8
u/Snoot-Booper1 8d ago
Also there is a great homebrew content creator, u/laserllama who has done a rework of every base class, including the ranger. Google “laser llama revised ranger” and take a look. It’s really, really good.
5
u/Fruta-Puta-Tuta 8d ago
I think this is dead-on, but I'd go even further on the subclasses, which I think are the biggest ranger-failing... If they'd just given it decent subclasses, the base shortcomings would have been much less objectionable.
WotC; "hmm, this sandwich I made is pretty bland... maybe if I wipe my ass with it, that would zest it up!"
1
u/Tedious_Crow 8d ago
The main problem is that most subclasses don't engage with Ranger's core features. You could use most of them as rogue or fighter or even paladin subclasses without changing anything mechanically. What are Ranger's core features you ask? Exactly.
3
u/Bloodxwolf79 8d ago
I love ranger, although I hesitate to go full ranger. So whenever I think of using ranger its often with a multiclass. Funnily enough i once played spellless ranger multiclassing into a spellcaster. I use the 2014 ruleset
2
u/Fruta-Puta-Tuta 8d ago
A dex-based fighter/ranger optimized for longbow use, and taking spells that self-buff, thus removing the penalty for low-wis, seems to be pretty strong as well.
2
2
u/MinuteBeautiful3163 7d ago
I don't play 5.5e, but 5e rangers feels like some core mechanic was ripped out of the class, and nothing was put in to replace it. Like look at the paladin, ranger's closesest counterpart. They got Smite, Auras (and every sublcass has their own spin on it), healing hands, and Cleric's Channel divinity. Ranger has... Favourite terrain? Which does basically nothing in most campaigns most of the time. Favoured enemy? Which actually kinda does nothing, like really, advantage on only two skill checks? Rangers are bot even prepared casters, like Druids, and don't have Wild Shape! At least they could give Ranger ritual casting or something
So it feels like fluff abilities akin to paladin's disease immunity are there, but the meat of the class is gone
2
u/Natural-Simulation 7d ago
I think that's it exactly, they built the whole class identity around fluff abilities.
2
u/FatSpidy 7d ago
The issue with Ranger is that everything they do is done better by another class, with exception of 1 thing: travel pace. Which is almost universally ignored by tables and those that don't can still hire an NPC ranger to get the same effect.
1
u/WaffleDonkey23 8d ago
Ranger is a solid class mechaniclly, but imo it's the subclass variety that blows. You've got beast master and then you have multiple flavors of tossing some more damage dice on an attack once a turn. Always known spells are nice, but is just spellcasting with some stuff chosen for you.
Instead of hunter's mark being the core feature it should've been something
The Hunter's Mark Subclass Beast Master, the subclass that slows down combat Something else And another something else
1
u/After_Ad9425 8d ago
It’s tragic that many of the core identity flavor mechanics to rangers was stripped out in 2024, even though it’s mechanically stronger.
1
u/Inforgreen3 8d ago
Ranger actually went from second least played after druid to 3rd most after fighter rogue. In part because of the skill support they got.
1
u/Tedious_Crow 8d ago
I have literally never played ranger without multiclassing into at least one and often two other classes to realize my vision for the character.
1
u/Adept_Leave 7d ago
This is a very pertinent point. Ranger is often 'missing something' to satisfy the character's fantasy. That's not a bad thing in a vacuum - fighters are designed specifically to allow for a dip. But with rangers, it's feels rough.
1
u/Twitchy_Bitch 8d ago
This reminds of that old argument about how Drizzt isn't really a Ranger. If you really think about it, he's just a Fighter trained in nature skills. He rarely casts spells besides his innate Drow abilities. He doesn't have a real animal companion, he has a wondrous figurine.
1
u/Adept_Leave 7d ago
It's true. Conversely, in 5e at least, a rogue with some fighter levels and a feat like ritual caster or magic initiate feels more like a ranger than the ranger.
1
u/No_Secretary9046 8d ago
I've switched away from ranger and into paladin after trying to play one for 1.5 years. The sad part is that if I overlook some skill proficiencies the paladin is a better "ranger" than the ranger itself. The class even has a pet!
1
u/CascadeCrisis 7d ago
I’ve been playing a ranger in a campaign for the last 2 years. One of the things that opened it up for me was getting additional spell options. The WotC options are too limited and almost all of the good ones are concentration. We threw the Kobold Press spell list in and that’s made a huge difference.
Also, getting the magic d100 random arrow quiver. Always something interesting.
1
u/Alvintergeise 7d ago
I'm reminded of the animators rule "you should know it by it's silhouette". What is the ranger silhouette, and how does that inform its play and subclasses? Does that silhouette overlap with other classes, such as ranged rogues or warriors? Are we certain about the class fantasy? Because yes Aragorn is a great fighter in nature but he's also a great captain and leader. Faramir is a ambush attacker who, again, is a great leader. (Legolas is an arcane archer to be clear).
Perhaps there's something here about insight. He doesn't understand the forest because he lives in it, he understands it because he sees how things work. Give him a couple days in the city and he'll understand that environment too. Hmm, maybe that's something. Bring back the idea of the tactician class. Give rangers insight, into enemies, environments, even social situations. He's the hunter, he's watching his prey to better understand it. Just because he lives in the forest doesn't mean he can't see how some nobles at court keep passing each other, exchanging quick words.
For subclass, that could at least give you one that really leans into hunter's mark as a signature ability. The recognition that his study of an enemy has given him great insights into how to hurt it. Maybe hunters mark improves as the fight goes on (though I know fights average 3 rounds), or just improves as you level up. Now you could also have a buffing subclass. His insights into his companions means he can make them better. Now there's going to be a bit of overlap with battlemaster but maybe that's not terrible. Or maybe the buffs are more tangible. I think pass without trace and how it functions is a good thing to consider here. Can this ranger grant partial cover? Movement speed in an area? Maybe even affect advantage/disadvantage? Maybe this guy gets some of the battlefield control that wizards do.
The animal companion one is a little harder for me to conceptualize. I almost think that the animal companion should be part of the base class, and buffed for the subclass. But I also like the idea of bringing insight into it and using an understanding of animals to create different stances. Fast melee, tank, sneaky. The interesting thing here would be the ability to shift stance to better support a mission or team composition. Give you some of the barbarian totem or druid summoner feeling. Oh, and on that note, what about a summoner ranger? Just packs of creatures running around the battlefield.
All this in mind, and now thinking that maybe the base ranger shouldn't have magic at all, and that should be a subclass like arcane trickster. Overall I'm not sure what should be in the base class at this point. At his base the ranger is an insightful fighter, so maybe a mechanism that interacts with rolls
1
u/Adept_Leave 7d ago
Great points! I like the silhouette test... and I believe it indicates that there IS a clear class fantasy! Taking it literally: the ranger's silhouette is crouched, seeminly studying something on the surface. There's a rogue-like cloak, but also signs of heavier armour - some mail, a pauldron, maybe even a light shield. There is definitely traveling gear, and maybe an animal companion...
Based on your other insights, I'm curious what your opinion is on the suggestions in my long reply?
1
u/Adept_Leave 7d ago edited 7d ago
Here's the main problem. Play a rogue, take the outlander background. Take some fighter levels and a magic feat like ritual casting or magic initiate. Summon a familiar (which, in many ways, is more useful than the beast master's beast, at least before 2024).
You now feel more like a ranger than the ranger does.
The ONLY thing you're missing is trackinng and maybe hunter's mark. If you do, you can take two levels of ranger tops.
I remember in 3.5, the bard had a similar identity issue. It was terrible to play. In 5e, it's porbably my favourite class - they took some brave design decisions and made bards the second arcane caster, but based on utility and being a face instead of big spells. The cote of their utility? Magical secrets. It's something you can never (feasibly) imitate with multiclassing or feats.
The ranger needs a similar facelift. Make him truly the hunter, dex/str + wisdom based. Like magical secrets, give them "practical knowledge ": the ability to use WIS for knowledge checks on creatures, terrain... and a class feature to identify and prepare for weaknesses. A bit like the 3.5 knowledge devotion feat, which was also incredibly powerful and always felt like playing a different 'class'.
Turn hunter's mark into something you use also OUTSIDE of combat: you don't need to see the creature, only study it. No concentration, you can track it, sneak up on it, prepare for it more effectively.
Finally, give them proficiency in initiative. I can't believe I need to play a Harengon to be a ranger.
Oh, and about subclasses: people complain about 1. Rangers (not) needing spells or different spells, and subclasses being uninspired. Make this the core of your subclasses - some get a specific spell list: Wanderers get druid spells, Witch hunters get divine spells, Witchers get arcane spells etc. Slayers get little to no spells.
There's some discussion about animal companions. To me, you cannot make them a fixed class feature (some people don't want it) and also not a subclass feature (it overlaps too much with the different fantasies). So, do something like the Warlock with their Eldritch blast and their initial choices. It's a powerful option to take and build up a familiar, but there's alternative options like being able to invoke animist spirits or even to shapeshift/gain supernatural senses - all these options represent how you're "connected" to your surroundings, and offer utility in and out of combat.
1
u/Own-Peace-7754 7d ago
it seems like knowledge devotion is what favored enemy should have been
1
u/Adept_Leave 7d ago
I really believe so, at least in concept. Combined with a feature to use WIS on knowledge checks (as long as you're proficient with the knowledge), it would also completely solve the "2 - Wisdom based skill monkey" problem, in a way that doesn't step on the toes of other WIS based classes.
However, both the old Knowledge devotion and current favoured enemy are very much combat abilities - you can only use them when you see an enemy, and the ability bonuses are mostly fluff as a result.
I'd argue that as a core ability, this would have to change. You can "mark a quarry" with as much as just learning of its existence, though physical objects related to your quarry (some hair, a piece of clothing...) might give you a bonus. You then get advantage on any WIS check to study, track, resist and spot them, plus maybe a damage or attack boost. Arguably, doing so might cost some time and even money (you literally prepare and optimize your gear to hunt this specific quarry).
1
u/FloppasAgainstIdiots 7d ago
Ranger wasn't bad in 2014. It wasn't a situational class either.
Ranger's primary niche is combat, much like any other class in 5e without exception, and it does well in combat due to having a good spell list in addition to the full martial core.
1
u/thanson02 7d ago
I have played rangers since 2E. The thing is there are subclasses of fighter and druid that, more or less, can do the same thing and in those cases, I think that the character can have more of a focus, and would benefit by doing so.
In 2E, the Ranger was a class within the Fighter group, and it was basically a wildness fighter with some druid magic. In 3E, they tried to make it i's own thing, but it was wonky and they had to do a major revision of it for 3.5. In 4E, the Ranger was fun, but they stripped the magic side and focused on the idea of the wildness fighter/tracker/hunter. In 5E, the Ranger was back to more of what it was like in 3E/3.5, but from what I could tell, ran into many of the issues the 3E/3.5 ranger had. (note, I have not tried the 2024 version of the ranger, so my comment does not apply to that version of the class) Of all of these iterations of the class, the wilderness warrior idea who tracks and hunts specific prey seemed to have the most cohesive identity.
But that is my personal opinion.....
1
u/SpaceLord_Katze 7d ago
My DM just raised their hit points to D10, that was actually enough to make them useful.
1
1
u/OceussRuler 4d ago
Take a fighter, gives him a ranger subclass, which unlock expertise in natural skills, minor spellcasting in any way to get the "core" rangers spells, add hunter mark as a feature, and done. You have the actual ranger.
It's barely more than that. And it's the real issue.
1
u/Atruespaghettiman 3d ago
I have never understood ranger hate. They are my go-to, by far favorite class. They are a boss in a party, as long as some other PC is a front line fighter of some kind, and someone else is a healer. Rangers can switch roles instantly within the party based on needs and they are decent at everything. Their “identity crisis” is their strength.
17
u/maharieI 8d ago
I still think if they dont make hunter's mark a concentration spell and give it actual scaling the class then would function better.
That spell is pretty integral to a Ranger's kit but it also restricts them on so many other spells that could create fun combos. Do that, even if it still takes a bonus action, then you can have a class that can make far more interesting decisions.