making a thousand attacks per turn or inverting encounter balance. He's just doing the best he can with the tools at his disposal.

At the end of the day, I think most people wish those tools were better/different, but at least they work.

The Ranger isn't the best at anything it does, not really. But that doesn't make it a bad class. At worst, it's boring or superfluous. The "fifth party member", if you will.

But it's still early. We have more subclasses to see, and I'm sure the class will have it's devotees, just like the Monk has over the years. Granted, the current Monk seems to have found it's groove at last, and may outshine the Ranger, but the Ranger has never really been a class for glory hounds anyways.

---

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.

Scout Rogues and Oath of the Ancients Paladins still exist. I can play a Druid and never even touch Wild Shape- heck, the Druid in my current campaign throws javelins about as often as he casts spells (magic javelins, but javelins all the same)!

So in a way, everyone has options to work with that can scratch the Ranger itch in a way that suits them. "Ranger" is more of a concept, an idea, than a class. If the current class doesn't suit you, well, there's more than one way to fulfill that fantasy.

It doesn't make the Ranger bad, just maybe, not the Ranger for you and me.

yeah, that is a problem with any class that want to be a hybrid of 3 classes. Or more.

but one thing that I hate about 2024 ranger is:
Mandatory Hunters mark.

why?

because it's a feature that comes with a penalty.
and penalty is that it uses concentration.

same way I hate default heavy armor proficiency in classes.
there should be option to take Heavy armor or something else(see; cleric&druid)

yeah, someone can say; just don't use heavy armor.
Thanks, I just threw half a feat worth of class resources out of the window.

for 1 level of armor, 1 skill + 1 expertise(imitating Skill expert without ASI) is a good trade for that.

If a class feature gives usages of something that uses Concentration, then it should be built in a solution how to ignore that concentration. See: Fey wanderer, Dragon sorcerer, War cleric.
if 1st level Ranger has option to reduce damage increase part of HM to 1 minute only and not use concentration, then it would be a good feature.
This way, it's a limiting feature.

This feature really belongs on Hunter subclass. Hunter's mark -> Hunter?

and to add insult, after 1st level, it gets additional 7 instances of features tied to it.

if Hunter's mark is replaced with Divine strength, there would be no issues because of it.

 

[CreamCloud0]

yeah, that is a problem with any class that want to be a hybrid of 3 classes. Or more.

but one thing that I hate about 2024 ranger is:
Mandatory Hunters mark.

why?

because it's a feature that comes with a penalty.
and penalty is that it uses concentration.

same way I hate default heavy armor proficiency in classes.
there should be option to take Heavy armor or something else(see; cleric&druid)

yeah, someone can say; just don't use heavy armor.
Thanks, I just threw half a feat worth of class resources out of the window.

for 1 level of armor, 1 skill + 1 expertise(imitating Skill expert without ASI) is a good trade for that.

If a class feature gives usages of something that uses Concentration, then it should be built in a solution how to ignore that concentration. See: Fey wanderer, Dragon sorcerer, War cleric.
if 1st level Ranger has option to reduce damage increase part of HM to 1 minute only and not use concentration, then it would be a good feature.
This way, it's a limiting feature.

This feature really belongs on Hunter subclass. Hunter's mark -> Hunter?

and to add insult, after 1st level, it gets additional 7 instances of features tied to it.

if Hunter's mark is replaced with Divine strength, there would be no issues because of it.

even if it wasn't concentration i probably still wouldn't use it because i simply hate the kind of design it uses, i loathe that there isn't any alternative to this awful spell which seems to be build as the spine of the ranger, because i love the ranger, just not hunter's mark.

is divine strength a 4e ability? that's what i found searching for it, a channel divinity using encounter power saying 'add your STR mod to damage the next attack you make' seems a little lacklustre IMO, were the modifiers bigger in 4e?

 

[James Gasik]

You know what the worst part of Hunter's Mark being integral to the class is? You've closed the design space. How would you go about designing a spell that improves upon Hunter's Mark? Or functions like the Paladin's various Smite spells, giving you alternatives?

You'd basically be saying "well, those class features are pointless now" unless you made something like "Scout's Mark: this spell is considered to be Hunter's Mark for the purposes of Ranger abilities"- except not even that, because let's say you decide Scout's Mark does d4's for damage, but offers advantage on ranged attack rolls...but you still have the Ranger capstone saying "but it does d10" damage.

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.

While everyone else will get new toys, you'll have some guy on the design team saying "Hey there, Chief, that's a nice spell you want to give the Ranger. But we're going to have to veto that because it's better than Hunter's Mark. Maybe we can give it to the Wizard?"

 

[Horwath]

You know what the worst part of Hunter's Mark being integral to the class is? You've closed the design space. How would you go about designing a spell that improves upon Hunter's Mark? Or functions like the Paladin's various Smite spells, giving you alternatives?

You'd basically be saying "well, those class features are pointless now" unless you made something like "Scout's Mark: this spell is considered to be Hunter's Mark for the purposes of Ranger abilities"- except not even that, because let's say you decide Scout's Mark does d4's for damage, but offers advantage on ranged attack rolls...but you still have the Ranger capstone saying "but it does d10" damage.

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.

While everyone else will get new toys, you'll have some guy on the design team saying "Hey there, Chief, that's a nice spell you want to give the Ranger. But we're going to have to veto that because it's better than Hunter's Mark. Maybe we can give it to the Wizard?"

we might get something in "Tasha's 2025/26" as Alternate feature. I hope.

 

[Corinnguard]

even if it wasn't concentration i probably still wouldn't use it because i simply hate the kind of design it uses, i loathe that there isn't any alternative to this awful spell which seems to be build as the spine of the ranger, because i love the ranger, just not hunter's mark.

is divine strength a 4e ability? that's what i found searching for it, a channel divinity using encounter power saying 'add your STR mod to damage the next attack you make' seems a little lacklustre IMO, were the modifiers bigger in 4e?

There isn't an alternative to this particular spell in 5e, but there might be one in a homebrewed version of the class or in a 5e-adjacent RPG like Level Up. Then it is just a matter of your DM allowing you to use that alternative.

 

[Horwath]

There isn't an alternative to this particular spell in 5e, but there might be one in a homebrewed version of the class or in a 5e-adjacent RPG like Level Up. Then it is just a matter of your DM allowing you to use that alternative.

here is mine:

Divine Strength instead of HM

at 13th level increase DS damage to d6

at 20th level, increase damage to 2d6(ranger's capstone currently is beyond horrible)

17th level functions that you have advantage while having DS casted.

 

[TwoSix]

I miss 4e's take on this. You have a class, but it doesn't provide any capstone, just more abilities. It's at levels 11 and 21 that you get new abilities that define your character.

The Thief of Legend can steal anything, even his own soul. A warrior might become the Dread Pirate Roberts- even if he should die, he has an understudy he has mentored to take his mantle, replacing the original so that their legend may endure.

I understand that some people don't like their D&D games being so mythic, but that's why you have break points- when ogres and trolls stop being threats, you can move up to giants, or even dragons. And from there, to powerful extraplanar threats, where you're sailing the decapitated head of a dead god through the Astral Sea on route to a showdown with the would be emperor of the Githyanki as a stepping stone to dealing with Tiamat herself.

If you don't want the game to shift into overdrive, you don't really have to. You can stay playing a game where the best ability your class can give you is upgrading d6's to d10's for bonus damage.

And if you do want the game to feel epic, you can advance to something like the ability to steal the sound of a cat's footfall or the ambition of a mighty warlord.

Shadow of the Demon Lord/Weird Wizard does something very similar, although the break points are 3 and 7 instead of 11 and 21.

Tiers of classes that allow change in concept, and class structures with additive rather than synergistic abilities is my favorite way to do class design.

"Rangers" are absolutely one of those concepts that would thrive in the 2nd tier of a 3 tier class system, tied to some diegetic elements but not strongly.