-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 5E The Ranger
- Thread starter Jaracove
- Start date
Mechanically, apparently not. Play-wise, It depends. Do you play the whole outdoors man type that survives on the wilds alone? Otherwise, It has a bunch of RP heavy mechanics, but in a fight just doesn't seem as fun as a few other classes, cept maybe fighter, rogue, and barbarian, which has a similar amount of repetitiveness to it.
A friend of mine is playing a ranger. Some of their spells seem quite strong. Hunter's Mark is a nice spell. They get a fighting style early. I've read some of their higher level spells, they seem quite nice like Swift Quiver. One thing I did notice is that they seem to be best as archers. Their Beast Lord archetype seems weak. The animal they get doesn't scale well at all. It will be very easy to take out with an AoE attack.
Plaguescarred
Hero
I played a wood elf archer ranger up to level 10 and it was prety effective and useful during exploration and combats. I could track and scout better than anyone. I had the highest attack roll bonus in the party (+11 to hit), and could make up to 3 attacks per round with Extra Attack + Horde Breaker, given the right enemy positioning. I could beef up my damage with hunter's mark, do mild battlefield control with ensnaring strike and even AoE with conjure barrage, hail of thorns or lightning arrow! Oh and i could heal!
All in all i had a lot of fun
All in all i had a lot of fun
Olgar Shiverstone
Legend
The beastmaster ranger is a little gimped because of the way animal companions are implemented, but the other ranger approach seems OK.
Actually, I should have mentioned that; it's not so much the ranger bu the beastmaster aspect of things that's not the best
Combat wise, archer hunter rangers are the killer death machines like they were in 4th except they can heal themselves in combat now. Melee hunter rangers okay but squishy. And beastmasters take a lot of work to run and are weak if you don't plan ahead.
Skillwise, they are 3rd best in number after rogues and bards. Favored Enemy is a skill bonus now and is great if your DM helps you out or have a themed campaign. It's useless if you have a kitchen sink game though.
Spell wise, the ranger has great spells. Best core spell list for the class in any edition. The issue is that they all compete for the same spell slots and spells known. You'll get "wizard regret" and always wish you had access to a certain spell.
Overall rangers are good in themed campaigns and wilderness campaign and lose a LOT if you aren't in one. You can mitigate this by being an archer ranger.
Skillwise, they are 3rd best in number after rogues and bards. Favored Enemy is a skill bonus now and is great if your DM helps you out or have a themed campaign. It's useless if you have a kitchen sink game though.
Spell wise, the ranger has great spells. Best core spell list for the class in any edition. The issue is that they all compete for the same spell slots and spells known. You'll get "wizard regret" and always wish you had access to a certain spell.
Overall rangers are good in themed campaigns and wilderness campaign and lose a LOT if you aren't in one. You can mitigate this by being an archer ranger.
steeldragons
Steeliest of the dragons
I think a lot of the...malaise of the ranger is due to flavor organization [if that makes sense as a thing].
I have the books, but haven't played one or seen one in play. But it seems to me, the skeleton is ok. Favored Enemy. Favored Terrain. Pick a fighting style at 2nd level. Pick an archetype at 3rd.
Where they went wrong, I think, is bringing in the spellcasting. They made Rangers a full on Spellcaster...BUT then, the kind of baffling part, they made it a Half-caster: shorter spell lists, fewer slots, slower progression. So...as a class, they become significantly more dependent on spells than ever before, but at the same time, only have a few to work with.
IMHO, they botched it on the flavor and archetypes. The default ranger should not have had ANY spellcasting...with the option of Magic Initiate, if you want the "lil' bit o' magic AD&D style ranger" you're all set.
The Hunter archetype is fine as is, boosts combat effectiveness with favored enemies.
The second archetype should have been the Caster variant/more reliant on magic/4e-ish powers model.
The Beastmaster could easily have been done, and possibly done better, as an optional Animal Handler/Beastmaster feat. Have a fighter who knows how to train a loyal pet. A druid. A monk.
So, as they are mechanically they look fine. I think the problem is the structure/flavor of the class and folks having to get used to the idea of playing a [arguably historically] martial character that has to depend on spell choices and proper/useful times to use their magic where, formerly, they would simply have rolled to hit and damage.
And those who feel like every ranger deserves to have their own personal panther [thanks, again, Salvatore] are not happy that their animal companions don't give them extra attacks per round are, obviously, disappointed to not be getting to eat the cake they have, too.
I think folks will warm up to the class once they get accustomed to playing it as it has been, quite from the roots, rewritten. That and/or when they get done tinkering with it to get something they like better.
I have the books, but haven't played one or seen one in play. But it seems to me, the skeleton is ok. Favored Enemy. Favored Terrain. Pick a fighting style at 2nd level. Pick an archetype at 3rd.
Where they went wrong, I think, is bringing in the spellcasting. They made Rangers a full on Spellcaster...BUT then, the kind of baffling part, they made it a Half-caster: shorter spell lists, fewer slots, slower progression. So...as a class, they become significantly more dependent on spells than ever before, but at the same time, only have a few to work with.
IMHO, they botched it on the flavor and archetypes. The default ranger should not have had ANY spellcasting...with the option of Magic Initiate, if you want the "lil' bit o' magic AD&D style ranger" you're all set.
The Hunter archetype is fine as is, boosts combat effectiveness with favored enemies.
The second archetype should have been the Caster variant/more reliant on magic/4e-ish powers model.
The Beastmaster could easily have been done, and possibly done better, as an optional Animal Handler/Beastmaster feat. Have a fighter who knows how to train a loyal pet. A druid. A monk.
So, as they are mechanically they look fine. I think the problem is the structure/flavor of the class and folks having to get used to the idea of playing a [arguably historically] martial character that has to depend on spell choices and proper/useful times to use their magic where, formerly, they would simply have rolled to hit and damage.
And those who feel like every ranger deserves to have their own personal panther [thanks, again, Salvatore] are not happy that their animal companions don't give them extra attacks per round are, obviously, disappointed to not be getting to eat the cake they have, too.
I think folks will warm up to the class once they get accustomed to playing it as it has been, quite from the roots, rewritten. That and/or when they get done tinkering with it to get something they like better.
Lidgar
Gongfarmer
I am running one right now, human hunter archetype with the dual wielding feat. Dexterity based. He is the "glass cannon" in the group, dishing out the most damage per round, but not as resilient as the barbarian (no surprise there).
Hunter's Mark coupled with the Colossus Slayer ability is just downright nasty - with dual wielding rapiers, dealing about 24 hp a round at 4th level. And as others have mentioned, can heal too (though not very effectively).
Steeldragon is correct about the spell casting - very limited spell slots make resource management a priority. But the spells are quite powerful.
Agree the Beastmaster archetype appears to be a bit lacking.
Hunter's Mark coupled with the Colossus Slayer ability is just downright nasty - with dual wielding rapiers, dealing about 24 hp a round at 4th level. And as others have mentioned, can heal too (though not very effectively).
Steeldragon is correct about the spell casting - very limited spell slots make resource management a priority. But the spells are quite powerful.
Agree the Beastmaster archetype appears to be a bit lacking.
Similar Threads
