The Ranger PCs IMCs seem fine. Gloomstalker is a bit OP and Beastmaster is UP. Have a player with a Horizon Walker currently and it seems a nice, well balanced flavourful path.

I had a lot of good experiences with the 3E bard in play.  It was because of how we ran it and what the player brought to the table, nothing in the system itself.  The 3E bard wasn't the complete sinkhole that the complainers made it out to be, but nor was it anything special.  it was some flavor text slobbered over a half-ass design, but a lot of people liked that flavor. 

One of the ways I made 5E rangers work was that I routinely made sure that anyone playing a ranger got some nice magic items before anyone else.  The group knew it, too.  That pretty much solved the problems in play, even if it is rather unsatisfactory as a larger fix.  Though, that's not unlike the 1E fighter having the hidden bonus that some of the best and most common magic items were long swords (assuming the GM went off the random treasure rolls).

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 25, 2021, 11:03:31 AM
The favored enemy table is shit. Its either almost always online, or worthless or demands the GM throw you bones in ways he doesn't need to for most other character classes.

The only time I've seen the favored enemy table done remotely well is in 13th Age. It doesn't have a bazillion monster types like every other edition of D&D does, and you can select "humanoids" at the cost of two slots rather than needing to select orcs, goblins, etc separately.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 25, 2021, 07:57:19 AM

Quote from: Omega on October 25, 2021, 06:15:44 AM
Overall the 5e Ranger is fine as is.

What gets a certain faction all up in arms, and in a way, rightfully so, is how the Beastmaster path works, or more aptly... Does not quite work.

The main sticking point is that the Ranger has alot more restriction on commanding their animal companion that most of the other classes with built in or summonable help have to work with.

Far as I have seen, that is about the only problem and its easy enough to fix.

Now on the woke side of things, eg the insane side. I've seen arguments that the Ranger needs 'fixing' because the class is wacist. Because the ranger has designated monster foes.

And far as I know the ranger class got some overhauls in the last two expansions.

As I have a Beastmaster Ranger in my campaign, can confirm that WotC kinda limited their action economy, which... almost defeats the purpose of having an extra hand (or claw, or ... etc).

That being said, a ranger has access to some nasty tricks. The sharpshooter feat gives them a HUGE damage boost -- we're talking on par with old 3E power attack. The Rain of Thorns spell lets them fire what amounts to small-yield frag grenades with their bow.

Greetings!

Hey Ghostmaker! YEAH! I have seen some especially lethal Ranger characters in the game that were absolute *death machines*. Bringing down ungodly amounts of damage--all at range, four, five, six arrow shots per round, *plus* whatever the fuck their Animal is doing. Have the Animal provided with a magic item or two, like a special collar or a monster-hide shirt thingy, buff them with spells from a Druid or Cleric...geesus. Yeah, I think the whining is entirely misplaced.

I have another fellow player at a game store group--he doesn't even pay that much attention to trying to juice his Ranger, let alone "Min-Max" him. His Elf Ranger gets I think three or four arrow shots per round; has a +2 Longbow; and damn, he does some fierce damage, consistently, in every fight, in every adventure. Plus, he's skilled in the wilderness, survival, and about animals, geography, special berries and herbs. He is a fantastic character, and one of the strongest, most stable and reliable characters in the group. The player, as I alluded to, plays his Elf Ranger in a kind of quiet, under-stated manner. He doesn't brag, he doesn't seek glory; he doesn't argue with the DM; and he doesn't make any real efforts to juice his Ranger character.

Every game session though, he provides wise advice. He never does anything rash, foolish, or stupid. His Elf Ranger is cautious, conservative, and thoughtful. Not especially quick to leap into combat or open the doors to unnecessary risk--but when the time comes for action, he definitely brings the fire down. I have always admired and enjoyed Ranger characters.

They seem to play mechanically and thematically very well in 5E as well.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

BAIZOU did quite a lot to make 3,5 Ranger more flavourful, but dunno if it's applicable to 5e problems if there are any.

The 5e Ranger is similar to the Champion... a nice class in itself, bad in comparison to others.

Other than that, the main problem is the beastmaster Ranger; it feels clunky because you have to forego one attack to let your pet attack, and the pet in the PHB doesn't scale well, etc.

And there is the bonus action problem: the ranger needs one for hunter's mark, one for dual wielding, one to order the beast around, etc.

I find the Hunter ok with a few tweaks*, and the beastmaster has been fixed in supplement's (tasha's IIRC).

* E.g.: "Colossus Slayer: the extra damage is according to the target's HD (for example, giants would take an extra 1d10 or 1d12; 1d20 for gargantuan creatures. Colossus slayer indeed!)"
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2021/09/minimalist-5e-changes-i-classes.html

Another perceived problem is the Natural Explorer feat... it circumvents whole issues (getting lost etc.) but doesn't give the ranger much chance to shine. "Roll to see if you get lost... oh, no wait, don't roll, there is a ranger". Immensely useful for the party but not much fun.

EDIT: I've been thinking about a "one roll exploration" sub-system, and IMO this would work better by giving the ranger a bonus and letting him pick ONE MORE OPTION if the roll was good enough: ignore difficult terrain, augment speed by 50%, find fruits or game, move stealthy, prevent ambushes, etc.

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2021/07/a-d20-hexcrawl-minimalist-and.html


EDIT: the sharpshooter feat is good, one of the best in the game, but not particularly "ranger-y"; a fighter can make great use of it.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 25, 2021, 09:00:50 AM
A lot of people still remember that the 1E ranger was specialized but if he played to his strengths (especially vs giants and certain humanoids), he was a goddamn wrecking ball.

I don't think that's the problem. I don't really think all that many old players are still doing 5e.

However, the Ranger's issue in 5e is that, while they consistently have a strong damage output, they lack the ability to put out a "nova" like the Paladin (Smite) or even the Fighter (Action Surge). Also, the limited spell selection compared to the Paladin (who choses from whole list each day). Beyond that, some of the class features are either fantastically effective but in situations that many players don't value (like exploration, which is a weak pillar in 5e) or just kinda boring.

1.- It's The Ranger.
2.- It's 5e
3.- Nuff said.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 27, 2021, 10:16:34 AM
Another perceived problem is the Natural Explorer feat... it circumvents whole issues (getting lost etc.) but doesn't give the ranger much chance to shine. "Roll to see if you get lost... oh, no wait, don't roll, there is a ranger". Immensely useful for the party but not much fun.

EDIT: I've been thinking about a "one roll exploration" sub-system, and IMO this would work better by giving the ranger a bonus and letting him pick ONE MORE OPTION if the roll was good enough: ignore difficult terrain, augment speed by 50%, find fruits or game, move stealthy, prevent ambushes, etc.

AiME handled this in a better fashion.  Journeys aren't one roll but the Wanderer adds a lot of bonuses to the various rolls you need to make.  They also are able to fill all missing journey roles in a system where the journey roles/actions actually matter.  D&D 5e wilderness exploration is kind of disappointing because they couldn't square it with the magic so they just gave up.

Quote from: KingCheops on October 28, 2021, 10:01:54 AM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 27, 2021, 10:16:34 AM
Another perceived problem is the Natural Explorer feat... it circumvents whole issues (getting lost etc.) but doesn't give the ranger much chance to shine. "Roll to see if you get lost... oh, no wait, don't roll, there is a ranger". Immensely useful for the party but not much fun.

EDIT: I've been thinking about a "one roll exploration" sub-system, and IMO this would work better by giving the ranger a bonus and letting him pick ONE MORE OPTION if the roll was good enough: ignore difficult terrain, augment speed by 50%, find fruits or game, move stealthy, prevent ambushes, etc.

AiME handled this in a better fashion.  Journeys aren't one roll but the Wanderer adds a lot of bonuses to the various rolls you need to make.  They also are able to fill all missing journey roles in a system where the journey roles/actions actually matter.  D&D 5e wilderness exploration is kind of disappointing because they couldn't square it with the magic so they just gave up.

Also Ranger is just another magic user, how many do we need? Lets count: Wizard and all it's now infinite (it seems) variations, Elves, the Bard, The Ranger, The Cleric (a badly disguised MU), Gnomes, Halfdemons (Forgot the name of the damned race), Eberron's constructs...

Make it a hunter, zero magic and give it skills bu it can fail because not every environment has enough food, a big predator scared the prey, someone forrested not long ago and there are no berries to be found, etc.

But then you have the Elf, which can do pretty much all of what a hunter would: Move silently and unseen in the forest? Check, find game because BS better eyes than humans? Check...

But as 5e does not use race = class, that's hopefully not a problem.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 28, 2021, 04:08:28 PM

Quote from: KingCheops on October 28, 2021, 10:01:54 AM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 27, 2021, 10:16:34 AM
Another perceived problem is the Natural Explorer feat... it circumvents whole issues (getting lost etc.) but doesn't give the ranger much chance to shine. "Roll to see if you get lost... oh, no wait, don't roll, there is a ranger". Immensely useful for the party but not much fun.

EDIT: I've been thinking about a "one roll exploration" sub-system, and IMO this would work better by giving the ranger a bonus and letting him pick ONE MORE OPTION if the roll was good enough: ignore difficult terrain, augment speed by 50%, find fruits or game, move stealthy, prevent ambushes, etc.

AiME handled this in a better fashion.  Journeys aren't one roll but the Wanderer adds a lot of bonuses to the various rolls you need to make.  They also are able to fill all missing journey roles in a system where the journey roles/actions actually matter.  D&D 5e wilderness exploration is kind of disappointing because they couldn't square it with the magic so they just gave up.

Also Ranger is just another magic user, how many do we need? Lets count: Wizard and all it's now infinite (it seems) variations, Elves, the Bard, The Ranger, The Cleric (a badly disguised MU), Gnomes, Halfdemons (Forgot the name of the damned race), Eberron's constructs...

Make it a hunter, zero magic and give it skills bu it can fail because not every environment has enough food, a big predator scared the prey, someone forrested not long ago and there are no berries to be found, etc.

But then you have the Elf, which can do pretty much all of what a hunter would: Move silently and unseen in the forest? Check, find game because BS better eyes than humans? Check...

What game are you playing? What the "Elf" can do is largely based in its class, and in 5e, Elf is a race (with several subraces), not a class. It has Perceptiom, but isn't better at it than anyone else with that proficiency and it has no inherent stealth abilities beyond what it gets from its class.

Quote from: HappyDaze on October 28, 2021, 06:06:37 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 28, 2021, 04:08:28 PM

Quote from: KingCheops on October 28, 2021, 10:01:54 AM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 27, 2021, 10:16:34 AM
Another perceived problem is the Natural Explorer feat... it circumvents whole issues (getting lost etc.) but doesn't give the ranger much chance to shine. "Roll to see if you get lost... oh, no wait, don't roll, there is a ranger". Immensely useful for the party but not much fun.

EDIT: I've been thinking about a "one roll exploration" sub-system, and IMO this would work better by giving the ranger a bonus and letting him pick ONE MORE OPTION if the roll was good enough: ignore difficult terrain, augment speed by 50%, find fruits or game, move stealthy, prevent ambushes, etc.

AiME handled this in a better fashion.  Journeys aren't one roll but the Wanderer adds a lot of bonuses to the various rolls you need to make.  They also are able to fill all missing journey roles in a system where the journey roles/actions actually matter.  D&D 5e wilderness exploration is kind of disappointing because they couldn't square it with the magic so they just gave up.

Also Ranger is just another magic user, how many do we need? Lets count: Wizard and all it's now infinite (it seems) variations, Elves, the Bard, The Ranger, The Cleric (a badly disguised MU), Gnomes, Halfdemons (Forgot the name of the damned race), Eberron's constructs...

Make it a hunter, zero magic and give it skills bu it can fail because not every environment has enough food, a big predator scared the prey, someone forrested not long ago and there are no berries to be found, etc.

But then you have the Elf, which can do pretty much all of what a hunter would: Move silently and unseen in the forest? Check, find game because BS better eyes than humans? Check...

What game are you playing? What the "Elf" can do is largely based in its class, and in 5e, Elf is a race (with several subraces), not a class. It has Perceptiom, but isn't better at it than anyone else with that proficiency and it has no inherent stealth abilities beyond what it gets from its class.

Clearly not 5e. Latelly AD&D2e

The various flavors of Elves have access to Racial feats that give them magic powers without having to take an MU class.  This is on top of being able to take general feats that also allow spellcasting.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 25, 2021, 07:57:19 AM
As I have a Beastmaster Ranger in my campaign, can confirm that WotC kinda limited their action economy, which... almost defeats the purpose of having an extra hand (or claw, or ... etc).

That being said, a ranger has access to some nasty tricks. The sharpshooter feat gives them a HUGE damage boost -- we're talking on par with old 3E power attack. The Rain of Thorns spell lets them fire what amounts to small-yield frag grenades with their bow.

1: Yep. Other classes can command pets and summons easier usually.

2: very! Jannet loved the 5e Ranger, after getting the hang of it and also played around with a fighter as a ranger-esque play.