D&D 5E Why Would I Play a Ranger?

[Sacrosanct]

Also, it should be pointed out that poison spray has a range of 10 feet. Comparing that to a ranger's ranged attack ability is pretty darn odd. Not to mention that there are a lot of creatures that are resistant to poison. But more importantly, it means that in order to use poison spray, the wizard has to put him or herself right up into melee. Yeah, that's never a good idea.

 

[Salamandyr]

However, mechanical effectiveness is often an important part of creating verisimilitude of playing a class. If there was a class called "Awesome Archer" that was, despite the name, clearly terrible at archery, I wouldn't recommend someone play it when they want to roleplay an awesome archer.

A perception of weakness at the thing that defines a class actively hampers roleplay. Rangers are supposed to be able to rain death from above with their arrows; if their "death from above" were actually less effective than a wizards weakest spell, then I certainly wouldn't consider playing them*

*They're not; just hypothesizing if they were as mediocre as described in the OP's post. Rangers and Warlock's appear to be the highest damage ranged characters in the game. The choice between them comes down to whether you want to be Robin Hood or Doctor Strange. They're both better at what they do than Gandalf (the Wizard) and that's how it should be.

 

[Ahrimon]

I'm curious why a ranged ranger has a 14 in Dex. At 5th level they should have a 16 minimum and more like 18 if there has been any sort of optimization going on.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Rangers are supposed to be able to rain death from above with their arrows;.

They are? I don't think this is necessarily true. Throughout the editions, rangers have pretty much always been:

*trackers/hunters
*good at fighting both in melee and ranged (maybe not as good as a fighter)
* light spell casters

I don't play 4e so I can't comment to that, but every other edition did not have the rangers' deal be "raining death from above with their arrows". They were a lot more than just that, and in fact, I'd say they weren't any better at that part than a fighter would/could be.

 

[Salamandyr]

They are? I don't think this is necessarily true. Throughout the editions, rangers have pretty much always been:

*trackers/hunters
*good at fighting both in melee and ranged (maybe not as good as a fighter)
* light spell casters

I don't play 4e so I can't comment to that, but every other edition did not have the rangers' deal be "raining death from above with their arrows". They were a lot more than just that, and in fact, I'd say they weren't any better at that part than a fighter would/could be.

Well, this edition is pretty clearly "rain death from above with arrows" as a core precept. As I noted above, I think it's one of the disappointments of this editions ranger that one play style is so heavily favored over others.

 

[cmad1977]

Ermagerd!! Teh rangerZ no has Teh DPRz of a Wizzard!!

 

[Ahrimon]

Well, this edition is pretty clearly "rain death from above with arrows" as a core precept. As I noted above, I think it's one of the disappointments of this editions ranger that one play style is so heavily favored over others.

I don't see that at all. In this edition I see:
*trackers/hunters
*good at fighting both in melee and ranged (maybe not as good as a fighter)
* light spell casters

The Ranger overall is fine, the Hunter is fine, but the Beastmaster does suffer a bit from having to sacrifice your action to do anything with the animal companion.

Edit: In case I came across as snarky I apologize. I've been awake for 25 hours and I did not mean to be rude.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

More specifics
This is a 5th Level Ranger Beast Master
1d10 long bow arrow piercing dmg
+2 dex mod dmg
+0 Archery Fighting Style dmg
2 attacks
If a Ranger Hunter
Colossus - is +1d8 dmg probably on large+ targets though not stated
Horde - when melee attacking, you get a bonus melee attack on an adjacent target

So we are still looking at similar numbers.
2d10+6 on 1 target
This is the Ranger's best attack.
The Ranger's spells and slots don't compare to the power of other classes.

The Wizard can Poison Spray Cantrip at 5th level for 2d12+0.
This is a basic attack.

I am probably missing something.
I am not missing all the passive and active rude comments in this thread.
'spits'

You might get a better response if you re-read the ranger rules. First off, I'm unclear why this hypothetical ranger is rocking a 14 dex at 5th level. As others have said, it should be 18 (15 + racial mod +2 from level 4). Second, you didnt even read colossus slayer. It's not only on large targets as you assume, its on any wounded target.

I've dogged some on the ranger, as I feel one of their paths (beastmaster) is underpowered unless you pick the snake option, and their level 1 features are mostly a ribbon ability in many games, but they arent as bad as you are making them out to be. WOTC is aware many are not satisfied with the ranger, as it received the lowest marks in their surveys, and is working to improve them.

My tweaks would be as follows - Give the player their choice of a tool proficiency. Let colossus slayer apply to each attack, rather than once per turn. Move the bonus attack from dual wielding to the attack action, freeing up their bonus action for spellcasting. Remove spells known entirely and grant them all of them, as Paladin's dont have to deal with that crap. Add 2 cantrips at 1st level and scale up to 4 at 16th level. At 17th level let them cast Hunter's Mark as a 4th level spell once per short rest.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Fishing_Minigame]

Just off the top of my head...you're missing...

+2 to hit from Archery style
+1d6 from Hunter's Mark
The chance to crit
+1d8 from Colossus Slayer/ Extra Attack with Horde Breaker

So you would actually be hitting more often and doing a potential...
w/Colossus Slayer...(1d10+2 +1d6+1d8)x2
w/Horde Breaker...(1d10+2+1d6)x3

Yeah, a whole bunch of the Hunter Ranger's power comes from stacking up all of its different class features. If you compared the wizard to the paladin without smites or the rogue without sneak attack, they'd look pretty bad in comparision too.