D&D 5E Which version of the Ranger?

[Laurefindel]

The Artificer class has a much better companion mechanic than the PHB.

Yes,

that's why my beast master rework is based on it.

Actually, I'm considering making all "minions" work like the steel defender (acts on your initiative taking its turn immediately after yours, requires your bonus action to make it use its action), be they familiar, animal companion, steed (assuming you are not mounted), summon creature, sidekicks and player-controlled NPCs, etc. Intelligent monster/creatures could act without the master's bonus action once the command is given however.

 

[NotAYakk]

Nope. The problem is people expect ribbon features to power features.
Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer are supposed to be situational but powerful or general and weak. The class power was put into Spellcasting and Subclass. The only outright weak class feature is Primeval Awareness. The class is far from perfect but it isn't as bad as the complaints state.

People come at the class in the wrong angle by comparing it to rangers of other media or editions. And this feeds disappointment because they are looking for something that isn't going to be there.

You aren't supposed to get 2 ribbon features at level 1.

Even getting two "situational but powerful" features at level 1 is horrible design.

That ignores the "back 10" problem of every martial class (which is why martial class MC is so tempting). The difference is the "front 11" of fighter/barbarian/paladin/rogue/monk at least has some meat.

It is possible that in some specific styles of campaign with DMs who run things in a specific way that the Ranger's exploration features are great; but, even then, they swap between "ok, we get to skip the exploration part of the game" and "these features, they do nothing, the ground is too wet/dry/warm/cold".

As for half caster -- the artificer and the paladin are examples of the class features you hang on a half-caster that aren't the ranger.

The artificer is a half caster with solid subclass support (except the alchemist, which needs reworking).

 

[Gladius Legis]

Nope. The problem is people expect ribbon features to power features.
Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer are supposed to be situational but powerful or general and weak.

The problem is that Rangers are the only class where ribbon features are all they get at several levels.

The class power was put into Spellcasting and Subclass.

Those are the only reasons the Ranger is even at all functional, yes. But the weakness of all its other features holds it back, not only making it the weakest class arguably, but also certainly the most unsatisfying independent of how strong or not it is.

Compare to the other half-caster class, the Paladin, who has superior spellcasting and subclasses on top of class features that are actually useful, and you see where the Ranger really falls short in its design.

 

[Laurefindel]

The problem is that Rangers are the only class where ribbon features are all they get at several levels.

I'd rather say that since the exploration pillar has never been fully developed nor supported, the otherwise good ranger abilities* have downgraded to the status of ribbon features.

*They are too specific to be universally useful however, even in a exploration-heavy game.

 

[Minigiant]

You aren't supposed to get 2 ribbon features at level 1.

Even getting two "situational but powerful" features at level 1 is horrible design.

Why?
Why is this bad design? The Ranger would be a fully competent warrior and expert at level 1 even if it got nothing at level 1.
It gets 2 ribbon exploration features because exploration is poorly developed in 5e.

The problem is that Rangers are the only class where ribbon features are all they get at several levels.

Spells
The D&D designers opted to shift Ranger power to spells because they didn't want to design a whole nother subsystem.
Also D&D is so underdevoleped in the Exploration pillar that there are few ways to give powerful exploration class features.

Those are the only reasons the Ranger is even at all functional, yes. But the weakness of all its other features holds it back, not only making it the weakest class arguably, but also certainly the most unsatisfying independent of how strong or not it is.

Again.
The D&D designers opted to shift Ranger power to spells because they didn't want to design a whole nother subsystem.
So the valid complaint would be that the designers didn't make a subsystem for the ranger exclusively.

Compare to the other half-caster class, the Paladin, who has superior spellcasting and subclasses on top of class features that are actually useful, and you see where the Ranger really falls short in its design.

The ranger spell list and subclasses complement and support the ranger's archetype more that any other class. One can disagree with the design choice but it isn't bad design altogether.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Why?
Why is this bad design? The Ranger would be a fully competent warrior and expert at level 1 even if it got nothing at level 1.

It wouldn't and it isn't. Rangers are notoriously weak and useless at Lv. 1, before they get their spells and Fighting Style.

Spells
The D&D designers opted to shift Ranger power to spells because they didn't want to design a whole nother subsystem.
Also D&D is so underdevoleped in the Exploration pillar that there are few ways to give powerful exploration class features.

Again.
The D&D designers opted to shift Ranger power to spells because they didn't want to design a whole nother subsystem.
So the valid complaint would be that the designers didn't make a subsystem for the ranger exclusively.

Who said anything about another subsystem? The Paladin and Artificer don't have entirely new subsystems. They just have actual class features at all levels. That's why those half-caster classes do fine and the Ranger doesn't.

The ranger spell list and subclasses complement and support the ranger's archetype more that any other class.

This is laughably wrong.

Even worse, Rangers aren't prepared casters like they were during the entire playtest, so they don't even get to use most of that spell list.

 

[Minigiant]

It wouldn't and it isn't. Rangers are notoriously weak and useless at Lv. 1, before they get their spells and Fighting Style.

Weak compared to what? It's a fully competent warrior and one of 3 classes that has proficiency in 3 or more skills.
A level 1 ranger is as strong as a level 1 paladin or barbarian or artificer.

Who said anything about another subsystem? The Paladin and Artificer don't have entirely new subsystems. They just have actual class features at all levels. That's why those half-caster classes do fine and the Ranger doesn't.

Those other half casters aren't based on using an underdeveloped Exploration pillar.
Outside of Stealth and picking locks, the Exploration pillar is a mangle of seperate rules and corner cases that require a whole subsystem to use.

The Paladin can fill almost its Social role "Um, Can I roll Charisma?"

This is laughably wrong.

The ranger's spells complement the Exploration pillar extremely well. The only thing missing are desert (hot and cold) spells.
The issue is rangers know so few spells and can't swap them by default.

But if you aren't casting those spells, why are you playing ranger?

 

[Gladius Legis]

Weak compared to what? It's a fully competent warrior and one of 3 classes that has proficiency in 3 or more skills.

But unlike the other two classes that do, does not get Expertise.

A level 1 ranger is as strong as a level 1 paladin or barbarian or artificer.

A Lv. 1 Paladin still has Lay on Hands, a Lv. 1 Barbarian still has 2 Rages/day, and a Lv. 1 Artificer actually gets its Spellcasting at the start, cantrips included, despite being a half-caster otherwise.

On what planet does a Lv. 1 Ranger measure up to any of the above?

Those other half casters aren't based on using an underdeveloped Exploration pillar.
Outside of Stealth and picking locks, the Exploration pillar is a mangle of seperate rules and corner cases that require a whole subsystem to use.

The Paladin can fill almost its Social role "Um, Can I roll Charisma?"

Problem is the Ranger isn't even good at navigating what is there of the exploration pillar. It gets one favored terrain for the first 5 levels, whose benefits basically just allow it to hand-wave exploration ... which most DMs do anyway, so that's useless. If a DM does take exploration into account and the party happens to be in a terrain the Ranger didn't pick, the Ranger is SOL.

 

[NotAYakk]

Weak compared to what? It's a fully competent warrior and one of 3 classes that has proficiency in 3 or more skills.
A level 1 ranger is as strong as a level 1 paladin or barbarian or artificer.

Artificer: 2 spells/day
Paladin: Divine Sense, lay on hands
Barbarian: Rage

Those are all meaty, strong abilities.

Ranger: One additional skill, Ribbons.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Nope. The problem is people expect ribbon features to power features.
Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer are supposed to be situational but powerful or general and weak. The class power was put into Spellcasting and Subclass. The only outright weak class feature is Primeval Awareness. The class is far from perfect but it isn't as bad as the complaints state.

People come at the class in the wrong angle by comparing it to rangers of other media or editions. And this feeds disappointment because they are looking for something that isn't going to be there.

The ranger is more or less all ribbons though, and bad ones at that. Whatever minor crap they get is easily eclipsed by having a real caster. If you replaced the party's ranger with a druid, you'd be better off at exploration and combat. Getting a second shot with a bow at the cost of full caster progression is a terrible trade. Go read Find the Path and tell me what a ranger can do that is worth trading that spell.

The ranger is also pretty pathetic compared to the paladin, the other "hybrid" class. The spellcasting is terrible, considering it is a "spells known" class. The paladin almost gets more bonus spells always prepared than the ranger gets to even know, AND knows everything on their list. To compound matters, ranger specific spells are more or less trash, particularly at the level you get them. The paladin gets the grotesquely broken aura, which breaks the concept of bounded accuracy, and the ranger has nothing which even comes close. You could give them BOTH subclass features in the PHB and maybe they'd be OK.