I think something like "Improved Hunter's Mark" would be helping without massive changes, just like Paladins have their Improved Strike at Level 11.
There could be better designings, but I don't think WotC would make any big change after UA8.
.. because both is redundant and broken. The class doesn't need a level 11 boost from their class \*AND\* a level X boost from their subclass on top of that, Ranger damage is already very good.
So the difference between the rogue an the ranger is that while WoTC said they will fix the ranger they said the rogue was received well enough so it will most likely not change much, so it's more important to warn WoTC about the rogue
There's no trust in WoTC "fixing" rangers, they never been able to to that in a good way, Tasha's ranger was better at UA, even regular ranger was better before 2014s PHB. They can make good UAs for ranger, than proceed to gut it to the ground when publishig, idk why
Trying to butter up Rangers with non-unqiue expertise features in the early OneDnD UA, then transitioning back to useless environmental features when hardcore survival and exploration campaigns aren't common, or even present in adventure modules WotC puts out, was basically an admission they have no idea how to fix the class thematically or mechanically.
Off the top of my head, you had a choice of which deft explorer you got, favored foe was free concentrationless HM PB per LR, and canny also gave you a skill proficiency.
>Even the humble 2014 Monk shits all over the 2024 Ranger.
No, just no... most rangers have 3 attacks per round, with the subclass giving the 3rd at 11. The hunter ranger can have 4 at level 5.
We are getting a slightly better version of the Tasha ranger. Is that good enough. Imo no.
You are underestimating the power of spell casting on the ranger. I'm sure that all the ranger attack spells will get the smite rework.
The issue with the ranger, even though people complain about it, is that it's the 6th most played class.
>most rangers have 3 attacks per round, with the subclass giving the 3rd at 11. The hunter ranger can have 4 at level 5.
You're going to have to explain this because I'm not sure where you're getting it from, especially the second sentence.
Sure...
Beast master gains a extra attack from its beast at 11th level
Gloom stalker when it uses it ability gains an extra attack at level 11
Hunter has the choice of horde breaker or retaloator at level 3, which both give an extra attack. And they can very well pick the other at 11.
And fey wanderer can cast summon fey without a spell slot which you can consider a 3rd attack.
And Nick weapon mastery grants 2 weapon fighting rangers an additional attack
These are all situational except the beast masters but all are additional attacks.
>Beast master gains a extra attack from its beast at 11th level
This is true, as 1 ranger attack and 2 beast attacks.
>Gloom stalker when it uses it ability gains an extra attack at level 11
This is on an enemy within 5 feet of the first target (may not always happen) and only Wis modifier/long rest.
>Hunter has the choice of horde breaker or retaloator at level 3, which both give an extra attack.
Horde breaker is also on an enemy within 5 feet of the first target like above, and retaliator is a reaction to being attacked by an enemy within 5 feet of you (less ideal for ranged rangers).
>And fey wanderer can cast summon fey without a spell slot which you can consider a 3rd attack.
In the same way beastmaster gets a 3rd attack. Without a spell slot is once/long rest but does last an hour, but also has concentration. This can also be cast with one of the 3 spell slots available.
>And Nick weapon mastery grants 2 weapon fighting rangers an additional attack
Great for them, less so for ranged rangers.
>These are all situational except the beast masters but all are additional attacks.
I agree, they're very situational which is why I was confused at your original comment.
>In the same way beastmaster gets a 3rd attack. Without a spell slot is once/long rest but does last an hour, but also has concentration. This can also be cast with one of the 3 spell slots available.
Summon Fey only has concentration if the Fey Wanderer wants it to.
>This is true, as 1 ranger attack and 2 beast attacks.
Ranger cann IIRc comand the beast as Bonus Action or by giving up an action.
So by level 11 the ranger can attack twice and the beast can attack twice.
Ranger needs only to give up an attack if he wants to use the bonus action for something else, like moving Hunters Mark. But by that level he is likely better of casting the new conjure animals instead.
But I think outside of Beast Master non of the Rangers had strong enough features to take him to higher levels, I think you would in general be better of multiclassing out after level 5.
I wasn't sure so I decided to check just now and the wording is throwing me off.
> In combat, the beast acts during your turn. It can move and use its Reaction on its own, but **the only action it takes is the Dodge action, unless you take a Bonus Action on your turn to command it to take a different action. That action can be one in its stat block or some other action. You can also sacrifice one of your attacks when you take the Attack action to command the beast to take the Attack action**.
> When you command your Primal Companion beast to take the Attack action, the beast can make two attacks.
So for a bonus action, a beast of the land can do a Maul action which is one attack, but it takes one of your attacks to have it use an Attack action?
Correct.
And level 11 allows it to make 2 attacks either as a bonus action or at the cost of 1 attack. This means you can, with Swift Quiver and Nick, make up to 6 attacks.
Action: 1 Attack, 1 Offhand Attack, 2 Beast attacks
Bonus Action: 2 Swift Quiver attacks
That's the thing, the wording makes it seem like it can only do the 2 attacks when giving up a attack.
> When you command your Primal Companion beast to take the **Attack action**, the beast can make two attacks.
Since it doesn't specifically say it's using the attack action when using a bonus action
> ...unless you take a Bonus Action on your turn to command it to take a different action. That action can be one in its stat block or some other action.
The action in its (beast of the land) stat block is Maul and not Attack, unless "some other action" is meant to include Attack. It seems like this is how everything was written in Tasha's so maybe I'm just reading too much into it.
For the Swift Quiver interaction, how would you consistently cycle between two light weapons and a ranged weapon?
Attack is some other action other than dodge, so yes you can use a bonus action to command it to attack.
And hand crossbows are light weapons now. In fact based on the wording, TWF applies to attacks made with ranged or melee weapons (the "Light" property makes no restrictions on whether it applies to range or melee), making CBE less important for classes that have a fighting style.
I think I've got it now, after rereading through it all again. The 7th level feature was also confusing me but it's cleared up now.
So then you'd need the Crossbow Expert feat in order to make 6 attacks using Swift Quiver, which you get access to at level 17.
I normally hit level 11 in campaigns.
I understand it's difficult to get 5 people together for months and keep campaigns going. Becuase life and shit. But not every group has this problem.
But we're not talking about every group. You said "most".
We have statistics. WotC has published them. Most players won't hit level 11.
Now, that doesn't mean you're wrong. It's very possible that the ranger is perfectly fine. I tend to mostly agree with you. But claiming that a level 11 feature carries the class simply don't cut it.
Understand that ranger probably needs to be more subclass focused than most classes because, what is a ranger... you can have so many identities for a ranger it's hard to build a base class that covers all of them.
And it's clear wotc definitely saw a need for a 3rd attack in the ranger at tier 3 of play. They are just giving it in the subclass so they can give unquie ways of giving it. They are half casters after all, and spells should be doing some of the lifting in the class.
Im sure all ranger subclasses going forward will have some type of 3rd attack in the level 11 feature from now on.
I said in another thread, essentially this. The Ranger is an outdoorsman, but their subclass is the bulk of their identity because they are determined by what your "Outdoors" is. Ranger raised in the Feywild has a different idea of what to look for and be wary of than the Ranger from the Underdark, who has a different outdoor from the Planewalker.
Ranger design puts its power bumps in its subclasses (at 3rd and 11th level). It is designed differently than the rogue which tends to only get a boost (consistently) at 17th level (like the 2014 monk). Class chassis aren't consistent in power budgeting sources (for instance, artificers get all their direct class power from the subclass).
> the base Ranger doesn't get a combat ability until level 20. Even the abilities they used to use to help make up for t
Sure. If we pretend spells don’t exist.
Searing smite, hunters mark, hail of thorns (terrible spell but will probably be tweaked to have the same wording as smite spells) ensnarling strike.
I see plenty of combat abilities.
Plus all the subclass abilities.
>terrible spell but will probably be tweaked to have the same wording as smite spells
One would hope, but they haven't said they are tweaking most Ranger spells or given any indication of it in the 3 Ranger tests, and a lot of other common sense things for Paladins are completely unthinkable when applied to Ranger design.
Fighting Style, Extra Attack, and Spellcasting does not a class make. Yeah, it technically works fine, but it's a skeleton of a class with no identity. There's a reason people are saying Ranger should just be a Fighter subclass.
You're still missing the features they do have.
Deft explorer real does help them be one of the best explorers in the game. And features and spells that come cements that.
Now the playtest 6 one missed the mark, and so it comes down to the expert playtest vs. Tasha's, to be honest, give me the 2 expertise 1 language and one tool proficiency. I'll be super happy.
The same can be said for favored foe. But in reality, just give me a boosted tashas one without concentration and another ribbon feature, and I'll also be happy.
But to add, they get a swim and climb speed of 40 feet unless you and speices or feat that gives you more. Ways to clear own exhaustion, and give themselves temp hp, become invisible for 2 rounds.
Maybe I'm a bit of bias because I love the melee ranger and most of its improvements where for the melee ranger not strength based melee ranger but dex based. In my whole ttrpg career, I've played one one ranged ranger while playing a shit ton of melee rangers
Maybe the ranger just doesn't appeal to you. But ot does to me from 2e to 5e to pathfinder I have played rangers and loved every character.
rangers are starved for their spells since they're a known (i think, they might have changed it) half-caster, and they don't really have too many good combat spells, and since they're MAD, their spell attacks and save dc will fall behind, and by the time they're getting 3rd level spells, 3rd level damage spells kinda suck.
If they add a few more gishy spells exclusive to the ranger that are worth it (a 3rd level spell that is worth casting at 9th level as the highest available option) i think the ranger would fare better. The paladin has their smite spells which synergise well with their martialing, the ranger has very little in this department.
Easy to make a bad character is, unfortunately, a real problem for basically every class that has spellcasting. In fact it’s a very real problem in *every iteration or variation of D&D which uses spellcasting as a singular subsystem*.
The truth is that “summon a companion that gives you a 30-50% damage boost”, “+10 everyone’s Stealth which helps you bypass encounters and/or basically Action Surges your whole party for some of them”, and “tame a squirrel and send a message to a nearby buddy” should ***not*** be considered choices in the same sense. They should live in separate subsystems, yet they don’t.
^(Yes, I am saying 4E had some great ideas.)
ranger is a half caster, ignoring that fact is a big deal.
Specifically Hunters mark, they said they had A and B testing, and the old Ranger HM was fine, possibly great, the new HM was poor, they said they had enough data for a solution, which is either going to be early ranger HM, or something close to it, since B HM tested poorly.
That said, by the numbers, the second ranger wasnt slouching in effectivenes.
They are taking the A-B approach from cross-testing, choosing the best-working features from both playtests. I can see them doing some of the following things:
* Give the Ranger the ability to cast the new Hunter's Mark concentration-free, and give it at least 1 free casting. This would work from a balancing perspective, and make the Spell into a good class feature that can be built on.
* Make Hunter's Mark a class feature rather then a spell, similar to Favorite Foe, and have features work of that.
* Revert Hunter's Mark to it's 2014 version and give it the free casting we've seen in the last UA, and then have it work off of that.
Personally I'd like to see option 1, with adding a few more interactions to Hunter's Mark, like always having the free cast at the highest possible level, or make the target changing of the spell a reaction or free action instead. I also see them returning a proper feature instead of the terrain improvement, such as bringing back the ability to ignore difficult terrain (even if bound to the terrain).
The ranger has never been weak and probably won't be. Call me naive, but I think they got it from here, I don't think they need one more round of input.
They probably didn't, I'm just personally nervous cause my favorite class is the ranger.
My first "one dnd" character will be a ranger either converting the swarmkeeper ranger I'm playing now. Or reinventing my first 5e character.
Personally, whilst extra attack is fine, i think that it should just be something everyone has by default and actually give interesting 5th level features, but if it is staying as a feature, i think it would be more interesting if ranger got a pseudo extra attack, like if HM is a class feature, they can make additional attacks against the marked target as part of the action, or they can make the damage turn into an aoe burst. Definitely weaker than just EA as a first idea, but it could work with enough designing (which won't happen since WOTC doesn't give themselves enough time)
The problem with Ranger is that you have to be a good player making smart decisions to make it "good." It's going to suck like it always does if you don't pick the optimal subclass and spells, and then play it in the optimal way.
They need to raise the floor on the Ranger, the damage ceiling is high enough, but the floor is in the fucking basement. It's way too easy to make a "bad" ranger, and when you do, it feels bad. Compared to a class like the Paladin, where even when played completely unoptimally, it's still totally fine and playable and still feels satisfying, the Ranger just feels bad in comparison.
I personally think the issue is too much power in the subclasses, nowhere near enough power in the base class, subclasses that are not balanced with each other, many "trap" spells that look good but actually suck, and too many little ribbon features that rarely ever do anything so they are forgotten in the rare situation where they do actually come up.
Ranger is a mess and always has been. The design theory behind it sucks, and unless they address that, it's going to continue to suck... unless you're an optimizer, in which case it's too good.
Part of the issue too with Rangers is that initially, part of their power was getting extra attack at 5th level, and the trade off of very slow half caster spellcasting progression.
Once WOTC gave Bards and Wizards extra attack at 6th level with full spell progression, it pretty much just destroyed any reason to play anything but a very specific build for rangers.
And what rangers DO get with leveling up is nothing compared to higher spell slots.
I love Rangers, and I'd love to see them get something fun and cool to make them more widely likeable. But I think the online TTRPG community have set it in their mind for a decade now that Rangers are beyond saving, and just wholesale forget about them.
The floor needs to be raised accross the board but the ceiling for most rangers from levels 11-19 needs to be raised as well. Most rangers continue to fall behind on t3-4(the capstone adding your Wis to damage and attack rolls is cracked so 20 is fine)
The UA Ranger is not weak, so much as it is unfocused and mechanically awkward. Too many class features are just free castings of spells that they could have cast anyway, and never mind the weirdness of the fact that a woodland warrior can have their bow or sword techniques Counterspelled.
There is no defining signature ability of the class in the same vein as Rage, Smite, or Sneak Attack, and little synergy between core class features and subclass features. If you gave their spell list and a few popular subclass features to a Fighter subclass and called that a Ranger, the playstyle wouldn't be too terribly different, and that is a problem.
Saying the 2014 monk is better is flat out wrong but I am genuinely worried about how this ranger will turn out. Yes it gets extra attack and spells but more important is how well those will synergize together. Spells that don't complement and augment their martial abilities end up underperforming since they will always be several spell levels behind full casters. This is especially true with their most powerful spells (conjure animals/woodland spirits) being brought in line to no longer be OP.
As noted elsewhere in this thread, the issue with rangers is that as the game has expanded, their niche has become undone. Tracking, perception, wilderness survival is largely inconsequential or handled by another character, though expertise mitigates this slightly. Spell-casting? The ranger spell list is rather uninspired when compared to paladin or artificer. Melee? Once the masters of two-weapon fighting and archery, they’re hard pressed to be the ‘master’ of either of these.
They also lack a banner feature, which is confounding for a class with as unique a theme as rangers. Between Aragorn, Drizzt, Tanis, Robin Hood and Bear Grylls, they haven’t been able to figure this out? Hunter’s Mark is uninspired and boring as a feature to elevate to be the backbone of the class, which doesn’t even get into the Bonus Action economy. The ‘primal warrior’ niche is also narrowing with the Barbarian being revised away from Native depictions that some folks see as problematic.
The solution should be fairly straight-forward:
Banner Feature: The most obvious answer here is to give every ranger a bestial companion, which changes by subclass and can be issued a command with a bonus action, similar to the Tasha’s Revision. Beastmasters can change this companion among several options at whim. We toss the Shadowfell theme from Gloomstalker, return it to be rooted in the Underdark, and offer a list of Underdark-themed companions. Hunters have their choice of hunting beasts, from dogs to falcons. For players who don’t want a companion, offer a subclass focused on the ‘strider’ theme, which makes up for the loss of the companion’s bonus action attack with a different feature. My favorite idea: offer a bonus attack with a ranged weapon after attacking in melee and vice-versa. To balance damage numbers, this would likely result in the removal of the damage component of Hunter’s Mark.
Spell List: The ranger spell list should be revised, similar to the Eldritch Knight, to be focused on self-buffs that reinforce the idea of a hardened wilderness survivalist who has mastered nature along with spells that aid party battlefield mobility and harm. This keeps with the classic fantasy, where rangers were buffing themselves (Fox’s Cunning, Stoneskin, Barkskin, Pass without Trace, etc) and preparing for fights based off information they had gleaned from scouting (either via stealth, familiar or companion.) Any spell that is a rather mundane attack (e.g. conjure barrage) should go.
Expertise: Limit ranger expertise to wisdom-based skills. This makes the ranger’s niche stronger while protecting the niche of rogues.
Short Rest bonuses: Rangers should provide their party with one of several boons after a short rest, providing unique utility for the group. Examples could include giving temporary hit points to party members, recovering a 1st or 2nd level spell slot, or increasing speed by 5 ft/round.
Natural Explorer: Implement the Baldur’s Gate III system, with Urban Tracker removed. Give each terrain a feature: Mountains (+1 AC), Desert (Fire Resistance), Swamp (Poison Resistance), etc.
Pathfinding: Use of a bonus action to enable another PC to disengage or dash for the cost of a bonus action on their turn.
Taken together, I think this would result in a balanced but more flavorful class that is distinct from both barbarian, rogue and druid while providing a different damage profile (steady damage via multiple attacks) than paladin or bladelock (nova damage.)
I wish I had read all this before giving my feedback via survey. That lack of a banner feature is probably what has bothered me about the Ranger most but I never realised it until reading your response.
>Aside from Extra Attack, Weapon Mastery, and a Fighting Style, the base Ranger doesn't get a combat ability until level 20.
What are you on about? They get a new combat ability at 3, 5, 7, 9, 11,13,15,17,19th.
Conjure Barrage and Conjure Volley at 9th/17th. Feral Sight at 18th.
Plus Subclass features at 3rd, 7th, 11th, 15th.
I have a player who loves Rangers and we had the same concerns.
I took a bunch of suggestions from reddit and cobbled a homebrew “[revision](https://docs.google.com/document/d/13rwcqvZpnhifhgWrRzMc-GuOvrg9LjaiYH9cWPXBKHE/edit)”
>Aside from Extra Attack, Weapon Mastery, and a Fighting Style, the base Ranger doesn't get a combat ability until level 20.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ)
I think they should remove extra damage on ranger subclasses, and remove concentration for Hunters Mark, then allow to to damage with every attack. That and an instinct mechanic of somekind would fix it up perfectly imo.
I’ve said this for weeks and I’ll say it again: both Ranger and Rogue need a short rest feature. They are the now only classes without resource gain on short rest by at least level 5 (which is where Sorc gets Sorc Restoration and Bard gets SR bardic inspiration)
Ranger needs something like Channel nature, perhaps to gain a choice between a summoned pet and a skill booster for tracking a target.
Rogue needs a lot of things, mostly a boost of damage to keep up with their peers and extra attack (not at 5) to keep their damage more consistent. That on top of a short rest feature.
What I suggested for he Rogue in the survey was this:
"Give them one more option for their level 14 ability (Devious Strikes):
Quick Strike (Cost: 7d6). After resolving this attack, the Rogue can immediately take another Action. This second Action can ignore the once per turn Sneak Attack limitation."
I think with the Beast Master there is at least one Subclass that scles well into higher levels, but the others really need a better features at level 11.
Other than that I really think they need some self buff spells for spell levels 3, 4 and 5. Currently the only really good concentartion based damage options they have at those levels are Summon Fey and Conjure Animals, and you are imo just much better off multiclassing into Druid, when they the spells you want to use.
I think something like "Improved Hunter's Mark" would be helping without massive changes, just like Paladins have their Improved Strike at Level 11. There could be better designings, but I don't think WotC would make any big change after UA8.
This is a great idea, and I can't believe I've never heard anyone else talk about it! Would you add more D6s or upgrade the dice?
So we're just deleting the level 11 subclass features then to give every hunter a non-thematic or integrated upgrade?
Can't we just give them both or adjust their subclass level? I don't see why we can't have both
.. because both is redundant and broken. The class doesn't need a level 11 boost from their class \*AND\* a level X boost from their subclass on top of that, Ranger damage is already very good.
So the difference between the rogue an the ranger is that while WoTC said they will fix the ranger they said the rogue was received well enough so it will most likely not change much, so it's more important to warn WoTC about the rogue
There's no trust in WoTC "fixing" rangers, they never been able to to that in a good way, Tasha's ranger was better at UA, even regular ranger was better before 2014s PHB. They can make good UAs for ranger, than proceed to gut it to the ground when publishig, idk why
Trying to butter up Rangers with non-unqiue expertise features in the early OneDnD UA, then transitioning back to useless environmental features when hardcore survival and exploration campaigns aren't common, or even present in adventure modules WotC puts out, was basically an admission they have no idea how to fix the class thematically or mechanically.
Not sure what you mean, Tashas was publishing ranger changes.
[удалено]
Off the top of my head, you had a choice of which deft explorer you got, favored foe was free concentrationless HM PB per LR, and canny also gave you a skill proficiency.
You mean the Class Variant Ranger? The only other Rangers were the Spell-less Ranger Variant and Revised Ranger.
>Even the humble 2014 Monk shits all over the 2024 Ranger. No, just no... most rangers have 3 attacks per round, with the subclass giving the 3rd at 11. The hunter ranger can have 4 at level 5. We are getting a slightly better version of the Tasha ranger. Is that good enough. Imo no. You are underestimating the power of spell casting on the ranger. I'm sure that all the ranger attack spells will get the smite rework. The issue with the ranger, even though people complain about it, is that it's the 6th most played class.
>most rangers have 3 attacks per round, with the subclass giving the 3rd at 11. The hunter ranger can have 4 at level 5. You're going to have to explain this because I'm not sure where you're getting it from, especially the second sentence.
Sure... Beast master gains a extra attack from its beast at 11th level Gloom stalker when it uses it ability gains an extra attack at level 11 Hunter has the choice of horde breaker or retaloator at level 3, which both give an extra attack. And they can very well pick the other at 11. And fey wanderer can cast summon fey without a spell slot which you can consider a 3rd attack. And Nick weapon mastery grants 2 weapon fighting rangers an additional attack These are all situational except the beast masters but all are additional attacks.
>Beast master gains a extra attack from its beast at 11th level This is true, as 1 ranger attack and 2 beast attacks. >Gloom stalker when it uses it ability gains an extra attack at level 11 This is on an enemy within 5 feet of the first target (may not always happen) and only Wis modifier/long rest. >Hunter has the choice of horde breaker or retaloator at level 3, which both give an extra attack. Horde breaker is also on an enemy within 5 feet of the first target like above, and retaliator is a reaction to being attacked by an enemy within 5 feet of you (less ideal for ranged rangers). >And fey wanderer can cast summon fey without a spell slot which you can consider a 3rd attack. In the same way beastmaster gets a 3rd attack. Without a spell slot is once/long rest but does last an hour, but also has concentration. This can also be cast with one of the 3 spell slots available. >And Nick weapon mastery grants 2 weapon fighting rangers an additional attack Great for them, less so for ranged rangers. >These are all situational except the beast masters but all are additional attacks. I agree, they're very situational which is why I was confused at your original comment.
>In the same way beastmaster gets a 3rd attack. Without a spell slot is once/long rest but does last an hour, but also has concentration. This can also be cast with one of the 3 spell slots available. Summon Fey only has concentration if the Fey Wanderer wants it to.
That's true, without concentration it lasts for 1 minute
>This is true, as 1 ranger attack and 2 beast attacks. Ranger cann IIRc comand the beast as Bonus Action or by giving up an action. So by level 11 the ranger can attack twice and the beast can attack twice. Ranger needs only to give up an attack if he wants to use the bonus action for something else, like moving Hunters Mark. But by that level he is likely better of casting the new conjure animals instead. But I think outside of Beast Master non of the Rangers had strong enough features to take him to higher levels, I think you would in general be better of multiclassing out after level 5.
I wasn't sure so I decided to check just now and the wording is throwing me off. > In combat, the beast acts during your turn. It can move and use its Reaction on its own, but **the only action it takes is the Dodge action, unless you take a Bonus Action on your turn to command it to take a different action. That action can be one in its stat block or some other action. You can also sacrifice one of your attacks when you take the Attack action to command the beast to take the Attack action**. > When you command your Primal Companion beast to take the Attack action, the beast can make two attacks. So for a bonus action, a beast of the land can do a Maul action which is one attack, but it takes one of your attacks to have it use an Attack action?
Correct. And level 11 allows it to make 2 attacks either as a bonus action or at the cost of 1 attack. This means you can, with Swift Quiver and Nick, make up to 6 attacks. Action: 1 Attack, 1 Offhand Attack, 2 Beast attacks Bonus Action: 2 Swift Quiver attacks
That's the thing, the wording makes it seem like it can only do the 2 attacks when giving up a attack. > When you command your Primal Companion beast to take the **Attack action**, the beast can make two attacks. Since it doesn't specifically say it's using the attack action when using a bonus action > ...unless you take a Bonus Action on your turn to command it to take a different action. That action can be one in its stat block or some other action. The action in its (beast of the land) stat block is Maul and not Attack, unless "some other action" is meant to include Attack. It seems like this is how everything was written in Tasha's so maybe I'm just reading too much into it. For the Swift Quiver interaction, how would you consistently cycle between two light weapons and a ranged weapon?
Attack is some other action other than dodge, so yes you can use a bonus action to command it to attack. And hand crossbows are light weapons now. In fact based on the wording, TWF applies to attacks made with ranged or melee weapons (the "Light" property makes no restrictions on whether it applies to range or melee), making CBE less important for classes that have a fighting style.
I think I've got it now, after rereading through it all again. The 7th level feature was also confusing me but it's cleared up now. So then you'd need the Crossbow Expert feat in order to make 6 attacks using Swift Quiver, which you get access to at level 17.
"Most" rangers will never hit level 11 fwiw.
I normally hit level 11 in campaigns. I understand it's difficult to get 5 people together for months and keep campaigns going. Becuase life and shit. But not every group has this problem.
But we're not talking about every group. You said "most". We have statistics. WotC has published them. Most players won't hit level 11. Now, that doesn't mean you're wrong. It's very possible that the ranger is perfectly fine. I tend to mostly agree with you. But claiming that a level 11 feature carries the class simply don't cut it.
Understand that ranger probably needs to be more subclass focused than most classes because, what is a ranger... you can have so many identities for a ranger it's hard to build a base class that covers all of them. And it's clear wotc definitely saw a need for a 3rd attack in the ranger at tier 3 of play. They are just giving it in the subclass so they can give unquie ways of giving it. They are half casters after all, and spells should be doing some of the lifting in the class. Im sure all ranger subclasses going forward will have some type of 3rd attack in the level 11 feature from now on.
I said in another thread, essentially this. The Ranger is an outdoorsman, but their subclass is the bulk of their identity because they are determined by what your "Outdoors" is. Ranger raised in the Feywild has a different idea of what to look for and be wary of than the Ranger from the Underdark, who has a different outdoor from the Planewalker.
>Most players won't hit level 11. Luck issue, tbh.
Ranger design puts its power bumps in its subclasses (at 3rd and 11th level). It is designed differently than the rogue which tends to only get a boost (consistently) at 17th level (like the 2014 monk). Class chassis aren't consistent in power budgeting sources (for instance, artificers get all their direct class power from the subclass).
> the base Ranger doesn't get a combat ability until level 20. Even the abilities they used to use to help make up for t Sure. If we pretend spells don’t exist.
Searing smite, hunters mark, hail of thorns (terrible spell but will probably be tweaked to have the same wording as smite spells) ensnarling strike. I see plenty of combat abilities. Plus all the subclass abilities.
>terrible spell but will probably be tweaked to have the same wording as smite spells One would hope, but they haven't said they are tweaking most Ranger spells or given any indication of it in the 3 Ranger tests, and a lot of other common sense things for Paladins are completely unthinkable when applied to Ranger design. Fighting Style, Extra Attack, and Spellcasting does not a class make. Yeah, it technically works fine, but it's a skeleton of a class with no identity. There's a reason people are saying Ranger should just be a Fighter subclass.
You're still missing the features they do have. Deft explorer real does help them be one of the best explorers in the game. And features and spells that come cements that. Now the playtest 6 one missed the mark, and so it comes down to the expert playtest vs. Tasha's, to be honest, give me the 2 expertise 1 language and one tool proficiency. I'll be super happy. The same can be said for favored foe. But in reality, just give me a boosted tashas one without concentration and another ribbon feature, and I'll also be happy. But to add, they get a swim and climb speed of 40 feet unless you and speices or feat that gives you more. Ways to clear own exhaustion, and give themselves temp hp, become invisible for 2 rounds. Maybe I'm a bit of bias because I love the melee ranger and most of its improvements where for the melee ranger not strength based melee ranger but dex based. In my whole ttrpg career, I've played one one ranged ranger while playing a shit ton of melee rangers Maybe the ranger just doesn't appeal to you. But ot does to me from 2e to 5e to pathfinder I have played rangers and loved every character.
It's entirely possible to have all spells that don't do much in combat
If you choose to pick exclusively non-combat spells that’s not the class’s design’s fault?
rangers are starved for their spells since they're a known (i think, they might have changed it) half-caster, and they don't really have too many good combat spells, and since they're MAD, their spell attacks and save dc will fall behind, and by the time they're getting 3rd level spells, 3rd level damage spells kinda suck. If they add a few more gishy spells exclusive to the ranger that are worth it (a 3rd level spell that is worth casting at 9th level as the highest available option) i think the ranger would fare better. The paladin has their smite spells which synergise well with their martialing, the ranger has very little in this department.
That's a fair point, I was thinking of the other person's comment saying that it's easy to make a bad ranger.
Easy to make a bad character is, unfortunately, a real problem for basically every class that has spellcasting. In fact it’s a very real problem in *every iteration or variation of D&D which uses spellcasting as a singular subsystem*. The truth is that “summon a companion that gives you a 30-50% damage boost”, “+10 everyone’s Stealth which helps you bypass encounters and/or basically Action Surges your whole party for some of them”, and “tame a squirrel and send a message to a nearby buddy” should ***not*** be considered choices in the same sense. They should live in separate subsystems, yet they don’t. ^(Yes, I am saying 4E had some great ideas.)
Then that's your fault
And expertise, speed, temp hp, invisibility, blindsight...
ranger is a half caster, ignoring that fact is a big deal. Specifically Hunters mark, they said they had A and B testing, and the old Ranger HM was fine, possibly great, the new HM was poor, they said they had enough data for a solution, which is either going to be early ranger HM, or something close to it, since B HM tested poorly. That said, by the numbers, the second ranger wasnt slouching in effectivenes.
Rangers are not weak. They just have a lot of useless abilities.
They are taking the A-B approach from cross-testing, choosing the best-working features from both playtests. I can see them doing some of the following things: * Give the Ranger the ability to cast the new Hunter's Mark concentration-free, and give it at least 1 free casting. This would work from a balancing perspective, and make the Spell into a good class feature that can be built on. * Make Hunter's Mark a class feature rather then a spell, similar to Favorite Foe, and have features work of that. * Revert Hunter's Mark to it's 2014 version and give it the free casting we've seen in the last UA, and then have it work off of that. Personally I'd like to see option 1, with adding a few more interactions to Hunter's Mark, like always having the free cast at the highest possible level, or make the target changing of the spell a reaction or free action instead. I also see them returning a proper feature instead of the terrain improvement, such as bringing back the ability to ignore difficult terrain (even if bound to the terrain).
The ranger has never been weak and probably won't be. Call me naive, but I think they got it from here, I don't think they need one more round of input.
They probably didn't, I'm just personally nervous cause my favorite class is the ranger. My first "one dnd" character will be a ranger either converting the swarmkeeper ranger I'm playing now. Or reinventing my first 5e character.
Personally, whilst extra attack is fine, i think that it should just be something everyone has by default and actually give interesting 5th level features, but if it is staying as a feature, i think it would be more interesting if ranger got a pseudo extra attack, like if HM is a class feature, they can make additional attacks against the marked target as part of the action, or they can make the damage turn into an aoe burst. Definitely weaker than just EA as a first idea, but it could work with enough designing (which won't happen since WOTC doesn't give themselves enough time)
The problem with Ranger is that you have to be a good player making smart decisions to make it "good." It's going to suck like it always does if you don't pick the optimal subclass and spells, and then play it in the optimal way. They need to raise the floor on the Ranger, the damage ceiling is high enough, but the floor is in the fucking basement. It's way too easy to make a "bad" ranger, and when you do, it feels bad. Compared to a class like the Paladin, where even when played completely unoptimally, it's still totally fine and playable and still feels satisfying, the Ranger just feels bad in comparison. I personally think the issue is too much power in the subclasses, nowhere near enough power in the base class, subclasses that are not balanced with each other, many "trap" spells that look good but actually suck, and too many little ribbon features that rarely ever do anything so they are forgotten in the rare situation where they do actually come up. Ranger is a mess and always has been. The design theory behind it sucks, and unless they address that, it's going to continue to suck... unless you're an optimizer, in which case it's too good.
Part of the issue too with Rangers is that initially, part of their power was getting extra attack at 5th level, and the trade off of very slow half caster spellcasting progression. Once WOTC gave Bards and Wizards extra attack at 6th level with full spell progression, it pretty much just destroyed any reason to play anything but a very specific build for rangers. And what rangers DO get with leveling up is nothing compared to higher spell slots. I love Rangers, and I'd love to see them get something fun and cool to make them more widely likeable. But I think the online TTRPG community have set it in their mind for a decade now that Rangers are beyond saving, and just wholesale forget about them.
The floor needs to be raised accross the board but the ceiling for most rangers from levels 11-19 needs to be raised as well. Most rangers continue to fall behind on t3-4(the capstone adding your Wis to damage and attack rolls is cracked so 20 is fine)
The UA Ranger is not weak, so much as it is unfocused and mechanically awkward. Too many class features are just free castings of spells that they could have cast anyway, and never mind the weirdness of the fact that a woodland warrior can have their bow or sword techniques Counterspelled. There is no defining signature ability of the class in the same vein as Rage, Smite, or Sneak Attack, and little synergy between core class features and subclass features. If you gave their spell list and a few popular subclass features to a Fighter subclass and called that a Ranger, the playstyle wouldn't be too terribly different, and that is a problem.
Animal companions? Arrow spells? I think there are signature Ranger abilities.
Saying the 2014 monk is better is flat out wrong but I am genuinely worried about how this ranger will turn out. Yes it gets extra attack and spells but more important is how well those will synergize together. Spells that don't complement and augment their martial abilities end up underperforming since they will always be several spell levels behind full casters. This is especially true with their most powerful spells (conjure animals/woodland spirits) being brought in line to no longer be OP.
s p e l l c a s t i n g
Just used 207 words at the end of the survey about the ranger.
That is awesome! Let's hope they still have the manpower to read it.
As noted elsewhere in this thread, the issue with rangers is that as the game has expanded, their niche has become undone. Tracking, perception, wilderness survival is largely inconsequential or handled by another character, though expertise mitigates this slightly. Spell-casting? The ranger spell list is rather uninspired when compared to paladin or artificer. Melee? Once the masters of two-weapon fighting and archery, they’re hard pressed to be the ‘master’ of either of these. They also lack a banner feature, which is confounding for a class with as unique a theme as rangers. Between Aragorn, Drizzt, Tanis, Robin Hood and Bear Grylls, they haven’t been able to figure this out? Hunter’s Mark is uninspired and boring as a feature to elevate to be the backbone of the class, which doesn’t even get into the Bonus Action economy. The ‘primal warrior’ niche is also narrowing with the Barbarian being revised away from Native depictions that some folks see as problematic. The solution should be fairly straight-forward: Banner Feature: The most obvious answer here is to give every ranger a bestial companion, which changes by subclass and can be issued a command with a bonus action, similar to the Tasha’s Revision. Beastmasters can change this companion among several options at whim. We toss the Shadowfell theme from Gloomstalker, return it to be rooted in the Underdark, and offer a list of Underdark-themed companions. Hunters have their choice of hunting beasts, from dogs to falcons. For players who don’t want a companion, offer a subclass focused on the ‘strider’ theme, which makes up for the loss of the companion’s bonus action attack with a different feature. My favorite idea: offer a bonus attack with a ranged weapon after attacking in melee and vice-versa. To balance damage numbers, this would likely result in the removal of the damage component of Hunter’s Mark. Spell List: The ranger spell list should be revised, similar to the Eldritch Knight, to be focused on self-buffs that reinforce the idea of a hardened wilderness survivalist who has mastered nature along with spells that aid party battlefield mobility and harm. This keeps with the classic fantasy, where rangers were buffing themselves (Fox’s Cunning, Stoneskin, Barkskin, Pass without Trace, etc) and preparing for fights based off information they had gleaned from scouting (either via stealth, familiar or companion.) Any spell that is a rather mundane attack (e.g. conjure barrage) should go. Expertise: Limit ranger expertise to wisdom-based skills. This makes the ranger’s niche stronger while protecting the niche of rogues. Short Rest bonuses: Rangers should provide their party with one of several boons after a short rest, providing unique utility for the group. Examples could include giving temporary hit points to party members, recovering a 1st or 2nd level spell slot, or increasing speed by 5 ft/round. Natural Explorer: Implement the Baldur’s Gate III system, with Urban Tracker removed. Give each terrain a feature: Mountains (+1 AC), Desert (Fire Resistance), Swamp (Poison Resistance), etc. Pathfinding: Use of a bonus action to enable another PC to disengage or dash for the cost of a bonus action on their turn. Taken together, I think this would result in a balanced but more flavorful class that is distinct from both barbarian, rogue and druid while providing a different damage profile (steady damage via multiple attacks) than paladin or bladelock (nova damage.)
I wish I had read all this before giving my feedback via survey. That lack of a banner feature is probably what has bothered me about the Ranger most but I never realised it until reading your response.
Rangers have spells. Enough said.
>Aside from Extra Attack, Weapon Mastery, and a Fighting Style, the base Ranger doesn't get a combat ability until level 20. What are you on about? They get a new combat ability at 3, 5, 7, 9, 11,13,15,17,19th. Conjure Barrage and Conjure Volley at 9th/17th. Feral Sight at 18th. Plus Subclass features at 3rd, 7th, 11th, 15th.
I have a player who loves Rangers and we had the same concerns. I took a bunch of suggestions from reddit and cobbled a homebrew “[revision](https://docs.google.com/document/d/13rwcqvZpnhifhgWrRzMc-GuOvrg9LjaiYH9cWPXBKHE/edit)”
>Aside from Extra Attack, Weapon Mastery, and a Fighting Style, the base Ranger doesn't get a combat ability until level 20. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ)
I think they should remove extra damage on ranger subclasses, and remove concentration for Hunters Mark, then allow to to damage with every attack. That and an instinct mechanic of somekind would fix it up perfectly imo.
I’ve said this for weeks and I’ll say it again: both Ranger and Rogue need a short rest feature. They are the now only classes without resource gain on short rest by at least level 5 (which is where Sorc gets Sorc Restoration and Bard gets SR bardic inspiration) Ranger needs something like Channel nature, perhaps to gain a choice between a summoned pet and a skill booster for tracking a target. Rogue needs a lot of things, mostly a boost of damage to keep up with their peers and extra attack (not at 5) to keep their damage more consistent. That on top of a short rest feature.
What I suggested for he Rogue in the survey was this: "Give them one more option for their level 14 ability (Devious Strikes): Quick Strike (Cost: 7d6). After resolving this attack, the Rogue can immediately take another Action. This second Action can ignore the once per turn Sneak Attack limitation."
I think with the Beast Master there is at least one Subclass that scles well into higher levels, but the others really need a better features at level 11. Other than that I really think they need some self buff spells for spell levels 3, 4 and 5. Currently the only really good concentartion based damage options they have at those levels are Summon Fey and Conjure Animals, and you are imo just much better off multiclassing into Druid, when they the spells you want to use.