Why is Ranger considered underpowered?

[Citan]

Well, I say Rangers are specialized because their abilities are pretty clearly built to deal with very specific circumstanes. Yes, they can be built a ton of ways to do their respective jobs, but how effective are they outside of that job? And sure, they may have tons of options, but as soon as the player plays that ranger, now you know exactly what their specializations are.

When I talk about Specialization vs. Generalization, I am looking at how well a class works outside of their given "job". How good is a Ranger when they are not in their favored terrain, or dealing with their favored enemy?

Well, what you say about "now you know what their specialization are" would be equally true for an Eldricht Knight or Arcane Trickster, except "worse" since fewer slots and lower spell known.

The thing is, they are still perfectly fine even when out of their favored terrains/enemies, that's what Tanarii has been trying to explain in addition to me.
Just taking a handful spells ensures that you as a Ranger are equally contributing to the party as any other martial, those I quoted before: Hunter's Mark for pure damage, Goodberry > Healing Spirit to help survive encounters, Pass Without Trace to give other ways to resolve a situation, then Conjure Animals.
Just those four make you a very valuable asset, whatever the situation the party is into, in or outside fight. Everything else is just cherries on the cake, whatever archetype you pick, you'll be at least good enough, and generally on par with others all things considered.
Favored Terrain / Enemy is just the "spotlight" feature of Ranger for some situations (party in specific terrain), just like Jack of All Trades is spotlight feature of Bard for other situations (skill check required, nobody is proficient), or Reliable Talent + Expertise for Rogue (we REALLY need that to work, Rogue spent his life training for this moment).

Now, I admit I play Adventure League, so I do not know what the party makeup will be at any given game, and unless we are playing a hardcover I do not know what the terrain/enviroment will be in any given game. As such, I have to be able to make a character that can do as many jobs as possible for any given circumstance. Because I can, and have, ended up in parties where there is no melee character, no healer, no skill monkey. Just two wizards, a warlock, and me.

I understand this perfectly, but that is not a flaw of the class, just a limitation coming from your own metagaming, reflecting your own preferences in gaming and real-life constraints.
Take a Barbarian, he's good only for melee. In a party in which he'd be the only frontliner, let's hope that there are fullcasters ready to buff him, otherwise party will have a hard time. So you would probably not pick him as a "default choice".
And a Bard honestly can be a bad choice also: in pure fighting campaigns, other casters would fare much better.

In fact, if you REALLY want a character that can be great whatever the party he is in, my take would be...
1) Druid: most coverage of different "spell types", and Wild Shape can be useful in nearly any situation.
2) Knowledge Druid: need a check? Enter "proficiency as CD". Not a sure-win, but much better than Jack of All Trades in practice for quite some time.
Then ex-aequo
3) Arcane Trickster Rogue: a few cantrips, a few spells, melee and ranged, great in a few skills, will fit anywhere.
3) Gloomstalker Ranger: few spells but "Druid-like" variety, Rope Trick!, very competitive damage up until 11th level, good in melee and range alike, can take care of a great array of skills, will also fit anywhere.
3) Bladesinger Wizard: need to loot spell but largest variety (barring healing) and some of the best in each category, can hold his own in melee when needed (even be great at it), has some of the best rituals.
3) Hexblade Tome Warlock: weapon cantrips when needed, best ranged cantrip in the game, can learn all rituals, has the required standard resilience, can be tailored around the party thanks to Invocations.

There are technically infinite ways this could be answered, but you are still able to compare performance. If I snagged a Lore Bard built for an urban adventure and dropped them in the wilderness, they'd still have a very high amount of utility thanks to Jack of All Trades, spells, the high amount of skills they get, and Bardic Inspiration. The Bard's class abilities are still highly useful even if they are not in the enviroment they built the character for.

Compare that to a Ranger built for a jungle enviroment. If I snagged him out of the jungle, and dropped him into a city where he gets none of his special class abilities, he is not going to be nearly as effective.

As I said: this is plain unfair to the Ranger to compare it to a fullcaster, especially one that can poach any spell and has ritual casting.
Like it would be unfair to compare a Arcane Trickster to the same Bard. ;)
Also, strip a Bard from his spellcasting, he won't be worthless but no better than a glorified NPC. Which is logical since he is a fullcaster. ;)

More generally, as far as "probability to have an adequate answer to any situation", from level 1 to level 15, from best to worst, Druid > Wizard > Cleric > Bard > Sorcerer > Ranger = Arcane Trickster > Paladin > Rogue > others.
Obviously "prepared spells" means higher chance to have a spell that fits in (Cleric being under Wizard still because much more focused selection), and having spells gives in essence higher chance than having none.
Beyond that, the order reflect class specificities (like Bard: whenever something could actually be resolved through a skill check, Enhance Ability + Jack of All Trades = proficiency, which is not bad at all. Similar idea with Rogue: fewer skill situations he can answer to, but in those he'll rock even more than Bard thanks to Reliable Talent).

[Luccan]

Primeval Awareness - given the number of creatures you can identify with it, it's useful whenever you are not in a town. Actually, scratch that, once as a Ranger I was in a town and used this to discover that a dragon was headed for it.

But, all primeval awareness tells you is if there's one or more of those creatures within a mile. It doesn't even say what vague direction they're in, just that they're "around". It also doesn't tell you their number. So what if you know there is "dragon" within a mile? It could be behind that hill. Or further off, but there's twenty. Or if you're hunting undead and you have a Necromancer in the party? Well, you know there's undead withing a mile. Good luck telling the difference between your Necro's pets and your enemy, because you very specifically know virtually nothing useful about the information you receive.

Edit: This might be slightly more useful against certain foes or to find some allies (fiends, celestials), but also basically assumes that every game is unlikely to have many fey with 6 miles, if it's your favorite terrain. And that seems even less useful: Here, you know this terrain, have a wider area you have to search.

[Wryte]

But, all primeval awareness tells you is if there's one or more of those creatures within a mile. It doesn't even say what vague direction they're in, just that they're "around". It also doesn't tell you their number. So what if you know there is "dragon" within a mile? It could be behind that hill. Or further off, but there's twenty. Or if you're hunting undead and you have a Necromancer in the party? Well, you know there's undead withing a mile. Good luck telling the difference between your Necro's pets and your enemy, because you very specifically know virtually nothing useful about the information you receive.

Edit: This might be slightly more useful against certain foes or to find some allies (fiends, celestials), but also basically assumes that every game is unlikely to have many fey with 6 miles, if it's your favorite terrain. And that seems even less useful: Here, you know this terrain, have a wider area you have to search.

Or you suspect the king's vizier is a fiend, so you use Primeval Awareness to determine that, yes, there is indeed a fiend within 1 mile of you, so you commit your party to fighting a war of intrigue with the vizier, at the end of which you reveal the truth... that he's a regular dude and what you were actually detecting was a half-fiend beggar living in the city sewers. Enjoy your prison sentence.

[Luccan]

Or you suspect the king's vizier is a fiend, so you use Primeval Awareness to determine that, yes, there is indeed a fiend within 1 mile of you, so you commit your party to fighting a war of intrigue with the vizier, at the end of which you reveal the truth... that he's a regular dude and what you were actually detecting was a half-fiend beggar living in the city sewers. Enjoy your prison sentence.

Seriously, this seems more like it's the opposite of helpful 20% of the time, useless 60% of the time, mildly useful in warning of possible threats 10% of the time, and the other 10% gives you an idea that an enemy is headed your way because you already knew a specific enemy was probably headed your way, but now you know they're within a mile. In any direction.

[Kane0]

The fact that favored terrain makes your primal awareness less accurate made me chuckle.

[Luccan]

The fact that favored terrain makes your primal awareness less accurate made me chuckle.

Yeah. I would be more than willing to say you would know once you were within a mile, but that still isn't very useful (you could still walk 6 or more miles in the wrong direction). That might even have been what they meant, but again, what this tells me is the wilderness in 5e is basically expected to be nearly devoid of these things. How else would they expect it to be useful? And you have to spend a spell slot to use it! Let's not forget that, given it is less useful than spells you could be using.

[Specter]

But, all primeval awareness tells you is if there's one or more of those creatures within a mile. It doesn't even say what vague direction they're in, just that they're "around". It also doesn't tell you their number. So what if you know there is "dragon" within a mile? It could be behind that hill. Or further off, but there's twenty. Or if you're hunting undead and you have a Necromancer in the party? Well, you know there's undead withing a mile. Good luck telling the difference between your Necro's pets and your enemy, because you very specifically know virtually nothing useful about the information you receive.

Edit: This might be slightly more useful against certain foes or to find some allies (fiends, celestials), but also basically assumes that every game is unlikely to have many fey with 6 miles, if it's your favorite terrain. And that seems even less useful: Here, you know this terrain, have a wider area you have to search.

Seriously, this seems more like it's the opposite of helpful 20% of the time, useless 60% of the time, mildly useful in warning of possible threats 10% of the time, and the other 10% gives you an idea that an enemy is headed your way because you already knew a specific enemy was probably headed your way, but now you know they're within a mile. In any direction.

The fact that favored terrain makes your primal awareness less accurate made me chuckle.

Whoa, whoa, slow down.

- PA is a way to use a spell slot. You don't ever need to use it, and you wouldn't be wrong. A Monk can also never use Step of the Wind in his career, and a Paladin can use all his spell slots for smites and whatever. You could give a Druid a way to use a spell slot to create a poodle and it wouldn't be bad. A possible choice is never bad.
- You know those days when you are remaining spell slots? As in, all days that don't have tons of encounters? Now you can at least know what is around the place you're about to sleep in, or check if the threats you were facing are gone. Spotted fiends? Now the Cleric can prepare Banishment. Spotted undead? Now the Druid can prepare Sunbeam tomorrow. Etc.
- One mile is the distance between my house and the supermarket. Even if there's a dragon 'behind the hill', the only question remaining is whether it's good or evil, and it was more than enough in that case to let me put the town on warning and save lives.
- 'What if there's a Necromancer in the party and you're looking for undead?' Hey, if you're not gonna take this seriously, what if you're a Paladin and there's a plague that kills anyone who dons heavy armor?
- In your favorite terrain, you get to choose between 1 mile, 6 miles or anything in between ("up to"). So it's not a larger area unless you want to.

Primeval Awareness requires knowing what you want to do for it to be any good. If you don't know, don't use it, and that's fine since the slots will be there anyway.

[Luccan]

Whoa, whoa, slow down.

- PA is a way to use a spell slot. You don't ever need to use it, and you wouldn't be wrong. A Monk can also never use Step of the Wind in his career, and a Paladin can use all his spell slots for smites and whatever. You could give a Druid a way to use a spell slot to create a poodle and it wouldn't be bad. A possible choice is never bad.

As in, is it worse than not having it? No. Does that make it as useful as I would think the designers hoped? No.

- You know those days when you are remaining spell slots? As in, all days that don't have tons of encounters? Now you can at least know what is around the place you're about to sleep in, or check if the threats you were facing are gone. Spotted fiends? Now the Cleric can prepare Banishment. Spotted undead? Now the Druid can prepare Sunbeam tomorrow. Etc.

A good point, but I like for abilities to be needed more than once an adventure (if only by choice, at least). Still that's a matter of taste and you made a good point here.

- One mile is the distance between my house and the supermarket. Even if there's a dragon 'behind the hill', the only question remaining is whether it's good or evil, and it was more than enough in that case to let me put the town on warning and save lives.

Sure, because you were smart and didn't make assumptions. But assume one thing and suddenly you've either decided to fight a neutral party or are against a number of foes you can't handle. Or you evacuate the village and oops, the thing you're running from was going the route you decided to take. And since it costs spell slots, you probably won't get many chances to check.

- 'What if there's a Necromancer in the party and you're looking for undead?' Hey, if you're not gonna take this seriously, what if you're a Paladin and there's a plague that kills anyone who dons heavy armor?

So you're saying not only will this never happen, it's actually a homebrewed thing? We can also apply this to summoned creatures or helpful ones that are currently with the party. If I'm ever looking for anything that might be further away that's of the same creature type as one I can already see, the ability isn't worth anything.

- In your favorite terrain, you get to choose between 1 mile, 6 miles or anything in between ("up to"). So it's not a larger area unless you want to.

I totally misread that. That's on me.

Primeval Awareness requires knowing what you want to do for it to be any good. If you don't know, don't use it, and that's fine since the slots will be there anyway.

But that doesn't actually make it more useful than a ribbon. I can know what I'd want to do with it and still never have cause to use it. A class ability you can't/don't want to use is one that might as well not be there. And in the Ranger's case, that's one of several abilities that have plenty of chances to not be used.

I think the main problem with this ability is it doesn't improve. If you could at least get vague direction or number at later levels, it might be a more satisfying ability.

[GoodmanDL]

One of my main frustrations is the sheer volume of concentration spells on the Ranger list. It was a rare day when I used half the Ranger's spell slots. Paladin can at least burn the extra slots on smites.

[Kane0]

One of my main frustrations is the sheer volume of concentration spells on the Ranger list. It was a rare day when I used half the Ranger's spell slots. Paladin can at least burn the extra slots on smites.

If paladins can burn slots for damage, I thought it would be nice for rangers to get an ability that lets them burn slots for accuracy. Makes for a nice counterpart.

Edit: Something like +1d4 to hit for one attack for a 1st level slot, +1d6 for a 2nd, +1d8 for a 3rd, +1d10 for a 4th and +1d12 for a 5th.

[Mortis_Elrod]

If paladins can burn slots for damage, I thought it would be nice for rangers to get an ability that lets them burn slots for accuracy. Makes for a nice counterpart.

Edit: Something like +1d4 to hit for one attack for a 1st level slot, +1d6 for a 2nd, +1d8 for a 3rd, +1d10 for a 4th and +1d12 for a 5th.

I agree. That be much better. I hate the amount of concentration spells Ranger gets. I hate that ranger has such a small selection but are ‘general’ rather than ‘specialized’ , and I hate that the ranger spell list is mostly Druid spells, that you can’t change your terrain based off of where you currently are. You Can’t change anything, and I think that’s a huge disconnect with how it should play.


If Citan is right, then Rangers should be versatile consistently.
I’d rather deal less damage than DO less in more situations as Ranger.

[Naanomi]

Concentration is tight, and so are bonus actions. For a class that iconically dual wields, not a lot of real support for that in the spell list in part due to tight bonus actions

[Kane0]

Thank god for homebrew, eh?

[MeeposFire]

Concentration is tight, and so are bonus actions. For a class that iconically dual wields, not a lot of real support for that in the spell list in part due to tight bonus actions

Also think about how abilities like whirlwind attack do not work with two weapon fighting and are actually made worse due to two weapon fighting. The two weapon fighting rules sadly are not well made.

[Tanarii]

I focus on Natural Explorer (which is rather good in the 1-3 terrains it covers) because it is the unique tool in their toolbox for a class being sold as the masters of exploration pillar... I’m not seeing what else they have that really helps there in practical situations

Even if I do know where my adventures will take place when I start, it is rarely just three places.

I agree Natural Explorer is one key component of their scout & survivalist abilities. And one thing the Revised Ranger UA did right was make the majority of benefits work in all natural terrains.

But I've also had players use their spells to good effect effect on that front. It's more niche, but I've also seem Hide in Plain Sight used a few times. Even Primeval awareness, in conjunction with tracking, to determine if they were (probably) following the right tracks, and their enemy was nearby. Although it would definitely be nice if it specified different groups of them in widely different directions of them were located separately, even if it still didn't give location or number.

Also, sorry my probably offensive and definitely snippy attitude earlier. I'm gonna use morning coffee and job stress as my excuse.

[Naanomi]

Also, sorry my probably offensive and definitely snippy attitude earlier. I'm gonna use morning coffee and job stress as my excuse.

Don’t stress it, I teach in a behavior classroom. You didn’t bite me or hurl racial epitaphs at me, you didn’t even get close to my threshold

And I think a compromise would be fine... pick up Natural Terrains at a much faster rate, and a capstone that you apply it to all terrains (even urban, planar, underwater, etc) would have done a lot to make the feature feel more useful

[Kane0]

Well thanks to this thread I've gone back and revised my ranger 'brew... again. Thankyou to those that contributed thoughts and ideas!

[Arkhios]

Hmm. This may be a bit controversial idea, but IIRC (AFB atm) Natural Explorer had a mechanic to expend spell slots for something relatively "useless".

What if you chose overall maybe two or three permanent favored enemies and terrains over the course of class progression, but with Natural Explorer, you could expend a spell slot to change one of those to your current target and/or terrain for a while.
Maybe 1 minute with 1st-level slot, 10 minutes with 2nd-level slot, 1 hour with 3rd-level slot, 8 hours with 4th-level slot, and 24 hours with 5th-level slot.

Imho, Favored Enemy granting straight up bonus languages feels strange, but I think that having a Comprehend Language equivalent effect related to your Favored Enemy type would make more sense. I feel that a Ranger shouldn't be more capable of having a conversation with their enemies, but rather be able to understand them, even from afar. In return, favored enemy could indeed convey a bonus to damage rolls. Either a flat +2/+4 bonus, or 1d6/2d6 extra damage, at 1st level/6th level, respectively.

[Naanomi]

Favored Enemy... because rangers are such loners they don’t have friends to do the help action with them

[Ulysses]

It's a combat-exploration hybrid, and by the time someone is using the word "underpowered" they're only talking about the combat pillar of play. Taken on a whole 'nilla Ranger is fine and played commonly.

[Wryte]

It's a combat-exploration hybrid, and by the time someone is using the word "underpowered" they're only talking about the combat pillar of play. Taken on a whole 'nilla Ranger is fine and played commonly.

The problem is that Rangers' unique interaction with the Exploration pillar is their effect on long distance travel... which is handwaved by most tables because it's almost never actually interesting or engaging to play out, and the Ranger's effect on it is to remove most of the things that could make it more engaging. Getting lost led you to a secret area that wasn't on the map? Nope, you've got a Ranger, you don't get lost. Running low on rations forces you to take a detour? Nope, you've got a Ranger, so you can forage like nuts. Rather than making travel more engaging, having a Ranger just further encourages the handwave. So without that, all that's left is the combat... where they tend to fall behind.

[Arkhios]

It's a combat-exploration hybrid, and by the time someone is using the word "underpowered" they're only talking about the combat pillar of play. Taken on a whole 'nilla Ranger is fine and played commonly.

Ranger is fine as it is. But, just fine is not enough for some people, so I suppose it's good for "sport" to try and make it a bit better in the combat pillar of play. Combat is still a vital part of the whole game (it's about 1/3 of the whole, after all), and if so many people feel that ranger is lacking in that part of the game, then there's got to be some truth in it. The complaints may be exaggerated, but it's probably not that far from reality.

[Luccan]

It's a combat-exploration hybrid, and by the time someone is using the word "underpowered" they're only talking about the combat pillar of play. Taken on a whole 'nilla Ranger is fine and played commonly.

With all I've said, I'll still play a Ranger. Just not for the base class (unless I could be sure those supposedly defining features would matter). The subclasses, particularly the Xanathar's ones, do interest me somewhat and give things I might want on a character. But while most other base classes have their own enticing features for me, Ranger seems to fall short.

[Drascin]

The problem is that Rangers' unique interaction with the Exploration pillar is their effect on long distance travel... which is handwaved by most tables because it's almost never actually interesting or engaging to play out, and the Ranger's effect on it is to remove most of the things that could make it more engaging. Getting lost led you to a secret area that wasn't on the map? Nope, you've got a Ranger, you don't get lost. Running low on rations forces you to take a detour? Nope, you've got a Ranger, so you can forage like nuts. Rather than making travel more engaging, having a Ranger just further encourages the handwave. So without that, all that's left is the combat... where they tend to fall behind.

Ranger's exploration abilities do have that problem somewhat. It's a problem we discussed a lot in Exalted forums and threads - how sometimes, the ability to just do something may be IC-strong, but leave the player with less chance to actually do their stuff onscreen. If you can just steal the king's crown and there is no chance anything exciting happens during the heist (with Exalted's propensity for "it just works" effects, this is likely), there's very little reason for the GM to not just go "alright, heist goes off without a hitch, now you have the crown, let's move on to next part". Ranger's abilities, when they're available, make it MORE likely that the party just handwaves the exploration, not less - "You set off to go from Generictown to Boringmedievalville. You can't get lost or fail to find food anyway, so you arrive safely five days later. What did you want to do in Boringmedievalville?" is perfectly reasonable, but it means that the Ranger is reduced to a footnote whose stuff all happens offscreen.

Some of them also happen to be something of an air-breathing mermaid thing for normal, non--theorycrafted play. If the party doesn't have a ranger, a fair chunk of what the ranger does will be allowed to anyone that succeeds on some half-decent Survival rolls, because campaigns want to keep moving. If the party does have a ranger, though, well, we have the problem that either only the ranger can do them, or his class features are lame.

And then there's the situational thing. A lot of campaigns travel around a lot. From the plains to the frozen wastes to the streets of Sharn, a lot of adventuring groups just keep moving around and the enmies they fight keep changing. Which means that either the GM sees the Ranger and figures he should lock down the moving around a bit, or a Ranger's environmental-and-enemy-locked abilities come online about 1/3rd of the time.

Note that, even with all this, Ranger is hardly useless. It holds up! It attacks well and has some useful stuff. It's just that most of the things that are unique to it are just... not exciting, and in some cases even a little self-defeating. You are going to be able to contribute plenty, but it's hard to not feel a little overshadowed when so much of your kit feels like hand-me-downs from other classes that get theirs earlier.

[Zalabim]

I know I've done all this before, but I've got time to kill so why not.

First off, the Ranger starts out and stands out for being the class with the worst level 1 features. They don't let you do anything. Level 2 is pretty bad too. There's nothing snappy like Divine Smite here. It's necessary to dig into the spell list and make tough decisions about what you will and will not be capable of with your two spells known. Then level 3 comes in and you get the choice between the oft-derided mechanics of the BM, or the Hunter, which is everything wrong with the old Favored Enemy boiled down and spread out over a subclass. It does avoid being restricted to enemy types, but the abilities still fail to be useful based on which encounter type you face. When your level 15 archery/hordebreaker/volley ranger needs to deal damage to a single target, your subclass abilities mean nothing and all you have is Archery FS and Extra Attack. A beast master ranger whose companion is knocked out is in the same position. One thing all the XGE subclasses have in common is that they're more universally applicable.

The Ranger relies on picking a good spell selection a lot more than people are usually comfortable with. Their spells aren't all bad, but their access to their spell list, through very few spells known, is quite simply the worst. They get some more or less good area effect spells of their own as well as quite a few good hand-me-downs from the druid list like Plant Growth and Conjure Animals. Their spells and skills are the only things that rely on Wisdom, so raising the stat can feel unrewarding, or leaving the stat lower can leave their spell list more underwhelming.

I feel like the PHB experience of levels 1-3 deserves extra special attention. Level 1, Favored Enemy gives advantage on tracking and recalling information about your favored enemy, plus an extra language known. This isn't the feature that denotes my hated enemy. This is clearly abilities meant to highlight that this is my best friend. The one type of creature in all the world that I like so much I've learned all I can about them.

Moving along, Natural Explorer is a whole host of features locked behind favored terrain. Some of them are great, like spending less time traveling or not (necessarily) being surprised when you're attacked while you're tracking. Some of them are bizarre, like finding more food (but not water) when foraging, or learning extra information from tracking that everyone should be able to get from their successful check already. On top of this is upgrading proficiency to expertise for a limited set of skills. It's like a less useful form of the Rogue's expertise. These abilities could be used, but aren't necessarily going to be, and even when they do get used, nothing is actively done by the player. Both these level 1 abilities being restricted to specific creatures/terrains make it really obvious that they're ribbons. It's a lot like the Paladin's Divine Sense or the extra damage Divine Smite does to Fiends and Undead. It's part of the class's flavor, but you could go a whole campaign without ever using it and be just fine, mechanically.

So level 2 must make up for this, right? Not really. The class adds a passive benefit from Fighting Style, and gains spellcasting. Two spells known. Two spells per day. Even if the spells were really highlighting the ranger-y-ness of the character right now, it's still ranger-ing only two times per day. Real spellcasters got a spell list, cantrips, and active class features all together to make them feel special.

So level 3 must be the bee's knees, and again I'd argue it's a letdown. A lot of people are immediately turned off of the beast master's mechanics, then give the Hunter a pass, but the Hunter is not ok. Or at least it doesn't make the ranger ok. Each of the Hunter's Prey options is a little niche. The Defensive Tactics have a stinker like "advantage on saves versus frightened" at the same time others get immunity, and give immunity to those around them. I contend that you could grant a Hunter all the choices for each of their pick one abilities and that would be better balanced. They only might need to be limited to one Hunter's Prey option per turn. Most of the abilities just naturally can't be used at the same time anyway. I think, for all the hate it gets, the Beast Master has a more reliable and interesting effect on the character than Hunter does. The Poisonous Snake is well-known for its power, but even the simple Wolf starts out with +6 to hit, 9 average damage, advantage from pack tactics, and attempting to knock prone with each hit. Compared to a Rapier and Shield dueling ranger's +5 to hit, 9.5 average damage, no advantage, and needing the shield master feat to attempt to knock prone, or archery with +7 to hit, 7.5 average damage, and nothing else, it opens up a lot more options for how you choose to fight.

[Citan]

Concentration is tight, and so are bonus actions. For a class that iconically dual wields, not a lot of real support for that in the spell list in part due to tight bonus actions

Also think about how abilities like whirlwind attack do not work with two weapon fighting and are actually made worse due to two weapon fighting. The two weapon fighting rules sadly are not well made.

Guys&girls, you just spit for the fun of spiting here as what you say is kinda groundless. ;)

1) I'd argue that the iconic Ranger is longbowman hunter first, dual-wielding second. YMMV though.
Also, you should actually be grateful of Whirlwind: you dont lose Extra Attack, so it's just another option to strike several targets when the situation calls for it, to get the same number of attacks yet free your bonus action. The only true regrettable thing of it is the "5 feet range" instead of "weapon reach", which stupidly bars all reach weapons and thus limits harshly the number of times Whirlwind shines.

2) You have several concentration spells, and several ways to use your bonus action, but that's true of many other classes as well.

3) Many of those Ranger concentration spells related to weapon attacks actually use bonus action only when you cast them, so it's really not a big deal: only Hunter's Mark eats readily into your action economy, and only if you use it on low-hp targets. Otherwise? Ranger is equal to Vengeance Paladin. Stat.

4) You also have many great non-concentration spells for you or your party, although I agree the low number of spell known makes it hard to balance until level 10 because there are so many good 1st, 2nd and 3rd level spells that all are concentration.

That's why my opinion is that, while Ranger works fine single-class, cherry-picking a few levels of Druid somewhere along the road up to char 20 is a great way to boost your "Rangerness", at the only cost of capstone (which is lackluster, no argue on that) andpossibly one ASI (worth imo). Like just one level between Ranger 6 and Ranger 9. ;)
Exactly like how many people like a single dip in Life Cleric for some Bards or a starting Fighter dip for Wizards or a Hexblade Warlock dip for Sorcerers (although they work perfectly single-class). ;
Although Cleric is also a strong contender for small dips, may bring another kind of goodness. ^^

Anwyays in all cases it's just ultimately a matter of taste and how much versatility you fancy for your character, and how this versatility should be brought (skills/objects/spells). ;)

In practice, people that want to play characters with magic tend to do so to get more gameplay options streamlined into progression. I find this even truer for people who want to play gishes: martial abilities tend to all be minor variants of "hit things", so spellcasting seems the easiest and fastest way to get very different things to do.

So obviously Ranger may come as frustrating for some since only few spell known, especially compared to the other half-caster who can change at-will. But it's the same old song as with Sorcerer: it's perfectly fine as is, powerful and versatile, but its versatility relies more on wits and creativity in the use of those spells than on having many different descriptive effects to choose from (if I may, like the difference between Code Low of latin countries and Common Law of USA).
If you just miss a bit more "plug&play" versatility, one or a few dips or Ritual Caster will probably be enough.
If that would not be enough, then Sorcerer is just not the right caster for you. Nothing more. ;)
It's the same with Ranger as "martial candidate". :)

[Mortis_Elrod]

2) You have several concentration spells, and several ways to use your bonus action, but that's true of many other classes as well.

Ok but many other classes have a lot of class features that use bonus action, which compete with the spells. The ranger for most of its career only has spells, and a lot of them are concentration. Talking Base Ranger, subclasses may vary. I’m not convinced this is okay. Considering that the other classes are full casters or prepared . And AK/ET should have less casting ability than a half caster.

3) Many of those Ranger concentration spells related to weapon attacks actually use bonus action only when you cast them, so it's really not a big deal: only Hunter's Mark eats readily into your action economy, and only if you use it on low-hp targets. Otherwise? Ranger is equal to Vengeance Paladin. Stat.

Except the paladin can use slots to smite, or switch his spells. Or use channel divinity. And while channel divinity varies in subclasses all of the paladins get one and all of the bonus action ones are good for most situations and don’t require concentration.

4) You also have many great non-concentration spells for you or your party, although I agree the low number of spell known makes it hard to balance until level 10 because there are so many good 1st, 2nd and 3rd level spells that all are concentration.

That's why my opinion is that, while Ranger works fine single-class, cherry-picking a few levels of Druid somewhere along the road up to char 20 is a great way to boost your "Rangerness", at the only cost of capstone (which is lackluster, no argue on that) andpossibly one ASI (worth imo). Like just one level between Ranger 6 and Ranger 9. ;)
Exactly like how many people like a single dip in Life Cleric for some Bards or a starting Fighter dip for Wizards or a Hexblade Warlock dip for Sorcerers (although they work perfectly single-class). ;
Although Cleric is also a strong contender for small dips, may bring another kind of goodness. ^^

These things aren’t the same. Hexblade works MORE than fine single classed and so does Bard. If the ranger had prepared casting it be so much easier. But it doesn’t so it’s decent spell list is out through a choke.

Anwyays in all cases it's just ultimately a matter of taste and how much versatility you fancy for your character, and how this versatility should be brought (skills/objects/spells). ;)

In practice, people that want to play characters with magic tend to do so to get more gameplay options streamlined into progression. I find this even truer for people who want to play gishes: martial abilities tend to all be minor variants of "hit things", so spellcasting seems the easiest and fastest way to get very different things to do.

So obviously Ranger may come as frustrating for some since only few spell known, especially compared to the other half-caster who can change at-will. But it's the same old song as with Sorcerer: it's perfectly fine as is, powerful and versatile, but its versatility relies more on wits and creativity in the use of those spells than on having many different descriptive effects to choose from (if I may, like the difference between Code Low of latin countries and Common Law of USA).
If you just miss a bit more "plug&play" versatility, one or a few dips or Ritual Caster will probably be enough.
If that would not be enough, then Sorcerer is just not the right caster for you. Nothing more. ;)
It's the same with Ranger as "martial candidate". :)

At least the Sorcerer has metamagic to make their spells known more useful.

If you want the Ranger to be versatile it should be than it needs to actually be versatile.” Giving out a bunch of options and then. Saying you can only have 2. Forever. “ is not a versatile character.


I’ve seen so many Paladins not even realize they can change their spell list and when pointed out, still don’t. While the Ranger at the table glares enviously, trying to decide what his character or party need not just for the day but for his career.


Sersiouly that doesn’t strike you as a design flaw that in practice the Paladin sees most of his slots as Smite Coins ready to spend anytime. He looks at his list and sees maybe a couple spells he MIGHT cast ever and just remembers them for later.

While the Ranger has to live with small amount he has and choose wisely and still suffer, or choose poorly making his body shrivel up and age in frustration.

[Willie the Duck]

I'm sorry but you just don't know your topic at all.

Guys&girls, you just spit for the fun of spiting here as what you say is kinda groundless. ;)

Why do you do this? You often have decent points, but when you start off with jerkery such as this it is nearly impossible to treat you like an adult. I don't get it. You were completely polite in your disagreement with me back in post #28:

Hmm, I'll have some counter-arguments here on the assertion that Ranger may be harder to pull off.

What changed?

[Zalabim]

If I can be honest for a moment, I have such a firmly formed opinion that Citan doesn't understand what he talks about that I just skip over his longer posts. It's not worth my time to correct them.

[Specter]

I know I've done all this before, but I've got time to kill so why not.

First off, the Ranger starts out and stands out for being the class with the worst level 1 features. They don't let you do anything. Level 2 is pretty bad too. There's nothing snappy like Divine Smite here. It's necessary to dig into the spell list and make tough decisions about what you will and will not be capable of with your two spells known. Then level 3 comes in and you get the choice between the oft-derided mechanics of the BM, or the Hunter, which is everything wrong with the old Favored Enemy boiled down and spread out over a subclass. It does avoid being restricted to enemy types, but the abilities still fail to be useful based on which encounter type you face. When your level 15 archery/hordebreaker/volley ranger needs to deal damage to a single target, your subclass abilities mean nothing and all you have is Archery FS and Extra Attack. A beast master ranger whose companion is knocked out is in the same position. One thing all the XGE subclasses have in common is that they're more universally applicable.

1) Who even cares about level 1?
2) You realize all of these complaints apply to Paladins either in the same degree or in reverse?
- Paladins at level 1 get Divine Sense (whatever) and Lay on Hands for 5HP per long rest (W O W).
- Paladins can prepare more spells with a good CHA, but also get only two smite slots for a long rest. That's 4d8 a day. A Ranger casting Hunter's Mark can get much more than that, even with one combat in the day.
- When your level 15 megasmite/nova/GWM Paladin needs to do anything other than dealing damage to a single target, there's someone else to do that job better.