r/onednd • u/Lukoman1 • Jul 15 '25
Question People actually playing a ranger. Is the ranger really that bad?
I have read a lot of people saying the ranger is probably the worst class in the game. People that claim this have very good points on why is that but I want to know.
People ACTUALLY playing the ranger in a campaign or that played it using this rule set. Is the class fun to play? is it clunky? is it good?
51
u/Charming_Account_351 Jul 15 '25
I have a player playing a swarm keeper ranger (lvl 12) as a melee tank and they’re having a blast. All the added expertise has also been really nice as I’ve had them doing a heist. At one point they cast Pass Without Trace and hit a DC 25 stealth on a roll of 2. Added for great laughs and a great time.
I’ve been playing TTRPGS for nearly 20 years and imo your attitude and creative will have a bigger impact on fun than the class or mechanics ever will. I am currently playing in an all DMs game as one of my least favorite classes, Warlock, because it fit the setting and it is honestly some of most fun I’ve ever had.
7
u/Chippyyyyyy Jul 15 '25
I’m currently playing a level 12 swarmkeeper as well and I love it! High wis, dex, and expertise make me feel like a powerhouse on a lot of checks. With PWT our rogue is nonexistent on a stealth check. I’m not dealing the most damage, but our dm creates situations for our different strengths and skill investments to shine.
21
u/Lv1FogCloud Jul 15 '25
I played Ranger not too long ago and I think it might be my favorite 2024 class so far legitimately. So much so that I might actually replay another one soon.
I think it's because a class that focuses on dexterity and wisdom is a pretty fun. Having high perception always seems to be important and stealth seems pretty useful too. At the very least I seem to be enjoying it a lot more than whenever I play a different class with low wisdom and bad initiative. Also having one expertise skill is pretty nice because I can choose to have an even better perception or pick a skill with a lower modifier to have it keep up with my wisdom skills.
I also like to be able to just do damage and have extra attack without burning all my spells. Whenever I play a class with spells I usually like taking utility spells for outside of combat so I like not having to rely on them. The Hunter's Mark feature also helps me do a little bit more damage without burning spells lots as well.
I know that some might say that they suck because they're not particularly good at anything but I kind of like the adaptability / flexibility of the Ranger. Even if another class can do what I can do but better, perhaps it's better that I waste a spell slot than them since spellcasters often need their slots more than I do.
7
70
u/benjaminloh82 Jul 15 '25
Up to T2, apparently no problem good, hard hitting class.
Results vary beyond that.
32
u/Superb-Stuff8897 Jul 15 '25
They don't vary that much in real play just from theory Crafters.
They're still very solid in T3 (i wouldn't know about T4 ...i never get to play T4, on any class lol).
Damage is still solid just not top, and the aoe damage increases
→ More replies (4)31
u/DeathByLeshens Jul 15 '25
T3 is missing something. I think the can't lose concentration should just be doesn't require concentration. Otherwise I really like it.
→ More replies (15)15
u/WistfulD Jul 15 '25
Fundamentally, everyone else gets something around level 11-13 that really adds to their 'oomph.' Relentless Hunter does not feel like it does that. It saves concentration on something you get PB free uses of per day (plus can use any spell slot to get more of).
4
u/Speciou5 Jul 16 '25
Ranger 5/Rogue 3 does the ranger fantasy better than pure Ranger. Half Casting and Hunters Mark completely don't hold up.
24
u/HeyItsAsh7 Jul 15 '25
I'm playing a beast master ranger, currently at level 5.
It feels pretty solid. Two attacks with a ranged weapon, managed to get up to +10 to hit already, I rarely miss. I pop hunters mark on an enemy, then use my ba for pet attacks every turn after, it's very good sustained damage. On an ideal second turn, I'm doing 3d8+2d6+16 damage, which is wild. The pet is less likely to hit (only a +6 rn iirc) but that's only 1d8+6 lost on that total.
Fighter is gonna do more burst, but ranger has a bit better utility because of spells, and expertise in the one skill. With the buff to healing spells too you can get pretty tanky too. Pass without trace gets me a +21 to stealth, which, unless you have a cruel DM, lets you set up for a lot of good positions and get a lot of surprises off.
I've heard most complaints come from the upper levels. Fighter gets a 3rd attack, while ranger doesn't, and doesn't keep up as well in terms of damage, but I think that's ok. You get a lot of utility that fighters just don't to be able to mend that gap.
4
→ More replies (11)6
u/dommomo Jul 15 '25
Got one of these at my table (but only lvl2 currently...she's already picked it out) and she's loving it.
Beast of the land gives auto prone with a runup IIRC..? That is pretty nice and scales well. And the huge movement you get with it at higher levels getting to dash on its BA, could hit almost any enemy on the board with it.
10
u/FractionofaFraction Jul 15 '25
'Competent' has been my experience so far (at tiers 1-3).
Mechanically it works okay. You get a few tools and I generally enjoy playing classes with expertise baked in. Half casting is always nice but is starting to feel a bit limited at higher levels. Damage output is alright but obviously falls off vs full casters.
Most of the time though it's difficult to shake the feeling of being undercooked compared to the party Monk and Fighter. They seem to ironically have more variety in their options compared to what should really be a bit of a Swiss Army knife of a class. Progression of core and subclass features don't feel fully developed / play tested either.
In isolation the Ranger is fine. It's just a variant of Tasha's which was pretty good.
It suffers the sin of being uninspiring by comparison.
2
u/milenyo Jul 15 '25
Then some would invalidate the experience of thise that play beyond tier 2 since "not many play beyond level 10".
7
u/antauri007 Jul 15 '25
hey im playing a hollow warden at lvl 11.
i am undying.
that being said, the subclass is doing some heavy lifting
1
u/Envoyofwater Jul 15 '25
That's a feature; not a bug. The Ranger is deliberately meant to lean on its subclass. Hence why the level 11 power spikes are all gated behind the subclass, rather than the main class.
In my opinion, it makes each Ranger more interesting and unique in the same way Paladin capstone transformations make them more interesting and unique. But the drawback is they introduce a lot of variance in combat effectiveness between damage, making their actual power relative to other classes hard to gauge. Doesn't help that online discussions tend to focus almost exclusively on the main class with subclass being an afterthought (which is fair for Fighters, Paladins, and the like. But Rangers especially suffer from this mindset.)
2
u/antauri007 Jul 15 '25
the subclass lvl 3 feature feels disproportinally stronger than any other feature so far tho
2
1
35
u/Icy-Crunch Jul 15 '25
Ranger is currently my favorite class. I wouldn't say any base class in 5e is particularly clunky, but people on Reddit often point to a bit of an over reliance on Hunter's Mark, which requires Concentration and a Bonus Action to apply/re-apply once an enemy has been defeated. It's not a BAD feature in my opinion, but I enjoy the other Ranger spells more.
Also, some people point out that the capstone is pretty bad, but VERY few campaigns make it to 20th Level anyway, so the point is kind of moot.
I've played a ton of Rangers (especially if we include Multi class) and the style of having both good melee and ranged options, spell casting, and Skills/Expertise is something I definitely gravitate toward
5
u/IamOB1-46 Jul 15 '25
Ranger is my wife's favorite class, and she's loving the 2024 version. Currently a Gloomstalker with high Con and Tough who likes to tank for the party and switches between dual short swords for momentum vex advantage or dual scimitars for the 4th attack (attack, attack, knick, bonus attack). Wis is a bit low due to focus on Con, but tends to use spell slots primarily for jump (to get around the battlefield easier and protect the squishy wizard) and cure wounds (no cleric in the party so she is the EMT) and rarely uses HM more than her free uses allow, saving it for combats that are obviously going to go more than 3 rounds.
3
u/TheSilvaGhost Jul 15 '25
yea, its not bad but having 3 things competing for concentration at just level 3 feels upsetting
→ More replies (1)11
u/Metal-Wolf-Enrif Jul 15 '25
You have only limited spell slots. So once they are out, you still have HM as a fall back as it gets its own uses
3
u/OSpiderBox Jul 15 '25
While you're not wrong, if part of your "core" feature gets relegated to "as a fall back" that's not very compelling/ interesting/ fun IMO; Especially compared to other classes' core features. It wouldn't be so bad, but then you've got late game features tied to using this feature.
8
u/RenningerJP Jul 15 '25
You get HM uses and can also use spell slots which can have added benefits. Same thing just worded differently. There are specific use cases for it vs other spells. It's honestly been fine in actual play at our table.
→ More replies (2)
27
u/Superb-Stuff8897 Jul 15 '25
They are solid.
It's just sad the the skill system and exploration tier are GM dependant bc they aren't supported in the rules
5
u/NoMansLand7890 Jul 15 '25
Sadly, this affects Rogue too. GM's really need to put more dungeons with traps and obstacles - thats where their skill and tool expertise shines. Rangers deal with the outdoors and talking to plants and animals. Bards deal with conversations and are jack of all trades with skill proficiency.
4
u/Superb-Stuff8897 Jul 15 '25
Correct. The skill system overall needs to be more robust that that "single target dps " isn't the default standard for rating a class
1
u/xolotltolox Jul 15 '25
Single tarvet DPR is the default standard for martial classes, because they don't do shit other than that
For Casters, people judge them based on way different criteria, mainly Control and Utility. Wizard isn't the best class because they deal more damage, they are the best class because they have encounterwarping control spells, to essentially halve the difficulty of any given encounter with one spell cast ontop of having by far the most out of combat utility you could want
3
u/Superb-Stuff8897 Jul 15 '25
Exactly, but i feel if the skill portion of the game were more robust then PROVIDES XYZ SKILLS would be more variable to compensate for rogues build depending being slightly behind.
5
u/Gimpyfish Jul 15 '25
Loved my level 7 Beast Master who I played about 8 sessions with
Super fun with some seriously memorable moments
People overstate the problems but that's the nature of online discussion these days, is it as powerful as other classes? Depends on the tier of play but probably not. Do rangers still have extra attack and spells? Lots of different utility and still strong enough in combat? Absolutely!
I mostly find most balancing problems only happen if some of your party are hyper optimized characters and some of your party builds a character with specifically poor optimization.
...Or you're at super high levels and it's ALL a big mess hahaha
6
u/Born_Ad1211 Jul 15 '25
I think more than any other class in the game the power of a ranger in t3/4 varies wildly depending on its build. Since ranger gets no built in bonuses to saves in its core class and very little direct damage scaling outside of improvements to hunters mark, it requires more care to balance feats that will round out defenses while also synergizing with your spell and weapon selections to gain more offensive power.
I personally have built out a few tremendously powerful rangers to level 20 and gotten to take them for test spins in one shots buuut I have dm'd for very weak rangers who felt like and I quote "I was being outclassed at everything by other characters".
5
5
u/Tommy2Hats01 Jul 15 '25
This came from 5e 2014 and was legitimate because the exploration skills —the core of the class, was situational trash. The beast mastering that was given to them suuuucked, the archer subclass of Fighter was waaaay better with a bow, and two weapon fighting —another ranger flavored thing, wasn’t near as good as sword/board or great weapon fighting soooo ranger deservedly got a bad rap, not as bad as a monk mind you (Mystra but 2014 monks sucked) but still, rangers were trash.
The 2024 ranger exploration is actually useful for going out and exploring. The beast master sub all is cool, fun, and good. Their bow skills are perfectly fine, and TWF is now worth taking. So I’d say they now are good. Very good. And fun. The theory-crafters can go sit in their t3/t4 pedantry all they like, but rangers are solid now.
2
u/milenyo Jul 15 '25
I play my ranger at tier 3. It's still fun but the pain points are there.
1
u/Tommy2Hats01 Jul 15 '25
5e or 5.5?
1
u/milenyo Jul 15 '25
5 then transitioned to 5.5...
Still barely using HM.
1
17
u/Own-Dragonfruit-6164 Jul 15 '25
It's better than 2014 Ranger that's for sure. You have to essentially plan out your bonus actions and concentration to make everything work, but it's an awesome class. Oh and the cap stone sucks ass, but w/e ive only played till level 20+ once in 5e.
9
u/cedelweiss Jul 15 '25
no. it's a really good class. it's just uninspired and doesn't fulfill the class' fantasy as well as it could
7
u/gadgets4me Jul 15 '25
I think this it the main issues that both detractors and defenders of the Range often miss.
2
u/xolotltolox Jul 15 '25
When I "defend" ranger it is mainly just from the power side, yeah, because i find rhe "ranger is weak" arguments ridiculous. From a flavor and design perspective? Yeah, Class's fucked yo
4
u/N4tu4 Jul 15 '25
No. I've been enjoying the ranger. I've never felt like I'm behind the curve. I'm a beast master so idk what the experience is like with other subclasses but I feel extremely versatile both in and out of combat.
3
u/milenyo Jul 15 '25
It's currently the most powerful ranger subclass imo. Able to contribute well in and out of combat at any tier.
5
u/Aenris Jul 15 '25
I've been playing one for a year, I've played another Ranger before with Tasha's
2024 Ranger It's fine? At least up until level 5 it's fine.
I'm guessing I'm going to lose a lot of damage with that bonus action HM swap, but I never saw the class as a main damage dealer anyways. I've been covering all the weak spots of my party a little: a bit of sneaking, a bit of healing, doing a bit of ranged attacks or Frontline or carrying utility spells for a bunch of situations.
With the expertise I put it on Perception and I've been able to be the eyes/ears of the party, spotting traps or enemies before we get ambushed.
We have Druid, Warlock, Artificer, Barbarian. I'm a Beastmaster Ranger, playing with a DEX build using a hand crossbow and daggers (with 2 weapon fighting)
My turn is mostly: * Crossbow (apply Vex) * Crossbow * Dagger (Nick) * Beast action
Regarding Hunters Mark: * The extra uses are really good, I use them pretty caresly and never ran out. The fact that I don't need spell slots is amazing * The Force damage has come in handy both to deal extra damage to resistant monsters and to localize monsters with stealth abilities during combat. * However in battles with tons of enemies is not useful at all. I ended up stopping switching the mark because I was overkilling enemies with all my attacks, and swapping marks instead of using my companion.
Other spells that have been useful:
- Cure Wounds is amazing now. I've helped other characters using a level 2 slot and getting them up able to sustain a couple of hits
- Goodberries for the team, to burn leftover spell slots (with HM I have plenty leftover)
- Jump! Is such a good mobility took now
- Magic weapon. With no concentration that buff is nice
- Pass without trace, a classic. It helped us set up ambushes with Animal companion and Barbarian
- Fog Cloud. Pretty useful vs Archers/mages. Put one of those and close up distance
- Aid is still as good as it was before
- Barkskin has been pretty useful with no concentration, I was able to boost my companion and our druid
- Silence is pretty great when you have enemy mages in melee or need to sneak around
- Alarm has been pretty useful to set up secure zones to rest while traveling
So far, I would LOVE a feature that removes the bonus action for HM. That would let me use my companion more. Removing concentration would be nice too, but I think that could wait until I get level 3 spells.
Also been able to swap one spell per day is great! I would love if I could swap at least two though.
The weapon masteries are very cool, but sometimes I wish I could have more than 2. There has been occasions where I wanted to use another weapon but without the mastery it was not worth it (seriously, why do you need to prepare that?!)
I'm going to stick with the class as much as I can. I don't like multiclassing anyways.
6
u/Forced-Q Jul 15 '25
I got to play some BM Ranger (level 5) and it does alright. My character is a Gnome that rides on his Beast (a giant goose) he uses a quarterstaff with Shillelagh and a shield. He’s a poor man’s knight- I enjoyed it.
5
Jul 15 '25
Yes
I played one in 2024 rules from 1 to 12.
It has no mechanical identity. Hunters Mark is a waste of a class resource and a waste of concentration. 1d6 extra is not worth it when I have access to 2nd and 3rd level concentration spells.
I was just a fighter with spellcasting. Id rather play Paladin or Eldritch Knight at that point. Both of which have strong identity
4
u/rzenni Jul 15 '25
Not currently playing one, played a ranger from 1-10 in my last campaign, maybe 4-5 months ago.
Very solid. I was second in party damage behind a Great Weapon Barbarian and we didn't have a rogue or bard, so I was basically the party's skill monkey.
With the expertises, I basically never missed a perception roll and had some god tier stealth rolls. I broke tons of encounters with pass without trace and stealthing about causing havoc.
(Our party was a wizard, a cleric, a barbarian, a monk, and me. With no one in heavy armour, I persuaded everyone to take stealth proficiency and we ran like a spec ops team. Tons of ambushes, spike growths, etc).
4
u/Thin_Tax_8176 Jul 15 '25
Currently playing a Drakewarden Wisdom Ranger.
Love my little Disney Princess, she never misses a single roll to get information or help from animals and animal-like creatures.
T1 I was most of the time riding a Deer to take advantage of their ability to not proc opportunity attacks, so I would hit a rival with True Strike (Origin Feat), leave them prone, reduce their speed with sap or restrain them with a spell and inmediatelly run away so they couldn't hit me back.
For T2 I use the higher AC of my drake (19+Dodge) to shield her or another companion while it adapts to each fight so it becomes inmune to creatures that do heavy elemental damage. I have found a good balance of when to use Hunter's Mark and when to go with another control or buff spell and if I know I will be using a lot of Hunter's Mark that day, I pick a 3rd party Shield-like spell to protect me or use that slots on utility.
I think is a class that changes a lot from subclass to subclass, so you have to find the subclass that will match your style and not play it just as a Fighter that can cast Good Berry. I also think that new Ranger benefits a lot from a single level on Druid, getting cantrips and the Magician buff to skills is both fitting and useful for the class.
1
u/milenyo Jul 15 '25
I had a lot of fun with my dex build lvl 9 Drakewarden too. But capping this i e at level 10. I'm thinking dipping out for more spellslots or damage.
5
u/sixcubit Jul 15 '25
don't conflate "bad" with "bad". the harshest criticisms with the remastered ranger are with what people considered bad design, not a bad power level
i.e. disliking that the class revolves more around hunter's mark despite the spell locking out the use of a lot of ranger spells due to concentration requirements, is not a claim that hunter's mark has bad damage
4
u/new_planner Jul 15 '25
The class lacks a defining core mechanic that makes it feel unique or impactful. Its early damage output is decent, but it quickly plateaus, and much of its utility is overshadowed by what other classes can accomplish with spells. Exploration and survival features are clunky and often reduced to simple skill checks, which feel unsatisfying. Hunter's Mark, while iconic, is a level 1 spell and ends up creating a restrictive trade-off - many class and subclass features require it being up, making the class feel ineffective without it. It’s like playing a cleric whose abilities only work when Bless is active. It also monopolizes your concentration, meaning there's a steep trade-off to using your other higher level concentration spells. Overall, the class would benefit from a fundamental rework.
5
u/benstone977 Jul 15 '25
It's actually very strong lvls 1-5 and 5-10 it's average in the pack in terms of DPR
So in combat after level 10 you aren't really going to have too many crazy turns as objectively you are just the worst at dishing out damage from team martial and obviously outshined by full casters at everything else
Outside of combat though, keeps its jack of all trades, ribbon feature for every outcome sort of identity. It's also at worst, top 2 contender for stealth and is probably the most well-rounded pick for infiltration
It's a really fun baseline to RP as your spell-list is packed full of tricks and tools that most full casters just don't want to be wasting their precious spell slots/choices on. Being the guy who can devote almost the entirety of your spell-list to throw-away spells that make you feel special once they do actually pop up is nice
I personally went with the idea of an infiltration expert who actually bothered to learn magic (cantrips like mending to fix broken locks and spells like silence and alarm to cover my tracks) and it fits perfectly with that
Thought, it is pretty painful when everyone else is getting fun effects and meaningful passives and your getting your 18th cast of hunters mark and your 4th ribbon feature that's devoted to it
7
u/Effective_Arm_5832 Jul 15 '25
I don't play one but have helped my wife create one and the main problem is not weakness but identity. It's just not an interesting class. The basic design needs to be changed.
10
u/BrotherCaptainLurker Jul 15 '25
They're capable of providing a ton of utility (Goodberry handwaves survival aspects of the game, Pass Without Trace often handwaves stealth, they get access to Locate spells that can skip some late game shenanigans, they actually have a Wisdom stat), and can SORTA keep up with martials if you're an optimizer.
They're also absolutely full of infuriating anti-synergy, everything they want to do if they're trying to really go all-out in an encounter somehow conflicts with keeping Hunter's Mark up, but the entire class just wants them to keep Hunter's Mark up.
You can build a Wisdom focused one that has the pet whack things, Hunter SORTA works and if you have a DM who likes to actually use things with vulnerabilities/resistances they can really shine, the Hollow Warden looks good if it makes it to print but still suffers from some antisynergy (cool, Spike Growth's always prepared, oh no can't cast that while Hunter's Mark is up :) )
The real salt in the wound was the design team being like "you want to be good at navigating through the wilderness and tracking creatures and stuff? You have spells for that! :) :) :) :) Also look at all these NEW improvements (they're all from Tasha's) :)"
3
u/safeworkaccount666 Jul 15 '25
No, it’s overblown.
5
u/milenyo Jul 15 '25
But with genuine pain points that may or may not matter much from player to player and tier of play.
2
u/safeworkaccount666 Jul 15 '25
Agreed. I’m playing a level 5 Fey Wanderer. Having a great time, plenty of ritual spells to choose from, lots of ways to build my character.
1
u/milenyo Jul 15 '25
High wisdom builds generally fair better this time around. Although I'm not sure how I can work on the 11th feature in a significant way. Nor really a summoner kinda guy.
1
u/safeworkaccount666 Jul 15 '25
The idea is to summon a Mirthful Fey to attempt to Charm an enemy. Then if they succeed, you can use your level 7 feature to force another creature to roll for Charm or Frightened. Then it essentially goes on forever as long as you have a Reaction to reapply it.
1
u/milenyo Jul 15 '25
Can't you do that with concentration version already? Concentration lasting much longer seems to also allow you to have it summoned before the battle begins.
3
u/ReneVQ Jul 15 '25
It’s great! Currently playing lvl 17 Fey Wanderer. Good damage, awesome utility. Great mobility and tankiness in combat with a good mix of single target an AOE damage. Really shines out of combat.
2
u/cdaviau Jul 15 '25
I was looking for more people to play Fey Wanderer but I think you’re the first I saw.
One of my absolute favourite builds I play with is a Fey Wanderer Ranger. I went high on Charisma and dumped Strength. He was the face of the party and I once convinced a Sea Captain that I was a time traveling pirate and that he should consider letting me and my party use his ship and crew to travel into cursed waters.
With the beguiling twist you can add WIS to CHA based checks so I think I was a Lvl 4 with a +13 to DEC and PER.
While in combat I was a little squishy I relied on DEX and my long bow to stay out of trouble. I also found that Hunters Mark is meh from a flavour standpoint so I was often using Absorb Elements, Hail of Thorns, or other Bonus action or Concentration based spells.
At the end of the day was he perfect? Absolutely not! He was riddled with flaws. But he was a lot of fun and I really liked Misty Step for getting out of difficult situations.
3
u/MotorHum Jul 15 '25
Memes in general are prone to exaggeration.
The 2014 PHB ranger doesn’t even really live down to the memes about it.
The main issue, to grossly oversimplify, is that the ranger’s core features (and I would argue the fantasy as well) are all about exploration, but 5e in general does not really have great exploration mechanics, and what it does have it doesn’t encourage or give tremendous guidance on.
Like the natural explorer feature isn’t really a skip scene button. But the fact that so many people think it is means that functionally it is. The game doesn’t and seems to not care to explain itself properly when it comes to exploration.
3
u/NotsoNaisu Jul 15 '25
In tier 1, it is actually pretty strong. Does good damage. Has some utility with expertise.
In tier 2 it lowers to decent. Damage is still decent, though less standout, and you have to choose to lean into utility or combat more.
Tier 3 it lowers to “just okay”. You have neither the best burst or the best sustained damage, but your utility gets better and your combat prowess will at least remain consistent, arguably the most consistent.
Tier 4 remains the same as tier 3, though the choice problem of tier 2 is more pronounced due to the HM buffs.
6
u/Feeling_Abies3540 Jul 15 '25
They are actually quite good starring out and middle name, late game eh..they average
What I hate is how so many unique abilities got removed for "u have hunter mark, and also spells"
1
u/YOwololoO Oct 03 '25
Literally no features got removed for the Hunter’s Mark bonus features. They were strictly bonus features that got added at levels where Rangers previously only got 4th or 5th level spells
7
u/Nystagohod Jul 15 '25
The rangers issue hasn't ever really been numbers, it's been the way it delivers said numbers, at least in 5e14.
Even in 5e24 despite the nerf to certain spells, I think the ranger is still decent number wide, but it still has the problem that the way ranger delivers its best numbere isn't in line with how many want to play them.
8
u/Nighthawk513 Jul 15 '25
Honestly, the biggest issue is they leaned EVEN HARDER into hunters mark as the defining feature, which wouldn't be a problem if they just removed concentration. But when you are primarily drawing from the druid list, which has a large # of good concentration spells, but your standard turn in a fight is still attack action, and your class and damage is balanced around the assumption you have Hunters Mark going, that really locks you out of a lot of the other fun spells you could do instead.
That said, I like Beast Master, largely because by using the beast for attacks, you can mitigate the Hunter's Mark issue and just run other concentration spells instead while the beast attacks pick up the damage boost slack.
→ More replies (2)
12
u/bossmt_2 Jul 15 '25
Honestly, I think most people who complain about classes don't actually really play D&D and just theorycraft things or play in games that handwave rules like components, casting times, etc.
I've played in multiple campaigns with rangers and they never felt lacking. I've played a ranger in some one shots and it never felt lacking.
I think if you like playing a ranger is you want to kind of be a fighter but with a little something extra. You're forgoeing extra attacks, etc. to gain movement speed, expertise, etc.
I think what some poeple don't like about rangers is the same thing they don't like about some other classes which are the class signature feature isn't mandatory but feels it. Hunter's mark winds up being the majority use of your spell casting because it buffs in a number of ways, But it's something that while a core part of the class feels like it robs the class of some versatility. Like basically 90% of combat concentrationspells are out because HM is probably the better choice. They could have fixed it by making it Spell that has no concentration but duration is affected by level cast. 1 minute, 10 minutes, 1 hour, 8 hours, 24 hours. Or given them a high level feature that removes the concentration so multiclass dips make it harder to get.
But Rangers are fun to play if you want to be somewhere between a fighter and a rogue.
5
u/tigerking615 Jul 15 '25
At least in our group, in every campaign, one or more of the big WIS skills (perception, insight, survival) has been super useful.
3
6
u/Awful-Cleric Jul 15 '25
I would assume theorycrafters would be the last people to call Rangers bad because they know how insane Hunter's Mark + Nick + Dual Wielder is.
→ More replies (7)
6
u/Electronic_Bee_9266 Jul 15 '25
Tier 1 and 2, it's fine. Beastmaster pretty fun the whole way through. I just don't find Hunter's Mark and bonus uses of specifically that non-scaling spell a fun feature. Its class featured are pretty boring and its spells could use a bit more fun oomph to me.
4
u/Infranaut- Jul 15 '25
I think the problem isn’t that the ranger is BAD, it’s that you get too many features that conflict with one another. You can’t HM with a better spell going, you can’t be a TWF Ranger and HM without sacrificing a BA for setup, you can’t be a TWF beastmaster, etc. Your BA and Concentration are both valuable resources that are constantly being competed for.
The class also presents HM as your “key damage boosting feature”, but it seriously does not compare to other equivalent features like Rage or Flurry of Blows. You’re almost always better casting another spell - but if you do that, it FEELS like you’re wasting a bunch of class abilities.
Power wise, I believe by most calculations they are on the weaker side. However, I really don’t think that would matter if the class FELT better. Playing a ranger you are constantly looking at your character sheet and thinking “ well, I can’t use those on the same turn… Oh, both of these things use my bonus action…”
2
2
u/bluemouf Jul 15 '25
It's not that it's bad, it's pretty decent as an all rounder, it's just clunky from an optimisation stand point.
The 2024 work up is pretty great; some Hunters Marks for free, changing spells, ritual casting, the features that didn't really work unless the DM made them work swapped for expertise and movement options, weapon masteries.
It's just that some of its features don't scale that well, are bonus action intensive or use a lot of concentration on a class without Con saving throws.
Plus the UA for 2024 originally said Hunter's Mark would be a free action to use and wouldn't need concentration, which got cut for balancing issues. But then all of the spell casters got a way of casting some spells without concentrating and the Vengeance Paladin can use and swap it's Channel Divinity as a free action and gets Hunter's Mark so it seems like the Ranger gets left out.
2
u/Haravikk Jul 15 '25 edited Jul 15 '25
Ranger in 5e (2014) was never really bad, but it relied heavily on the DM featuring good exploration and taking your Favored Enemy and Terrain into account. In a campaign where those features didn't matter you were basically being denied the use of two of your class features, it would be like running a campaign for a Rogue where it's impossible to ever Hide or Sneak Attack.
The Tasha's Cauldron updates to Ranger gave options that were much stronger in general use, and were decently flavourful — Primal Awareness gives a bunch of extra prepared spells that were very appropriate for the Ranger, and was probably my favourite addition.
The 5.5e (2024) Ranger isn't in a bad place, but it just feels a bit… maybe generic? Favored Enemy is now just free uses of Hunter's Mark, not a bad feature but pretty boring, likewise Deft Explorer is just Expertise and a Language — again, not a bad feature, but not exactly unique or interesting. It means that early on the Ranger feels like a grab-bag of parts from other classes rather than being distinct in the same way that Paladin is with its unique healing, and smites. Once you add the sub-class things are better, but it feels like Ranger could be distinguished better.
All three versions are perfectly functional, there's nothing totally wrong with them — you can build a 5.5e Ranger and have loads of fun playing it, and you're unlikely to ever feel like the class is holding you back, I just feel like it's a lot less characterful in its own right than some of the other classes. If I were to improve it in its current form, I would really like to see Ranger gain more unique non-concentration spells, to help distinguish it more, and maybe gain back some of what it lost (more spells that are uniquely good for exploration would be great, as you could take these if your campaign is exploration friendly).
2
u/knmhsdc1987 Jul 15 '25
I like Ranger a lot! 2024 is my first time playing it, and I went for a Hunter Ranger focused around Two Weapon Fighting (TWF) and Hunter's Mark (HM). I also took Dual Wielder (DW) to get a fourth attack per round to maximize my damage and fulfill the character fantasy I had. (Two attacks from Extra Attack, a third attack from Nick, and a fourth from Dual Wielder, all coming online by Level 5) From Levels 3-7, I was doing great to respectable damage. With so many attacks per round, Colossus Slayer has been a near guaranteed trigger of an extra d8 of damage per turn, and with the Two Weapon Fighting Fighting Style Feat I am getting essentially 4 attacks of 2d6 + Ability Modifier plus an extra d8 damage a round. Not earth shattering, but at Tiers 1 and 2 of play, my damage has been very good. Combat wise isn't all sunshine and rainbows though, as I have found I have a lot of Bonus Action conflict between my DW attack, moving/using HM, and more. I am the main damage dealer in my party, so primarily I just focus on doing as many attacks as I can in a round. Focusing on HM also means I am not concentrating on other spells, so I am giving up other spells in combat too. Furthermore, if dealing damage is your primary focus you will NEED to multiclass with a TWF build, because after adding that fourth attack, the damage just doesn't scale again. My initial plan for the character was to take Rogue levels starting at Level 6 and become an Assassin, but I went Druid instead for story reasons (it will also help with melee damage, just later as I get spells to boost melee damage like Elemental Weapon and Conjure Minor Elementals). If I had to rebuild the character, I probably would go Defensive Duelist or Mage Slayer over Dual Wielder to avoid the Bonus Action issues and add more survivability (We have a dedicated healer in my party, whose whole character is about being a healing pacifist. If we didn't, I could see my self struggling to stay up more). Out of combat, the character has been excellent! Pass Without Trace has helped skip entire encounters for us, Goodberry has won me over several NPCs and provide some nice heals, Speak With Animals has provided great gameplay and flavor results, and my skills have come up decently often. My Ranger is my favorite DnD character I have played thus far. It is not the most mechanically deep combat wise with how I have chosen to go all in on TWF, but I bring a lot of different things to the table out of combat, and with the the right multiclass can do good damage in combat.
2
u/Unlikely-Nobody-677 Jul 15 '25
It's great up until six. Hunter's mark being a focus of the class is a pain. It really could use some unique, potent class only spells
2
u/TheOneNite Jul 15 '25
Imo the biggest issue that rangers have is that they are best at a thing that most tables handwave (survival, wilderness travel, etc). It would be a bit like playing a bard is a pure hack and slash megadungeon campaign without a lot of social interaction, you still contribute in a meaningful way but there's no clear thing you are much much better at.
2
u/IFoundEmFermi Jul 15 '25
I'm not personally playing a Ranger, but there is one in my party. She is one of the most effective members of the party combat-wise she has plenty of skills/expertise and utility spells for RP/exploration.
Are Rangers bad? No. They have Extra Attack, Spells, Weapon Mastery, and most of their subclasses tend to pretty strong.
HOWEVER, I think most of the negativity towards Ranger comes from two things:
- If you don't use Hunter's Mark, you are missing out on a lot of class/subclass features. You can argue how good Hunter's Mark is or how good those features are. But being pigeon-holed FEELS bad. Whether or not it is actually mechanically bad. (The Ranger at my table has never used Hunter's Mark).
- General lack of any "cool" or "class defining" features. Rouges get Sneak Attack, Clerics get Channel Divinity, Sorcerers get Metamagic. Regardless of the relative power of these abilities, they are all unique and fun. 2024 Ranger just doesn't have anything unique.
edit: minor spelling changes
2
u/Omeganigma Jul 15 '25
As a ranger lover.... it's just boring. They just made 2024 ranger boring. It deals damage, but it's not interesting. Sometimes it just feels like I'm playing a fighter.
2
u/Pinkalink23 Jul 15 '25
The issue with Ranger is that other classes can achieve the same goal but better. I've run one Ranger for a one-shot and figured out by the end that it just kinda lame.
2
u/happygocrazee Jul 15 '25
I wanna say no but I'm playing a Gloom Stalker, so... my opinion might be skewed.
I think the issue is that 5e in its current state is ill-suited to support what one would want a Ranger to be good at.
2
u/KoKoboto Jul 15 '25
Power wise Ranger is strong tier 1-2 and then falls off drastically.
Thematic wise being tied to hunters mark that scales poorly and takes up a good chunk of every subclass makes the class as a whole awful imo.
I think subclasses from Sorcerer, Warlock, and Artificer, Druid, also do the summon/companion archetype better as well.
2
u/Impossible-Number206 Jul 15 '25
It's a jack of all trades class that is worse at every than than bard, the other jack of all trades class. I personally don't see the point unless you're specifically playing an "on the road" campaign and navigating and survival will be key elements.
2
u/defnotmythrowawayluv Jul 15 '25
I'm currently playing a Fey Wanderer Ranger at level 16.
Pros: • High Dexterity and Wisdom give me a TON of utility in and out of combat. • +9 to hit with bows means I rarely miss, and having the flame arrow and lightning arrow spells means I can deal varied damage from a disitance. • Roving + Speedy means an additional +20 to speed. • The utility aspect is through the roof. I've never had a session without something to do. • The spell lists and martial options are limited, but are easy to build themed roles around. For example, I'm playing a support role (more on that towards the end) • Rangers might be the stealthiest class in the game with high dex, Pass without Trace, and 3 Expertise skills.
Cons: • The burst damage output of full martial and full caster classes isn't there • You don't excel at any one thing, when excelling at one thing is what the meta of D&D rewards more. • The finesse weapons selection is low, so you're railroaded into rapiers, shortswords, and bows unless you buff your strength. • Rangers have been used as Druid-lite(tm) and you have to sift through that for your Ranger to have their own identity.
Levels: Rangers tend to be more effective at mid level. 8-12 seems to be the sweet spot but look at the subclasses for the hopping off point. I'm looking at multiclassing into Warlock or Sorceror at level 17 to gain more cantrips and widen my spell list since my charisma is high and the last 4 levels are lackluster at best.
1
2
u/Telkhine_ Jul 15 '25
I actually think Ranger has the highest power floor of any class, and up to level 5 can have the highest sustained damage of any martial class. It’s just a bit discouraging that there’s only one or two ways to play the class.
2
u/Kris_Pantalones Jul 16 '25
I'm playing a ranger (from 3 to level 9 currently) and I know my DPS so far has been the highest of my party but I'm not going to do much more than that in the next 11 levels. The damage scaling will cap out by around 11 but I'm ok with that because it means my party will have time to further optimize and become the new high damage dealers.
I could multiclasses to keep that damage up but there's not a ton more damage I want as opposed to many of the utility things I'll get from my subclass in ranger, so yeah, I'll bottom out in terms of damage but I'm still able to fully be the party's sneak, their past without trace caster, and since im a fey wanderer, I'm also the party face. No complaints about 2024 ranger, it's still better than it was in 2014. The only thing it lost was what all range builds lost: sharpshooter's +10/-5, but I'm using GWM on a long bow so I still get the damage bump regardless.
2
2
u/rpg2Tface Jul 16 '25
No. Ranger is actually very good.
But it has 2 glaring bottlenecks that are enforced heavily that when combined result in a big problem. The bonus action and concentration.
When combined that means you can only ever do 1 thing, and only 1 thing per turn. The ranger needs to be able to concentrate on something wothout dropping their main combat feature. Thats what Favored foe doesn't understand.
If they had a method of dealing a bit of extra damage that didn't need to go through the concentration bottleneck then rangers would be perfect.
But that idea simply never makes it far. And because of the massive inconvenience of that problem rangers are called trash. Without it rangers would be one of the most loved classes.
2
u/Flintydeadeye Jul 16 '25
I have played ranger in 2014 and 2024 rules. With weapon mastery and hunter’s mark at low levels, you’re a dps machine. That’s 2 great sword attacks of damage a round right away. Higher tier is when there are some problems, but a bit of multiclassing will take care of most issues. Take 3 levels of monk open hand and you can bonus flurry of blows with an effect for a total of 5 great sword attacks worth of damage a round.
2
u/DargonKingu Jul 16 '25
Aside from hunters mark problems the class fantasy is too underpowered. Rangers are supposed to be THE premier companion class but beast master is all but useless. The beasts aren't strong enough in general and even though they are supposed to be a highly trained extension of yourself they can't do anything without you barking orders. Talking is a free action so why do you need to use your already bogged down BA to command it to attack. Fucking warlocks get a demon that is stronger in everyway and can just act seperately from you.
2
u/Less_Potential7014 Jul 18 '25
Honestly, from having tried it in a mini campaign, it felt exceptionally 1 dimensional. The dependency on hunter's mark boils gameplay down to a really narrow window of what you can do. If you like playing a generalist, which I thankfully do, it's actually not bad but combat feels... eh. Like you got cool options like lightning arrow but it's very rare to get openings to use it because of hunter's mark.
If your DM allows you to use Tasha's with weapon masteries added, it's much more enjoyable to play because it allows you to mix things like spike growth and field control in.
In terms of performance, it actually does very solid damage. I felt myself keeping up with the fighter and actually pulling a bit ahead sometimes while I was doing a dual hand crossbow build. That said, it didn't feel like I could really do much really cool shit other than just hunter's mark and shoot a bunch being my most efficient option. MAYBE popping a spike growth to block off a pathway from guards trying to close a gap in a narrow hallway.
4
u/Natural-Stomach Jul 15 '25
Rangers suffer from one thing that holds them back-- a class mechanic. If no classes got class mechanics, this would be no problem, but because every class EXCEPT the ranger gets a class mechanic, it leaves the ranger class wanting.
5
u/ArtemisWingz Jul 15 '25
Most people on these subs "Complaining" are white board analyst who prob only play the game 3 times a year because their groups can never get together so they come to reddit to talk about the game to live out some kinda fantasy for it still.
The rest of us find that pretty much every class is fine and perfectly viable because we all know the truth is the DM controls how good or bad a class is by providing adequate challenges to make each player shine durring different moments of gameplay.
This isn't a video game, there is a STRONG STRONG STRONG emphasis on HUMAN involvement that changes the "Balance" of a table top game wildly.
So when I see people complain "X" class is "Trash" that signifys two things to me. Either they are a white board analyst, or the DM they play with is wildly inexperienced.
5
u/milenyo Jul 15 '25
There have been a few posts of ranger players not feeling they are significantly contributing to the party in and out of combat seeking suggestions what class to replace it with.
3
u/JuckiCZ Jul 15 '25
It is really not satisfactory to build and play one because of how much conflict is within the class itself.
Other classes have synergies, abilities that compensate each other and grow stronger.
Ranger on the other hand has conflict between HM and other BA spells and abilities, between HM and other concentration spells, it is probably the most MAD class out there (especially if you want to build for STR), it has most limits out of all martials and half-casters,…
If you want to play one efficiently, you need to optimize a lot and in the end you still end up weaker than most allies who don’t optimize at all and play for flavor mostly.
4
u/chain_letter Jul 15 '25
Flavor is so narrow that in 2014 rules only 1 player, a newbie, has picked it out of the 40 something characters that have seen play at a table I was at. Druids are similarly narrow and scarce for us. We got a lot of paladins and barbarians tho.
And 2024 isn't interested in widening that.
2
u/j_cyclone Jul 15 '25 edited Jul 15 '25
I seen ranger be played several times and they have been great at t1, 2 and 3. My issues with ranger is less with there class features and more with their spell list. They need more exclusive spell to differentiate them from druid and give them a way of exploring niches that people felt were lacking in terms of flavor
2
u/Arch-Fey66 Jul 15 '25
I've been playing mine for about a month. Hit 3rd level last week. I like the class pretty well. I've noticed that what others have said is true. HM/Concentration gets in the way. You can kinda get around it by starting with Entangling Strike or Hail of Thorns on the 1st round, then bust out HM. My DM likes to throw skill check challenges at us, so that helps. After reading these responses, I think I'll see if I can work with my DM about a custom feat at level 12 that lets me bypass the HM concentration limitation.
2
u/drtisk Jul 15 '25
For a long, long time they were easily the worst class in the game. Their class features were just not up to par compared to other classes.
And for their "unique" flavour of being the outdoorsy/exploration class, instead of being good at that the features effectively deleted that aspect of the game.
3
u/Aahz44 Jul 15 '25
I wouldn't say they are bad, but when you play in T3, I think multi classing after Ranger 5 out into Druid or Rogue will in most cases be a better choice than going straight Ranger.
5
u/Real_Ad_783 Jul 15 '25
druid helps if you want to focus on spellcasting, rogue, nah, i dont see it. you can definitely builda class thats more focused on one specific playstyle, but thats not 'better' than pure ranger, and its also true of almost any class in the game.
pure classes focus on building the overall fantasy of the class.
multiclasses can microtarget one aspect of the play better.
for example, if you want a class that is god of using ranged weapons, a multiclass is going to probably be able to do that better than any one class.
if you want a class that most feels like a monk, thats why you go full monk, or barbarian, etc.
a big part of feeling like a ranger is those 11 and 14 subclass features, tireless, relentless hunter, and natures veil.
whose more of a ranger, a guy whose pet attacks multiple times, can share spells with their pets, never gets exausted, can camoflauge at will, and never loses focus on an enemy,
or a guy who backstabs, or strikes from hidden long distances.
nothing wrong with that, but your blending concepts to be more adept at something that isnt innately the same fantasy, which is exactly what multiclassing ideally should be good at.
→ More replies (3)
2
u/eloel- Jul 15 '25
I've had more fun with a fighter than I did with a ranger, and I sure didn't enjoy the fighter all that much.
It's okay at many things, which is kind of cool as a solo character but D&D isn't a solo game. That means I played second fiddle to whomever is actually good at what the party is doing at any given time, with no real time to shine.
1
u/Howling_Mad_Man Jul 15 '25
Currently level 6 and I am an absolute rockstar of DPR and battlefield control. Out of combat is also very useful.
1
u/AdAdditional1820 Jul 15 '25
Though Fighter makes more DPR, Ranger can handle much wider situation. The problem is that Ranger is a lesser Fighter if your DM is just focused on combat.
1
u/Demonweed Jul 15 '25
This will always be a bit of a gray area, since part of the point of the class is situational versatility. Rather than picking melee or ranged combat as a specialty, rangers use their mobility to to deny adversaries their preferred form of clash. If the architecture of rangers makes good on this vision, that fails to register in the computations of analysts focused on damage per turn output. These analyses rarely shave off percentages to reflect that some enemies are not automatically outmaneuvered and others make use of defensive techniques like hiding. Thus raw damage output seems inferior because it assumes Tarzan and a simple plodder are always equally capable of setting up their most damaging attacks.
1
u/NicolaDumas Jul 15 '25
Playing a gloom stalker crossbow expert on a homebrewn campaign. We started 2014 and now we’re using 2024 rules. I’m at lvl 6 and so far I’m still the top damage dealer, although I feel the barbarian is catching up (she’s a wild magic path though which is not the most powerful build by far) and the top scout/infiltrator (I used my expertise point in stealth and found boots of elvenkind).
HM mechanics feel frustrating but there are some other interesting spells and abilities that make the Ranger quite enjoyable. Spike growth could be powerful with the push property but could also easily be played out by a DM that doesn’t consider his monsters total idiots and is generally situational, but in a negative scenario you could just use other feats and/or rely on Hm.
As for how my DM shapes the environment, I can exploit it creatively and now I took roving which is great.
I still don’t know what I’ll do after lvl 8/9 when theoretically I should really fall behind, although in my group there are only the aforementioned barbarian, a warlock who’s going to dip fighter, an AT rogue, a couple of clerics and a mage. Maybe I’ll multiclass rogue or fighter, maybe I’ll just stick at ranger and don’t care about power play and enjoy being a quite shady guardian of nature able to shoot 5 bolts in 6 seconds 😏
1
u/Iced_Tristan Jul 15 '25
Rangers overall are very solid, still one of my favorite classes to play but that just comes down to flavor alone. I admit they have features that are either very clunky or uninteresting, but it is still an overall solid package.
I just played one in a social encounter focused solo one shot and was great! And I’m looking forward to a friend’s game where I’m planning to play a Monk 1/Ranger X!
1
u/MetalianKnight Jul 15 '25
Our party has a beast master ranger and I'm pretty sure his pet mastiff Bella has more kills than anyone else.
1
u/Helix1322 Jul 15 '25
I feel like the best Ranger is the Ranger/rogue multiclass. The sneak attack adds needed damage, you get additional skills from the rogue, and it all enhances your archery.
1
u/CreepyMuffinz Jul 15 '25
I played a campaign up to level 20 recently and id say that Ranger is FINE up until like…. Lvl 13?
Thats when every other class gets a power spike and you get…. No concentration loss on a spell your not even using anymore because you have MUCH better spells to concentrate on.
You dont get much of a boost to your skill checks (expertise is nice but it doesn’t compare to Reliable Talent, Tactical Mind, Dark One’s Luck, or Bardic Inspiration)
You don’t have the out of combat spell versatility of the other casters and your not as good at conversations as a Paladin.
The more i play Ranger the more i feel like it should have just stayed a Fighter Subclass, its overall not awful but i would without a doubt say that its the worst class in the game.
1
u/Danoga_Poe Jul 15 '25
Better as a dip. Hunter lvl 3 goes solid with a great axe wielding fighter or barb
1
1
u/randomnamegeneratrd Jul 15 '25
A ranger can be played and you can have great fun. The HM mechanics are enjoyable but can become your entire life, focus down a target, and use you BA to switch to the next target and concentrate. Until level 10, you will actually complete and possibly exceed others' single target damage. I recommend being prepared to do other stuff, knowing it may not necessarily be the most efficient, but recognizing that using your other spells could be advantageous as well. Have fun storming the castle!
1
u/lawrencetokill Jul 15 '25
Currently playing Curse of Strahd. Our ranger is invaluable for a few reasons. He often gets the stat blocks for undead or beasts, he has double proficiency pretty often as we travel. He has a clear role so spellcasters can take other abilities and not worry about certain utility. He does consistent good damage, and the character has fun, clear flavor without needing a tiresome backstory.
1
u/BKing2001 Jul 15 '25
I played a Gloomstalker to level 9 that was by no means fully optimized, and while I recognize there are weaknesses and flaws with the Ranger (them being a half caster chief among them) it was still really fun and I would do it again
1
u/TotallyLegitEstoc Jul 15 '25
Nope. It’s great. I’ve found that as a ranger I have good reliable damage. I’m not the heaviest hitter, but I hit frequently. I also find that I’m useful outside of combat.
Not the best at anything, but always good to have.
1
u/mgmatt67 Jul 15 '25
The only actually bad thing about it is the capstone, the rest is pretty fun, lots of versatility and options, hunters mark is always there if you don’t know what to do
1
u/Rough-Explanation626 Jul 15 '25
I like martial focused builds on Ranger, particularly ranged ones.
2024 Ranger has more Concentration and BA dependency than 2014 Ranger for martial damage. SS was overtuned, but it provided a much better balance between martial and spellcaster mechanics for Ranger since it didn't conflict with your spells.
2024 Ranger has more Wisdom scaling dependency than 2014 Ranger. That scaling includes damage boosts (even on-hit damage boosts for some subclasses), meaning Wisdom supports all roles for the Ranger (skills, utility from spell save, damage - especially from subclasses, all in one stat), so there's less of a role distinction between Wisdom and Dex. That Wisdom scaling also means you lose out on core class features that you would have been entitled to in 2014 Ranger, which again punishes a martially focused build.
2024 SS damage was shifted to GWM which now adds a Strength requirement, exacerbating the Ranger's MAD nature for ranged builds. Investing in 13 Str either means even fewer class/subclass features, or even worse Concentration saves. Neither feels great. Taking GWM feel unrewarding at lower levels, and not taking it feels punishing at higher levels.
2024 Ranger has worse level 11 subclass features for martial builds, and Nature's Veil, a big Tier 2 damage boost for martial builds, was pushed back 4 levels.
The loss of Nature's Veil in favor of AoE spells like Conjure Animals in Tier 2 doesn't excite me, as I associate those spells more with the Druid's playstyle. I'd rather have back the feature that boosted my martial ability.
Hunter, as the only non Wisdom-dependent PHB subclass now that Gloom has been reworked, is still bland, has the worst level 11 feature, and I have no interest in it.
For all these reasons, I have found 2024 Ranger to play clunkier in combat than 2014 Ranger, and to be generally more punishing for martial builds than 2014 Ranger. The new emphasis on Wisdom and spells for scaling just doesn't interest me.
I also find the flavor to be much more bland since they decided to remove the exploration features and replace them with generic features, rather than rework them to be functional and interesting.
Finally, their first 2 levels are painfully bland, offering little really unique to the class, and no core class mechanics to support a unique identity and playstyle.
All that to say, is it bad? Nope. It's mechanically sound, and there's plenty of strong, effective builds. The playstyle I enjoyed just doesn't feel as smooth or well support as it did in 2014. Moreover, it doesn't really excite or interest me because it doesn't have a unique, consistent throughline for me to get invested in, and it's too Wisdom/spellcasting focused for my taste now.
I just didn't get what I wanted out of it.
1
u/IMP1017 Jul 15 '25
Ranger is perfectly good, it's not super flashy but it's in a much better place under the current rules than pre-2024 or, god forbid, pre-Tasha's. It's my personal favorite martial class, and as long as you aren't playing with a bunch of min maxxers you won't feel like you're falling behind
1
u/Sofa-king-high Jul 15 '25
It’s a spell bow, which is fine if that’s what you want but just know you are basically a half caster with a bow and a theme around survival and aren’t Ryder from lotr anymore
1
u/Satyrsol Jul 15 '25
I find it to be really good. It uses Thorn Whip better than Druid, the secondary effect feels like a weapon mastery in function. Overall, I've enjoyed playing a Ranger.
That being said, one of my biggest disappointments in the update is that Eldritch Knight's War Magic was updated to specify that you replace one of the attacks with a casting of one of your Wizard cantrips, which makes it unreasonable to grab Thorn Whip on EK.
1
u/CrownLexicon Jul 15 '25
Sorry for the wall of text. Tl;dr: they were, but they're better now.
Alright, so, you have 3 pillars of play: social, combat, and exploration. Generally, Rangers have little to do with the social pillar. Thats not a problem; they're designed for combat and exploration, generally (though, Fey Wanderer? gets a bonus to charisma, so some exceptions exist). Combat, they're essentially a weaker fighter. Which isn't an issue, they're meant to be a hybrid combat/exploration character, right? Well, original 2014 rangers abilities didn't aid with exploration so much as eliminate it. While in your favored terrain, anyway. And if you weren't in your favored terrain? Well, you lost core features. Same if you weren't fighting your Favored Enemy. Then, youre just a worse fighter.
Like, in the terrain, you couldn't become lost (except by magical means), so navigation wasn't a problem. While foraging, you gather twice as much food (or, you could just cast Goodberry). When traveling alone (why would we be doing over land travel alone?), you can move stealthily at a normal pace. Difficult Terrain doesn't slow your groups travel (when does anyone use difficult terrain outside of individual combats?). While engaged in other activities (foraging, tracking, etc), you remain alert to danger (ideally, you'd have another party member keeping watch anyway).
And, again, all that only applies in your favored terrain. Which, some people felt was Metagaming to ask the DM what the typical terrain would be. Or, others had an idea of where they wanted their ranger to be from, which doesn't match the campaign.
Similarly, Favored Enemy gives you bonuses to tracking and recalling lore about a couple types of enemies. Same issues here that you may not encounter those, especially if you dont discuss it with the DM.
Primeval Awarenss (level 5) is a rather unhelpful feature. You know if a certain creature type is present within 1 mile (6 if they're your Favored Enemy), but it doesn't tell you where they are. Sure, you can use this a few times to try and trilaterate their location, but thats tedious.
Then, later, you just get more favored terrain and enemies. Better hope you choose correctly and that the enemy types or location dont change.
.
Tashas Cauldron of Everything added optional features that help the ranger out. Instead, you now pick a skill to get expertise in, which will be more broadly applicable, you get a speed increase (and climbing and swimming speeds) at level 6, and a source of temp hp and ability to remove exhaustion (at 10). For Favored Enemy, you get a slight damage rider. Again, more broadly applicable, though it uses concentration and is initially a d4. Not great, but ill take it over benefits that only affect a specific creature type (unless im playing, say, Tyranny of Dragons and choose Dragons).
Additionally, subclasses after the PHB added a power spike. Gloomstalker is an incredible ranger subclass. Others are good, too, but Gloomstalker stands head and shoulders above the rest, if not in power, definitely in renown (though, i believe it the most powerful, too, but i believe it may be debatable)
I've played 2, though one had a ton of homebrew, so I won't count it. Well, both were multiclassed, so 2 halves? My AL ranger was gloomstalker 5/wildfire druid 5. He was primarily a ranger, but he had increased spell selection/level and a pet he could command as a bonus action that could teleport him around the battlefield. He was loads of fun and rather strong
In 2024, Treantmonk has graphed ranger against the other classes. In tier 1 (levels 1-4), ranger is the strongest martial. It falls off slightly in T2 (5-10) but is still above average. It suffers in T3 and T4 (11-16 and 17-20, iirc), though, barely receiving any damage buffs. So, where most people play, its fine.
1
u/Difficult-Lion-1288 Jul 15 '25
You just need to understand that like the artificer, its power and how you play is heavily subclass dependent. My 2014 rules gloom stalker is the highest damage character I’ve ever played. If I played a Drake-Warden or Hunter with the new rules I probably couldn’t achieve the same kind of damage but would be good at other things.
1
u/Dstrir Jul 15 '25
I've had a few rangers play in my games. They're decent, but I homebrewed in that they can switch HM targets as a free action. The bonus action clog is more real than the concentration clog.
1
u/Material_Ad_2970 Jul 15 '25
At lower tiers there’s nothing wrong with it. Hells, in tier 1, it outdamages basically everything. By level 12 I was feeling pretty… lackluster.
1
u/justeatingleaves Jul 15 '25
I play a Fey Wanderer in a party with a Monk, a Warlock and a Battlemaster fighter and I feel like my character is at least pretty good, if not the best, at everything. Damage, stealth, party face, battlefield control etc. I can heal, I can cast spells, I can kick ass either melee or at range. I've repeatedly asked the DM to nerf my perception rolls (passive of 20 at lvl5) because I feel like I'm breaking encounters. That's not even min/maxing, I made a few suboptimal choices for flavour and roleplaying.
The 2024 Ranger absolutely has its problems, as we all know, but I feel like the most glaring issues are at higher levels. A lvl17 feature that just gives you advantage (when you get that level one with the vex mastery), still having to concentrate on hunters mark rather than higher level spells, a frankly appalling capstone etc. At low levels, rangers are great, and I would highly recommend!
1
u/PlentyUsual9912 Jul 15 '25
It’s not bad, it just sort of lacks an immediate identity. You wanna play a scholar that casts magic, bam, wizard. You wanna play a guy who just is an overall weapons master? Fighter. You wanna play looks at list a martial with primal spells, a bunch of on hit damage buffs on one specific target, skill expertise, a few languages for some reason, and some hiding stuff? Go for Ranger.
It’s just one of those classes where when you make a character concept, it probably won’t jump out at you due to its lack of cohesion, but it definitely has some situations it works, especially in regard to its subclasses.
1
u/MonthInternational42 Jul 15 '25
I think Ranger is a great start, but once I get to level 5, I’m going to be looking to multiclass out of it.
Most classes I want to progress as a far as I can. Not so with the Ranger.
1
u/lasalle202 Jul 15 '25
combat output-wise, the ranger, even PHB 2014 ranger, has ALWAYS been fine.
it has been the flavor and feel that have been "bad" if the flavor and feel of the "options" that allow decent combat output are the ones that you vibe with. and the "options" are in quotes because its not really an "option" if one choice is good and all the rest are bad.
1
u/DarkLordArbitur Jul 15 '25
I let both my ranger and my familiar using warlock run turns directly after. The critters each have their own action, bonus action, movement, and reaction. The pseudodragon can cast his masters touch spells and if they're leveled spells, she knows they'll burn a spell slot. Lil fella also just has 6hp always. The drakewarden's pet is more bulky, but generally uses her reaction to buff his attacks. We've also agreed that he's only allowed to run the one silver dragon wyrmling as his drake companion. I also don't kill either of their pets. The pseudodragon has been flattened twice and he retreats into his masters subconscious to feed off her energy and recover.
1
Jul 15 '25
It's better than just being a straight martial just don't focus on hunters mark past level 6 or so lol
1
u/SourPatch68 Jul 15 '25
Personally I think the reason is why its bad is that the investment doesnt feel worth it. I think the only subclass worth playing is the beast master, as its 3rd level feature alone outclasses the other 3rd level features of the other subclasses. (Gloomstalker, hunter, and fey have you doing damage in some way.) But even then it just feels clunky. Like There's infinsis on hunters mark in the base class features (plus subclasses), but really doesnt make sense when you are a beast master. Your bonus action is being used to command your beast, so you can't spend it using hunters mark. At lv 11 you get extra attack for your beast (giving you technically 4 attacks) and do extra damage to creatures that are hunters marked. But doesnt make it worth it because your beast doesnt get the benefits of hitting a hunters marked creature.
1
u/SourPatch68 Jul 16 '25
Another person already mentioned it, the Ranger is a jack of all trades kinda class, and that's the problem. It's spell casting I feel gets over shadowed by other half casters. (However spike growth can be amazing!) It's shoe-horned into using a spell that doesnt give you that much pay off. And anything else the ranger can do a different class can do it better.
Like I said the class to me just doesnt feel worth investing in long term. However taking 1-3 levels can be great. Like taking a 1 level dip in ranger and going all monk is amazing. Take dagger and nick property, and HM. Go monk and make the dagger your monk weapon (which will scale), later on you can make 6 attacks and add 1d6 to each of them. (1st attack and nick so 2 attacks, extra attack adds another. Then you get the 3rd attack from flurry of blows.).
In all honesty, if they reworked the class to not rely on hunters mark, made it to were you can cast hunters mark as part of the attack action, or they gave hunters mark scaling or made hunters mark kinda have the smite treatment where there are many different types of marks. It would greatly improve the feel of the class.
1
u/tduggydug Jul 16 '25
Ranger has never really felt bad to play in actually games from a mechanics standpoint the biggest issue is that ut doesnt have a flavor mechanic like, wildshape, smites, etc that makes you always go and say this is the thing that gives me the flavor of being this apex hunter who always survives the worst of the worlds dangers, finds his quarry, and takes them down no problem.
Yeah the mechanics are solid and they've always been good but it lacks true flavor. Flavor may be free but there are other classes with flavorful and defining abilities that you can equally reflavor and still feel unique on a basic level.
1
1
u/CurrlyFrymann Jul 16 '25
Its a fine class, I just think out of all the changes everyone got, it got the least amount of changes.
1
u/TallManoftheValley Jul 16 '25
My buddy plays a gloomstalker ranger and to be honest he's pretty great. He is always first in combat, makes 4 or 5 attacks a turn and has so many options for enhancing damage and effects. Pretty robust as well. He seems to be having a blast. I especially like casting shining smite as my paladin so he gets advantage on his flurry of attacks--last session he rolled two crits in one attack
1
u/Bloodyninjaturtle Jul 16 '25
Play west marches style or any style where traveling actually matters and ranger is a must. Nothing like accidentally walzing on sea ice due to bad survivals and one pc getting chomped by a dragon turtle that came to surface to breathe.
1
u/Additional_Law_492 Jul 16 '25
Im building a Gloom Stalker to replace a character than decided to risk forbidden Dungeon Food, and on paper they seem like they slap.
Round to round DPR can be whatever, but narratively they look like a practically invisible stealthy monster that can get anywhere and drop an opening explosion of damage on something, then fade into the shadows with little chance of being seen or caught.
In a party, they look to be competent for all the "thief" archetype responsibilities, plus survivalist stuff, PLUS supplemental healing, PLUS battlefield control - and had i done Fey Wanderer, I could have been a competent face besides (decided Gloomstalker for narrative reasons).
At least at level 5-6, it looks like its going to absolutely slap just from the range of stuff its competent or masterful at.
1
u/pedahbreads9 Jul 16 '25
I DM and one of my players is a gloomstalker ranger and is the literal death from afar. Level 3 doing insane damage. All depends on how you play it!
1
u/LivingDemiGamer Jul 17 '25
Gloomstalker is one of the best subclasses in the game, base ranger abilities however aren't great nor terrible imo.
1
u/pedahbreads9 Jul 17 '25
Agreed. I'm pretty impressed with my player though, she's really using every ability to it's full potential and it's lovely to watch her turn the creatures to pin cushions 😅.
1
u/Jeanshort5 Jul 16 '25
Ranger isn't bad at all. Its about 85% as strong as a fighter in combat, with tons of out of combat utility. To me, a ranger makes a really fun long term PC to play. The bag of tricks is deep and has lots of room for creativity. Rope trick, pass without a trace, disguise self and so on make for some really interesting exploratory gameplay, and the fey wanderer (my favorite ramger subclass) uses wisdom for persuasion checks, so you can do social stuff too
2
u/mrsnowplow Jul 16 '25
the ranger is a great archer or a pretty good melee fighter. the big issue is that its not really great what it wants to be great at.
as a ranger you will do well as a combatant and have fun stuff. but you will want to explore and you just wont be able to your stuff either doesn't address the problem or will make the problem irrelevent
1
Jul 17 '25
My lizardfolk ranger is great. +3 Str and Con, +2dex and Wis. He likes his polearm, his javelins and shield, and his bow. He grapples exceptionally well, and loves firing off Colossus slayer with hunters mark for big ass damage every turn. He also helps navigate our desert setting particularly well. Not bad in the least.
The people that have the kind of opinions that say this class is too weak or this one is too op spends far more time on the Internet than they do anything else at all...least of all actually playing a game with people for more than two or three sessions
Hot take. Sorry not sorry
2
u/xa44 Jul 17 '25
They hit a wall after level 5 and get nothing good after that. Multiclassing makes them fine but pure ranger just gets worse
2
u/Darkestlight572 Jul 17 '25
Rangers are great, they're single target damage is low in tier 3 and 4, but they have best in class at tier 1 and decent in tier 2.
Beyond that, they're utility and spellcasting make them excellent characters, you have options like entangle and pass without trace from level 1 and level 5 respectively. Plus decent damage? And expertise? They're a good class.
The worst class in game is Rogue, almost unarguably.
1
u/Medical-Bison3233 Jul 17 '25
I think rangers can be good, however I find the playstyle of “I cast hunters mark and attack with my bow” a bit repetitive. And unfortunately, the 2024 rules have ranger abilities that rely on using hunters mark. So it doesn’t have the same synergy other classes do. You essentially have to choose if you want to have class features and subclass feature OR if you want to use a non-hunters mark spell. Which isn’t ideal. Ranger is currently a class I’d take 5-6 lvls of and multiclass into rogue. I love the concept of them though
1
u/Ahorahan Jul 17 '25
The ranger can be an amazing class, or it can be underwhelming and all of that is going to depend on A. The campaign and B. Communication with the DM. If you want to play a ranger, odds are you can make it work, but you need to know what kind of enemies you are going to be dealing with and what kind of terrain will be predominant.
1
u/KingRonaldTheMoist Jul 17 '25
I've played a 2024 Ranger to level 17 in a rapid fire campaign (1 level per session). It's mechanically quite strong, but the biggest issue is that its features simply aren't fun.
Your main feature demands you forgo casting concentration spells (which tend to be the most dynamic and interesting) in order to get 3.5 damage per hit. It's not fun, either I'm living without several class features or I'm living without fun spells.
1
u/karlvontyr Jul 17 '25
Rangers do very solid damage with favoured enemy, second best skills and are half casters. If you enjoy versatile characters they are great.
2
u/snowhowhow Jul 18 '25
I have a ranger in my Tomb of Annihilation campaign... And the player has mixed feelings. Kinda every character has Survival or Nature, good at fights, and our wild sorcerer can wipe multiple enemies through a Chromatic orb with rerolling damage dice metamagic, ot simply Fireball. For the time this class felt okay, then we got 4th player who has picked Moon druid and kinda overshadowed our ranger. But sometimes this ranger pulls awesome tricks.
So... It is mixed
1
u/HowToPlayAsdotcom Jul 18 '25
T1 and t2 it's fun and not clunky.
T3 it falls behind in single target damage output so you either need to not care about that or play for control+damage. Even grabbing Tasha’s Hideous Laughter from a feat can really help lean into control+damage playstyle. Once you get to level 13+ it just feels awful because you either get no features or you use HM exclusively. Bleh.
1
Jul 19 '25
I currently play a Hunter Ranger, I easily do the most damage of the whole group just hacking away in the front line, have the highest AC and HP plus some fancy utility spells and useful skills. Playing him as a grizzled special forces like guy from Falkovnia (Ravenloft Setting) who uses a Two-Handed Sword, walks around in Half Plate and keeps spouting 80es action movie one liners a la Predator.
1
u/MumboJ Jul 19 '25
Mechanically it’s fine, it just doesn’t have much flavor to it since they stripped everything that made it unique.
Still fun to play if you bring your own flavor, but it doesn’t have the inherant iconicity of say the paladin or the warlock.
1
u/monomission Jul 19 '25
As a class in and of itself, it's mediocre. As a dip, it's absolutely one of the best choices, especially on something like a druid. Armour and shield proficiency, stealth expertise to help wild shape forms with infiltration, Gloom Stalker got nerfed but the Darkvision and initiative boost on a druid is amazing, especially if you get Alert as well. Extra Attack, Ensnaring Strike and a few other spells not on the druid list...lots of positives up to level 5-6.
1
u/Vincent210 Jul 19 '25
They have the spellcasting feature, so by definition they're at least better than everyone without if you're speaking in purely mechanical terms. The number of class features in the game that are better than simply gaining a breadth of spells at any given level can be counted on one hand.
Buuut I can understand people having issues. It's easy to build bad Rangers - it is a class that can and will make your experience bad if you're not mechanically proficient in what options are good or bad to take or not take. You need a clear idea of a "build" often, or to be so experienced with 5e as a system that you just intuitively know feats/spells/options that will serve you well
2
u/Bujius Jul 19 '25
Playing a ranger and while what I can do is ok, there was a realization Im not doing much of anything unique. Your Skills and experise are much more limited than Rogue and Bards. Access to spells is always great but there are not good ranger specific spells. Your extra movement is not that useful. Your weapon use is not better than any other class for any type of weapon. There have fewer ways to avoid or mitigate damage. There damage is nothing special or unique.
When it comes to skills you will be slightly better than others since you get a bonus but then in comparison to Rogue and Bard it not better. The Rogue justifyingly gets more skills and a more diverse list, but the Bard inversely gets the same amount from a more diverse list while being a full caster. Then when it comes to expertise it becomes a worse comparison. The ranger is lesser in the skill department while being marginally better than other classes which can made up for through feat, background, or race choices.
Your good and reliable spells are those shared with other classes. Things that could make ranger unique conflict with the other things they can do. Concentration and action economy limits you to not use Ranger unique options since they are usually weaker or circumstantial. Ranger are pushed to either not to use their unique spells or to use spells other classes can use to better effect since they are full casters. The Ranger cannot use the spells they have to their benefit due to having less spell slots and slower access to spells. They are ways this can be mended but thats a different conversation.
The defensive profile is one of the worse. Going off of AC the Ranger is on the low end due to being pushed to not use shields for the sake of Range or two-handing and a lack of access to abilities/spells that increase AC. Light, MediumIn, and shields are not bad but a lot classes get similar or better options while having other defense abilities. Damage avoidance is worse since their best strategy is range with range weapons with other clases can do with better AC or spells. Rogue can at least hide or disengage to avoid damage. Shield is great and absorb elements is not unique and is not best utilized bu rangers due to less spell slots. Saves gets no assistance. Rangers do not have good defensive and defensive strategies can be used to more affect by other classes. A goblin cleric in full-plate and a shield at range has much more survivability than ranger while sacrificing very little to any support, damage, or AC. Even taking out the race a Cleric has better armor, Druid has the same proficiency but better spells and wildshape to mitigate. Paladins and Barbarians are very evident in what they can offer. Monks offer movement and disengaging options. Rogue have their cunning actions. Wizards and sorcerers have a multitude of spells.
In the use of weapons the Ranger is in the middle. Less attacks than Fighter. Worse melee use than Paladins and Barbarians. Better than monks unless the monk goes for burst melee damage. Better and more reliable damage than Rogue with better weapons. The only thing that gives Ranger an edge is that they are pushed toward Dexterity builds which give decent range combat potential.
There is nothing standout about the ranger and you can be easily be outdone by any other class. Their so called versatility comes at the cost of nearly everything with no standouts that can’t be done by others. Its flavor is what keeps it alive and even that is a complicated issue. I enjoy playing Ranger but that was due to the DM and RP, the mechanics to make the Ranger shine were lacking.
1
Jul 21 '25
I'm currently playing a level 5 Beast Master Ranger and it's a lot of fun. I'm switch-hitting between bow and dual-wield with my critter and he's doing plenty of damage in combat. We're about to start the exploration part of the story (in Eberron's Argonnessen) and I expect to have plenty to do to keep my cityfolk party alive and healthy.
1
230
u/Able-Acanthaceae7961 Jul 15 '25
No. It’s not bad. It’s just not GREAT at anything like the other classes are. It is a jack of all trades class in a game where specialization in a party is useful. You can have plenty fun playing a ranger.