Greetings!
I have constantly heard that "WOTC has fucked up the Ranger" and "The Ranger in 5E is so weak, it needs to be finally fixed!"
I imagine that some folks can make good arguments for whatever problems seem to plague the Ranger in 5E. I'm just curious, because in my experience, the Ranger in 5E is just fine. People back in 3E complaine about the Ranger, and I thought the class was fine then, too.
I have used the Ranger as an NPC, and I have seen decent number of Players play a Ranger character in 5E, and all of them have been good characters. Generally effective, flavourful, contributing to the party, and doing what Rangers have always done--acting as wilderness experts, Hunters with animal companions, light skirmishers, and supporting the Fighters, Barbarians and Paladins in combat, and also acting as a reserve to protect the Wizards, Clerics, or Bards. Come to think of it, Rangers pretty much did the same kinds of things in AD&D too.
I don't know what all the hate for Ranger characters is really all about. Players, again, seem to enjoy playing them in 5E. Almost every party has at least one Ranger character. Also of interest--none of the actual *PLAYERS* in my group, or in gaming groups at the game store, none of them have ever complained about the Ranger class. It has only been from players online.
So, what do you think? What is your assessment of the Ranger class in 5E?
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
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.
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.
Quote from: Omega on October 25, 2021, 06:15:44 AM
***snip***
Every point Omega (and Ghost) made is spot on.
The Beastmaster is the canary in two different coal mines. The first is 5e's late game. The beast gets 4x the ranger's level for hp. 60hp at level 15 for someone on the frontline is rough. A good ranger will know their pet is a better skirmisher than frontline. A creative player will still be successful with this class, although I still side with Omega that a small tweak is needed.
Impacting all rangers, the second coal mine is simply bad DMs. Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer are great if you have game mechanics that challenge the players. Unlike high level play, these mechanics hit the sweet spot, but only if you have a DM who creates an interesting game. If you are just genie popping around the map when traveling, not tracking survival mechanics, etc. then yes, the class is going to feel a little underwhelming.
Rangers are such a cool concept. He is the last line of defense between civilization and the wilds. The class can adapt to any type of campaign as new enemies and threats emerge. But if you have an average/below average DM, or if you plan to have that 1/4 CR beast on the frontlines as a Beastmaster, just know what you are walking into.
Quote from: FingerRod on October 25, 2021, 08:32:07 AM
The Beastmaster is the canary in two different coal mines. The first is 5e's late game. The beast gets 4x the ranger's level for hp. 60hp at level 15 for someone on the frontline is rough. A good ranger will know their pet is a better skirmisher than frontline. A creative player will still be successful with this class, although I still side with Omega that a small tweak is needed.
Impacting all rangers, the second coal mine is simply bad DMs. Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer are great if you have game mechanics that challenge the players. Unlike high level play, these mechanics hit the sweet spot, but only if you have a DM who creates an interesting game. If you are just genie popping around the map when traveling, not tracking survival mechanics, etc. then yes, the class is going to feel a little underwhelming.
Rangers are such a cool concept. He is the last line of defense between civilization and the wilds. The class can adapt to any type of campaign as new enemies and threats emerge. But if you have an average/below average DM, or if you plan to have that 1/4 CR beast on the frontlines as a Beastmaster, just know what you are walking into.
Mostly agree with this, except I would extend that thought to the next step, which is why do new GM's have such trouble using things like Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer? It's because WotC does practically nothing to show a new GM how to use such things--and really, never has in any of their editions.
The other thing I would add to the original question is that it's not so much that the ranger is wrong (despite little ways in which it is, as already discussed by the others), as it is underwhelming compared to the other classes. I think there was a huge influx of players with 3E, and for better or worse, 5E often gets compared to that, both in an absolute and relative sense. (Thus the never-ending saga about which skill system people prefer, that leaves earlier D&D players nonplussed, as we sometimes think even the 5E version is too much for D&D.)
It's not that the 3E ranger was all that and a bag of tricks, either. Rather, it's that the 3E fighter, sorcerer, monk, bard, etc. all had notable issues that are largely not a problem in 5E, whereas the ranger still kind of meanders along where it was. Only having two paths doesn't help. It gives off the impression that there is a ranger because WotC promised that 5E would have all of the traditional classes in the PHB (after the 4E issues), and by golly they are going to have one if it underwhelms!
I still say that the 5E ranger could have been incredible had they simply left the spells out of the core class, built the core has a nature skilled warrior--and then souped up all the paths appropriately. If you got animal companions instead of spells--then it would have been easier to make those companions worth having.
In other words, the problems with the 5E ranger are inherent in the overall 5E design and the strategic design and marketing plan. It put the developers of the ranger into a hole where all they could do was something OK.
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.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 25, 2021, 08:48:31 AM
Mostly agree with this, except I would extend that thought to the next step, which is why do new GM's have such trouble using things like Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer? It's because WotC does practically nothing to show a new GM how to use such things--and really, never has in any of their editions.
I don't know that it is just new DMs who struggle with it. A new DM who follows the rules in Strahd or ToA will have fairly challenging environments. I have seen several DMs who have been in the hobby for decades Barbara Eden the party through the wilderness. But I would agree with you that generally speaking, new DMs struggle with it.
I believe the material has always been there if you choose to use it. Setting aside the 1e DMG and 2e/3e resources, the 5e DMG is underrated. There is plenty there to create a dynamic environment that would play to the strengths of the ranger.
One counterpoint on the 5e DMG that I will fully acknowledge is they highlight the Travel-Montage, as they call it, as the first of two options (the other being hour-by-hour). Stronger language around leveraging BOTH options would help new and old DMs. I guess a second point to acknowledge would be that I wish they would have included the encounter tables from Xanathar's into the DMG.
It's D&D 5e.
Edit - I don't mean to be snarky. My problem with D&D 5e's Ranger really is the system itself. I think the tiny mechanical realities of older D&D editions made them feel more distinct to me.
Right now, as I running Savage Pathfinder, they feel a lot better (but it's also because "Classes" in SW can greatly be modified in play much easier than D&D).
I suspect this question could delve down into the deeper question of "What IS a Ranger?". Wilderness fighting man? Nature-mystic that is good with certain forms of fighting. Military scout? Or do you define them by established mechanics from previous editions.
Personally - I never liked Rangers being baby-druids with fighter skills. I liked a more nature-skill monkey that traveled light and acted like a wilderness commando. But I know that many other people have different opinions.
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.
Quote from: tenbones on October 25, 2021, 10:19:12 AM
It's D&D 5e.
Edit - I don't mean to be snarky. My problem with D&D 5e's Ranger really is the system itself. I think the tiny mechanical realities of older D&D editions made them feel more distinct to me.
Right now, as I running Savage Pathfinder, they feel a lot better (but it's also because "Classes" in SW can greatly be modified in play much easier than D&D).
I suspect this question could delve down into the deeper question of "What IS a Ranger?". Wilderness fighting man? Nature-mystic that is good with certain forms of fighting. Military scout? Or do you define them by established mechanics from previous editions.
Personally - I never liked Rangers being baby-druids with fighter skills. I liked a more nature-skill monkey that traveled light and acted like a wilderness commando. But I know that many other people have different opinions.
It's not as if the deeper question has to be answered a particular way. It is that the designers of the edition
must answer that question in order to write a good class, and they haven't. They've tried to have their cake and eat it too.
I freely admit that my solution of "ranger isn't automatically a magic guy but rather a nature skill monkey" isn't the only one. I think it has a good fit into the rest of the 5E design, but there are other more focused ways they could also go.
In a lot of ways, this issue mirrors the issue that 3E had with wizards and prestige classes, and to a lesser extent, fighters. They built the 3E wizard with nothing but low skills, high Int, and tons of spells. That didn't leave any room in which the prestige classes could really operate well. It's only that with fighters being a little short-changed and wizards being supercharged, prestige classes ran into the usual problem that it is easier to add than to subtract abilities.
I guess what I'm saying is that if the overall design is going to have skills, feats, prestige classes, multi-classing, focused paths picked up from 1st to 3rd level, favored enemies, spell school, or whatever, then it needs to be designed into the system from the get go. And depending on which way you go with those design elements, it restricts what works for a class or doesn't. The sad thing in particular about the 5E ranger is that it had routes to fit with the design, but they just didn't do it. The contrast with the bard is particularly telling, because with the bard that's exactly what they did--recognized that a jack of all trades, skill monkey, music casters, charmer, face guy, sword slinging swashbuckler was too broad for the 5E design. They made some decisions, focused the class, left it ways to at least dabble in the traditional bard space, but accepted that the dang thing was at heart a skilled caster of a particular kind of spells.
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 favored enemy mechanic in 3E was the source of the original meaning of "Mother May I?" in RPG discussions. Like so many memes (including the concept of memes themselves), the term has mutated and evolved over the years.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 25, 2021, 11:20:36 AM
It's not as if the deeper question has to be answered a particular way. It is that the designers of the edition must answer that question in order to write a good class, and they haven't. They've tried to have their cake and eat it too.
I will always take the opportunity to harp on 5e. 5e was designed with a focus on nostalgia and recognition. Everything else was number 2.
Its design is slapdash at the best of times.
You are very correct that things are executed 'just cuz' with very VERY little thought put into why.
I've played one ranger using only whats in the PHB for 5e, and I was still used to 3.5 when I played. It works fine, but feels over-shadowed by other classes in terms of viable options at different level-ups. And I never really got into, or even understood, the whole animal companion thing, just seems like a weak ability designed to throw a bone to the ranger as an excuse to not give them other abilities or to weaken the abilities they do get.
I must have spent the last seven years playing with several dozens players, over thousands of hours, all of whom had the extraordinary superpower of overcoming this broken game. Imagine my luck. :o
5e is flexible. Not without imperfections to be sure, but good players and a good DM can do a lot more than what is being suggested in this thread. I have zero issue with the core books. We are not going to agree, I get it. Your opinion will not cancel out the hours and experiences I have had, just like my experiences won't change your opinions.
Where I believe WotC went wrong with respect to this narrative, and what was being referenced by SHARK with his experience with players in person versus what is said online, was the lack of emphasis on the DMG. The tools are all there.
Quote from: FingerRod on October 25, 2021, 12:32:01 PM
I must have spent the last seven years playing with several dozens players, over thousands of hours, all of whom had the extraordinary superpower of overcoming this broken game. Imagine my luck. :o
Its not broken: Its just slipshod. With the right players you could get a box of shredded newspapers and construct that into the ultimate gaming experience (pretty sure that was an actual OD&D edition). And im not kidding: gaming group > rules.
But you can't always find the ultimate gaming group, and good rules + good gaming group = gooder experience.
Things like rolling hit dice to heal, the Teleportation Circle spell, the Intellect Devourer, the save system, the death system, the Warlock, the feat system are all examples of 'Remember this?' game design instead of designing towards a cohesive whole. I will never argue you can't have a good experience with 5e. Im just saying its sloppy.
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.