D&D 5E Which version of the Ranger?

[DEFCON 1]

Meh... your friend is at his/her first experience of RPG, and you want to start by telling them that something is wrong with the game, but you know how to fix it? That's a very sad approach IMHO. Why don't you just let them try play anything they want out of the PHB and then build their own opinion?

Exactly. Your friend doesn't know what he doesn't know. And as you say you haven't seen any 5E Rangers in action, so you also don't know what you don't know. So don't waste your time trying to fix something you've never even experienced as being broken in the first place.

Remember that a lot of the talk right now are folks complaining about the FIRST LEVEL of a Ranger... a level specifically designed to be completed in about one session. One single session where your ranger player will probably never even get the chance to compare his abilities to the Barbarian raging twice, or the Paladin healing 5 hit points before everybody levels up and the Ranger starts getting to use its spells.

So at the end of the day... if you really think you want or need to cut off some supposedly massive problem with the game right from the beginning... sure, go ahead and find a variant ranger to use. There are plenty to choose from. But just also know that if you just decide to do nothing (for ease-of-use if nothing else)... your friend will most likely never have a problem with his Ranger character (provided the rest of the group doesn't play a Druid, Eagle Totem Barbarian, Rogue Scout, and DEX-based Battlemaster Fighter, each of them trying to overshadow the Ranger's niche.)

 

[NotAYakk]

The first level of the ranger is horrid. The second level merely bad. The third depends on subclass. 4th and 5th are ok. Then you proceed on a long slow slog of meh features and half casting.

 

[Gladius Legis]

The point is that without spells, you can't do Ranger-like stuff unless the DM is generous. This is because there is almost no rules for overcoming ranger-like stuff with skills.

Except in literally the descriptions of the skills in the PHB.

A lot of monsters fly.

And a lot don't. To insinuate that Expertise in Survival would be entirely useless past a certain point is disingenuous.

The DMG litterally saysit there are no track,the DM can say tracking is impossible.

"Can." Not "must."

insert Divination magic. Locate Object is clutch. Big step up from the 3e ranger.

Which literally every other class that can cast spells has. The Ranger isn't special here.

It shouldn't be. Combat and Social don't need the DM to reinvent them to work.

You don't need to reinvent anything. You just have to actually develop it in the campaign. Combat and social are easier to develop because inserting a few monsters or NPCs requires less effort than making out entire maps of places with hazards, traps, places to hide and take cover, climb, swim and such.

Giving the Ranger Expertise wouldn't even "fix" it.

Actually, giving Rangers Expertise in Stealth and Perception they can use everywhere, and not just in one specific type of terrain, would definitely fix a problem with the class. Not the entire class, but definitely one part of it.

If you design a class around 1/3 the game and you flop that 1/3 of the game is lacking, the flaw is in the game system.

If the class isn't properly functional except for one specifically designed type of campaign, then the flaw is in the class.

That's why you should only play the Ranger as designed, find a Ranger homebrew, or just run a Fighter in a green hood RPing as a ranger while ignoring Exploration.

That you can't simply say play the Ranger as designed is a problem with the Ranger as it's designed.

 

[MostlyHarmless42]

Objectively I feel the alternative class variants already linked previously do largely address the concerns of the base class.

In regards to beastmaster, it is less an issue of the pet's damage and action economy being complicated and more an two different issues of preference and performance. Those who complain about the action economy of how the PHB beast master work are not wrong in saying that they might not like the way one has to choose between trading attacks to let their beast act, but it is more so an opinion of what is "fun" or not than complaints of actual mechanical issues.

Where the beastmaster does suffer mechanically is related to survivability of the pet. The PHB version of the class does not grant the beastmaster any way to really revive their pet other than as players do (which is costly and expensive), nor a way to heal their pet outside of the base rules of the game (the pet only gets 2 or 3 hit dice for short rests....ever and often results in the ranger spending all their spell slots just to heal their pet (or taxing their party healer's slots). Additionally, after 7th level or so the pet begins to start having severe survivability issues as AOE effects become outright lethal to pets, and the DM can't exactly be blamed for having an enemy wizard drop a fireball or cloudkill, even if it does result in a dead pet like 80% of the time. This is effectively no different than if one was to buy a dog or other animal with a low CR during high level play.

The Revised Ranger Beastmaster largely fixes the survivability issues of the pet in spades, but I do think that the full base class redo is a bit overkill. You might consider using the ruleset from the revised UA version of the class (mainly for scaling concerns defensively) and then either force them to spend one attack to have their pet attack (as per PHB), or use their bonus action to have their pet take their actions (as per artificer).

I would just give them the subclass abilities listed there at the appropriate levels (or as close to the original if they are different levels, I cannot remember at present), with one exception: leave off is the revised versions 5th level ability (which in the originally replaced Extra Attack), as as long as the pet gets one attack per round it is fine.

 

[houser2112]

Locate Object is clutch.

The locate object spell is crap. To quote a very wise poster of yesteryear:

It's funny, my group came to the conclusion that locate object is one of the most useless spells in the game. 1000 ft is an incredibly short range, so it doesn't obviate the need for research. Anything worth casting it to find is likely going to be (a) something you aren't already intimately familiar with, and (b) in a place where you can't walk in a straight line to it.

So you've somehow found yourself within 1000 ft of the mcguffin (using means other than the spell), which happens to be unique enough for the location so the spell shows you the way to the Holy Avenger (which you happen to already have seen) instead of the rusty POS carried by orc #34. Since it only provides straight-line direction instead of telling you which direction to turn, and doesn't also tell you distance, you need to be a trig expert to know whether the mcguffin being "that way" is on the other side of the dungeon, or the other side of the wall. Since its duration is Concentration, the spell is vulnerable to all the encounters between you and the mcguffin, either due to damage or being forced to cast another Concentration spell to resolve the battle.

Finding your own stuff is probably the only use for the spell, so if you're really fond of that tactic, I suppose this spell is problematic for you, but for virtually any other use (would you really cast a spell to find any old <object of a particular type>?), I think you're perceiving the spell to be better than it actually is.

In case you can't glean it from context, I was responding to a DM that was complaining locate object was making it too easy for PCs to find their gear after being captured. I am of the opinion that this is the only use for the spell, and even if there are other uses that the clever might be able to come up with, it's hardly worth burning a spell known for.