D&D 5E Which version of the Ranger?

[collin]

I play a homebrewed Ranger in 1 campaign, and I made 1 very simple change: make hunter's mark a class ability rather than a spell, and start it at 1st level. That does 2 things:
1. Makes the Ranger more of a combative threat to put him/her more on par with the Rogue or Fighter at low levels.
2. Frees up a 1st level spell slot at 2nd level to be used for something else useful.
(See attachment)

I do not get wrapped up in animal companions or other rules. I just let play them as is, although substituting the Artificer's Battlesmith rules sounds intriguing.

 

[Minigiant]

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

Those are all meaty, strong abilities.

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.

Not at level 1.
I'd gladly trade a skill proficiency and a bonus language for 5HPs of LOH or 2 rages

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

Which is the whole problem.
Giving the Ranger Expertise really doesn't mean much because outside of stealth/detection and picking locks, the exploration pillar doesn't work on skill checks alone.

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.

Spells. Spells.
Once you get deep into the exploration pillar it is all spells and "natural abilities". That's why the designers didn't go deep into Favored enemy and why Natural Explorer looks like how it does. The Exploration pillaris underdeveloped and is most ON or OFF.

The problem is the game, not the ranger. The ranger suffers because Exploration pillar in 5e is bad.

 

[TwoSix]

The problem is the game, not the ranger. The ranger suffers because Exploration pillar in 5e is bad.

That's almost certainly true, but it's a lot easier to patch a class than to fix the game.

 

[Shiroiken]

The base ranger class isn't as bad as people make it out to be, but it is on the bottom of the class tier. I included a few simple homebrew items to bring it up, and it's worked out quite well. I also make sure to talk with the players at session 0 to make sure they pick a Favored Enemy and Favored Terrain appropriate to the setting/starting location (which unsurprisingly handles a huge number of problems).

• Increased number of Favored Enemy and Favored Terrain
  • I added more of these, especially on levels that just have ribbon features
  • combined oozes, plants, and beasts into "nature" category, because individually they're really weak
• You add your Proficiency Modifier to damage dealt to a Favored Enemy
  • If using MC, you basically use your levels of Ranger for determining the bonus

The beastmaster is questionable. I've changed the rules for non-mount animals of all types, allowing them to continue taking the directed action until told otherwise. Despite this, there's still no interest by my players to play one.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Not at level 1.
I'd gladly trade a skill proficiency and a bonus language for 5HPs of LOH or 2 rages

I certainly wouldn't, but whatever floats your boat I guess ...

Giving the Ranger Expertise really doesn't mean much because outside of stealth/detection and picking locks

Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

Stealth is a pretty big part of exploration. So are Perception and Investigation. Survival helps when tracking, which is kind of what a Ranger is supposed to do. Expertise would definitely make a difference there.

Spells. Spells.

Which the Ranger may not even have for exploration, considering it is a spells-learned caster (instead of the prepared caster that it was literally the entire playtest), with the lowest spells-known number in the game. It's so low that the Ranger either has to devote spell learnings to combat entirely or exploration entirely and suck at the other.

 

[Minigiant]

That's almost certainly true, but it's a lot easier to patch a class than to fix the game.

Which is why the best homebrew from the ranger is to either make it a pepared class like the paladin or increase the spells known.
The only why to do exploration strength outside of Stealth/Perception opposed rolls and Thieves Tools is to brute force it with spells or rewrite 30+ pages of the DMG.

Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

Stealth is a pretty big part of exploration. So are Perception and Investigation. Survival helps when tracking, which is kind of what a Ranger is supposed to do. Expertise would definitely make a difference there.

Rangers are great at Stealth and Detection. Dex/Wis rangers have some of the best combined Stealth and Perception bonuses..

The problem is Survival doesn't help in tracking that much passed level 3-4 without magic back up.
And defeating natural hazards and supernatural wilderness requires magic as well.

Which the Ranger may not even have for exploration, considering it is a spells-learned caster (instead of the prepared caster that it was literally the entire playtest), with the lowest spells-known number in the game. It's so low that the Ranger either has to devote spell learnings to combat entirely or exploration entirely and suck at the other.

Rangers have the spells. The issue is that you get them too few at a time. The only combat spell they need is Hunter's Mark. You can easier ave every other spell an exploration spell.

Which is why the most common homebrew is to give ranger 2-3 bonus spells known.
Which is why all the new ranger subclasses give you bonus spells.

That's all you need to make the class to go from the bottom to near the top.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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?

This leads to the obvious question - why aren't you just playing a druid and casting level appropriate spells?

 

[Minigiant]

This leads to the obvious question - why aren't you just playing a druid and casting level appropriate spells?

Because you don't have to?
D&D exploration is so bad a half caster can do it.

It's all low level except for Stealth, Detection, and Lock Picking. The only thing that really progresses is Tracking and all it does is open up options to be lazier.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Rangers are great at Stealth and Detection. Dex/Wis rangers have some of the best combined Stealth and Perception bonuses..

Without Expertise a Rogue will always be better at those.

The problem is Survival doesn't help in tracking that much passed level 3-4 without magic back up.
And defeating natural hazards and supernatural wilderness requires magic as well.

It makes it easier, but it doesn't really require it.

Which is why the most common homebrew is to give ranger 2-3 bonus spells known.
Which is why all the new ranger subclasses give you bonus spells.

That's all you need to make the class to go from the bottom to near the top.

And the fact that you have to introduce homebrew or include all the newer subclasses to make the Ranger anything approaching a capable unit doesn't scream to you that the PHB Ranger is deeply flawed?

 

[NotAYakk]

Not at level 1.
I'd gladly trade a skill proficiency and a bonus language for 5HPs of LOH or 2 rages

Oh, and heavy armor for the Paladin.

A rage doubles your durability and healing done to you. Suppose 12 con; then a Barbarian has 13 HP, possibly times two, and possibly doubling healing. The Ranger has 11 HP, 42% of the Barbarian's durability before healing. If you include HD healing, that is 41 HP vs 17.5, same ratio.

The adventuring day/XP required before level 2 is tiny, so you are going to be raging in the vast majority of challenging fights before level 2.

When raging, the barbarian has top-notch (level 1) damage output. Ranger's have baseline martial.

Barbarians also get the unarmored defence ribbon feature, which is about as useful as both of the Ranger's ribbons combined (ie, not very, and if so, very situational).

---

For the Paladin, you get divine sense, which is a better situational ability than both of the Ranger's abilities combined.

Plus LOH, which brings the 12 con Paladin from 17.5 HP/day to 22.5 HP/day, or can be used to save a downed ally in smaller pieces.