NOTE: Several people have pointed out that I should have used up the Ranger's spell slots in combat. THAT'S FAIR! I have done a new build where they use all spell slots to cast Hail of Thorns and Lightning Arrow. We are assuming HM up too, so we are only using our free castings of it, and we are never moving it. It also ignores BA clog. I think this is extremely generous. but it does help boost damage. Here is an overview of the numbers. Lvl 1: 9.7 DPR (54% Combat Space) lvl 5: 24.9 DPR (47.8%) lvl 9: 32.5 DPR (41.2%) lvl 13: 38.2 DPR (33%) lvl 17: 48.3 DPR (31.8%) lvl 20: 50.4 DPR (28.5%) Overall, average Combat Space in career is 37.3%. Hopefully this gives a better idea. Note that this doesn't include subclasses, so it would end up at around 42% with Hunter.
Compared to 24:53 Level 1 8.3 vs 9.7 Level 5 24.6 vs 24.9 Level 9 30.6 vs 32.5 That's a very small increase. Don't care about the rest because high tier play rarely happens. Thanks for doing the extra work and I hope it shows to the people bickering that the change in damage is minimal. Control *might* go up, but at the cost of reducing damage even more (Silence, Entangle, etc don't do damage, the only Control spell that does any damage consistently before level 9 is Spike Growth and that's situational). Thansk for the extra work you did on this one.
I think you made a much worse mistake than merely not using spells in terms of comparing the Ranger to other martials: You made it a ranged build. For better or worse, in the 2024 rules, melee builds do a lot more damage than ranged ones. Like...a lot, when examined. Whether this is a problem is a different question (they do have some advantages) but they do less damage by a fair bit. This is even more true when considering per attack riders like Hunter's Mark on a TWF build. For a proper comparison with melee damage dealers you need to do a melee Ranger, likely using TWF and Nick. Otherwise it's not an apples to apples comparison. Not unless you also do an archery Fighter or Javelin-tossing Barbarian and compare them instead. Like, right now you are not primarily comparing the Ranger to the Fighter, you are comparing ranged combat to melee combat.
@@DeadmanwalkingXI I showed a basic TWF one. It does a ton of damage early levels then drops off around 10. As for melee vs ranged. Of course I'll do a ranged ranger, it feels the most iconic to the class. Every ranger picture has them with a longbow. The damage is ok, but much less than melee. And that's fine, but people should know that at least. Ranged has a lot of advantages, so I think it's still worth it.
@@DndUnoptimized Yes, it’s iconic. But do you not see that, as this person pointed out, your analysis is now confounding class vs class with ranged vs melee?
@hawkname1234 @Dndunoptimized yeah, this. I really appreciate the analysis, but the ranger is fighting an uphill battle already with lots of people calling it the worst class of 2024. If, when you rank them, you show a pretty bad build for them compared to solid builds for the other classes then we end up making that narrative more prominent. Hell, I'm not even sure they aren't the worst class but if we are going to make direct comparisons we need to give it as fair a shake as possible. With your build (again, seriously, I appreciate the work that went into this) we compound a feature that works poorly for it's damage, we ignore a lot of the classes' potential control, and we don't give it any grace when it came to the advantages that this build would have. Like when you did the extra calculations with the hail of thorns and lightning arrow spells did you have them only doing damage to one target? Finding targets who are grouped up would be the smiting longbow ranger's bread and butter! It can hit almost anywhere on the battlefield at anytime. Anytime they cast those spells they should be able to find an enemy with other enemies close enough to do damage (again, I point out you allowed for this kind of grace with the Barbarian cleave attacks even though it would require more work there). Switch from longbow to heavy crossbow and this gets even easier with push. I like knowing longbow archer numbers. I'm playing a longbow artificer in a game that is switching to 2024 rules. But I also, in a comparison, want that comparison to compare builds that are at least at a basic level similar levels of optimized. Honestly, that probably wouldn't be a hunter's mark longbow build...it probably would be a summoning or conjuring two weapon fighting build.
Fantastic video as always and essentially aligns with my experiences too. I’ve built a few test Rangers to see how it goes and the early levels are fantastic (particularly if you go Dual Wielder) but it quickly tapers off and just stagnates from about level 7 or so which is just disappointing. I’ve tried leaning into HM and not and the issue always arises that the damage you’re gaining from other spells is not totally offset by not using HM unless you can guarantee multiple enemies like for Conjure Animals etc. I’ve always loved the Ranger and I also agree that my “stereotypical” Ranger is one wielding a longbow. Unfortunate that it seems like it’ll be a lot “better” going melee.
I was worried you'd hard disagree since you told me Ranger is your favourite class haha. I really wish they got more damage bumps because you go from being a super damage dealer to an OK damage dealer and more focused on utility and exploration. I think it's just weird to have a class shift like that.
@@DndUnoptimizedyeah the class fantasy isn’t consistent across the level progression for sure. I think in a weird way the Ranger should be a sort of Jack of all trades with their decent ability to be a martial, and the utility they get from their spells, but in a weird way that seems to be the problem with their design, and is why they are so weak at both. Idk what the answer would be, but imo having a concentration spell be a huge focus for their class features isn’t the right way to go about it. Maybe turning HM into a class feature that doesn’t require concentration OR has a consistent growth to its added damage or something would have helped.
My rough understanding is as soon as you give the ranger a bonus action attack (crossbow expert or dual weilder feat) the bonus damage from these options basically overrides anything that HM gives you.
Really great video. Subscribed! One small detail that people are often overlooking for Rangers is the synergy between Hunter’s Mark and Magic Weapon. It’s no more a concentration spell, has 1h duration, so it’s fair to assume you can setup in advance, but even when you activate it in the second round, it’s quite good.
My personal favorite ranger build with the new phb is a beast master using beast of the land, dual wielding short sword and scimitar. Using Hunter's Mark until level 13, and from then on using Conjure Woodland Beings instead. Start with 17 dex and 16 wisdom, at 4th level, pick your feat of choice that gives +1 dex (I would probably pick Defensive Duelist for the huge boost in survivability), and at 8th and 12th levels take +2 to wisdom, and 16th take +2 dex. Use bonus action to control your beast, unless you needed to use it to hunter's mark something that turn, in which cases you just replace one of your own attacks with the beasts attack. Always do your beasts attack first, which does 1d8+1d6+2+your wisdom modifier, and on a hit, automatically knocks the target prone, no save, which will give advantage to rest of your attacks (it has 40 feet movement speed so it can always move 20 feet away from the enemy and then back to activate the knockdown). Even if the beast misses, you still have vex on your short sword to have decent chance to give your attacks advantage. Your own attacks will do 2d6+your dex modifier. At 5th level your already doing 4 attacks per round (or 3 if you need to mark something that turn), with most of the attacks having advantage. The beast will do 1d8+1d6+5 (average 13), and your own 2-3 attacks do 2d6+4 (average of 11) each. Next big damage jump is 11th level when your beast gets second attack and also benefits from hunters mark. At this point you also already have 18 wisdom, the beast is doing 2d8+2d6+12 (average 28) damage per round if it hits with both attacks, and the rest of your attacks are still doing 2d6+4 (average 11) each, and you still have advantage on most of those attacks. 13th level is where damage really goes crazy, when you get access to conjure woodland beings for the fights that really matter, which will do more damage than hunters mark even on single target, and way more if you hit multiple targets. Now your wisdom is 20 already, making the save dc for woodland beings pretty good, and your beast is now doing 2d8+1d6+14 (average 26.5) if it hits with both attacks, your own attacks now do 1d6+4 (average 7.5) each, and on top of that your doing 5d8 (average 22.5) dc 17 Wisdom save for half, to every enemy nearby, and since you can disengage as a bonus action, you can easily move around to hit a lot of enemies on your turn, and in addition to that, any enemy that enters it on their turn or ends their turn in it takes this damage again. At 17th level you can now upcast Conjure Woodland Beings to add another d8 to the damage it does to everything, and also by now your dex is 20 as well to further bump your damage. At 19th level, the epic boon I would choose is probably the irresistible offense one that makes crits do significantly more damage since with as many attacks as your doing, most of the time with advantage, your bound to get crits reasonable often.
Ultimately I feel this is misleading and not representative of its actual combat space. The fact that it has spells is an important attribute of the class and I don’t see any of its actual utility being used here. It’s like if the fighter was done without mastery. Ranger by very virtue of having those slots is valuable and getting free castings of hm is great for ensuring they always have something.
It's definitely true that rangers can outperform these numbers by using different spells or potentially using blast spells instead of attacking. If you did a longbow build, what would your "stereotypical" ranger do over 4 rounds of combat?
@@DndUnoptimized I mean things like summon fey would increase the control, add in things like lightning arrow , hail of thorns , but more importantly you can take a turn to do things like silence, plant growth and spike growth or even barrage for aoe. These are important aspects of the control and damage respectively that aren’t accounted. Simply having spells and free castings allows for higher defenses due to freed up shield slots.meaning its defense is good. id also account for the fact Ranger gets pass without trace and with the new suprise rules can easily give them and the party advantage on initiative.
@insertname5371 yea, that's fair. I really could have gone over the other spells that don't compete with HM to talk about their uses and power. Probably should have done that. They do have good flexibility because silence, plant growth, and spike growth can completely change an encounter. I might need to rethink how to deal these kinds of things to take them into account in the builds, it's just that they are situational so you aren't necessarily going to pop those out every combat. Paladins will end up similarly because I'll probably smite with all slots because that's the stereotypical thing to do, but they have lots of other spells options.
He *does* mention there are other ways to compliment Ranger in the video. The biggest issue is as a half caster you're not actually going to be able to use them all that often because spell slots are few. Ensnaring Strike is kinda good before level 5, but are you going to waste HM on something that needs a Str Save to work, only restrains, and only gives additional damage on a failed save? When you can get guaranteed damage with HM? These also aren't supposed to be optimized builds. These are 'baselines'. And the Ranger baseline is HM + Attacks. Again, he does say multiple times in fact that you *can* make the Ranger better. But at it's core, this is where it sits. You can (and i may have) done up to 3rd level spells how much more control can a Ranger do and how much less damage is it. He gives the control percentages right there and you can assume a +2 Wis (array likely is 16 dex, 14 Wis, 13 Str, 12 Con, 10 and 8 for either Cha or Int your pick). But at its core, this is where Ranger is. With Spike Growth, damage goes up and bit and control does as well if there are 2 targets AND you use a crossbow instead of a longbow (take crossbow expert instead of Sharpshooter and SS instead of GWM - pushing them 10ft with crossbow instead of slowing with longbow makes up for the GWM difference). Additionally, Lightning Arrow increases nova damage, but not to the initial target - only if there are multiple enemies. So there's a slight increase to the Ranger's overall combat utility when there are multiple enemies, but you'd have to opti for it which is not the purpose of the video.
Ok. I have made adjustments to the ranger build to use all spell slots on Hail of Thorns and Lightning Arrow. I think that'll keep the same "archer" stereotype but still make use of the spells during combat. I will share the results in a pinned comment. Thanks for pointing this out.
I don't know how I feel about a ranger by the numbers analysis that literally doesn't take spells into consideration. It feels like sure, there is emphasis on hunters mark in the class, but you get spell slots for a reason, you should use somr of them.
That's super fair. Once you get to spells, the number of options in combat increases dramatically, so it becomes a lot harder to make the Stereotypical build. I think considering the number of features dedicated to HM, it seemed fair to do an analysis based on just that, but there are definitely levels where it is more optimal to concentrate on Summon Fey or something else. Hopefully the HM vs other spells section helps give some context for that. This issue will really balloon once we get to full Casters where many people will disagree on the "Stereotypical" build for that class and what spells best serve that.
@DndUnoptimized I get that it's complicated, but I think it makes the ranger look much worse than they are to not take those options into consideration at all. I feel like you need to have your paladin analysis to not cast spells either if you're going to approach things this way. And I don't know what you should do with full casters, if you give them their full casting and only assume 1 combat, they're obviously going to wildly over perform.
@gloryrod86 that's very fair. Alright how about this. We use excess slots to cast our "smite spells" such as Hail of Thorns and Lightning Arrow. Then it'll be equivalent to a paladin using smites.
(speaking as someone who's been trying to get into DnD, so please understand my mindset is a newbies) Great vid! I know the video is old so i don't expect a reply. I kinda wish they made hunter's mark more versatile, like maybe instead of the concentration not being able to be lost, maybe allow for something like brutalize from Shadow of War. Where if you kill a creature that had Hunter's mark you can use a bonus action to viscously attack the corpse to attempt to make hostile creatures that can see you fear you and gain disadvantage or possibly flee. I feel ideally a ranger wants to do what they can to gain advantage. Be it phycological warfare or martial. They could've maybe went if you land the killing blow on a creature with Hunter's mark you can gain a few movement equal to half your move speed as well. If they were going to go all in on Hunter's mark they should've been unique with the ways to use it. Allowing the ranger to be more tactical with who they mark, and how it affects the course of the fight. Most depictions of rangers from books and games want to either stay moving once a fight breaks out or end it as soon as possible. But before a fight want to be patient. It feels like WotC didn't know what to do for them in combat. Then too, for me the ideal rangers are Talion from shadow of mordor, the mc of watch dog's 1, Cobb/Uther/Dawson from the portal wars saga books, and some of the Far Cry serie's mcs.
Welcome to D&D! and thanks for watching Yes those are all really interesting design spaces that they decided not to touch. I like a lot of those ideas because they give a very unique flavour. Some feature to decide what benefit you gain when you drop a creature with HM on it would be really cool. Feels a little "warlocky" but still really cool. Agreed that WotC doesn't seem like they knew what to do with rangers, especially considering they had two playtest rangers that were both pretty different than this.
@@DndUnoptimized thank you and no problem! Another thing I just thought of is maybe a feature of allowing allies to gain the damage boost of HM. Allowing the Ranger to feel like a part of a hunting party. That way there's more of a reason to use the bonus action to switch who has HM and makes the lvl 20 1d10 feel more impactful since everyone would get the boost. I can see it making a close fight more manageable while allowing the Ranger to feel more important during the combat. Like imagine the rouge sneak attacking the new HM target killing it because of the damage boost after the Ranger takes out the initial HM target. Or the fighter doing all the attacks they can do with the extra damage. Rewarding teamwork. Could maybe have a thing where the ranger in character needs to call out the HM target, either verbally or hand motions or something along those lines.
Fair enough. Thinking of how to make HM less of a liability. I tried homebrewing a "revision" to the favorite enemy feature. 1st level same+ you gain an additional benefit when you reach 6th level, 9th level and 12th level in this class Relentless Hunter (6th level): Taking damage can't break your concentration on Hunter's Mark. Also, if your concentration on Hunter's Mark would end while it's on a creature, that Hunter's Mark stays on that creature for 10 minutes. If Hunter's Mark would've been on that creature for the maximum time allowed by Hunter's Mark the spell ends like normal. You can regain concentration on your Hunter's Mark but subtract the time you didn't have concentration on Hunter's Mark and that you were concentrating before you lost it to the remaining time you can concentrate on Hunter's Mark. Precise Hunter (9th level) You have advantage on attack rolls against the creature currently marked with Hunter's Mark. Foe Slayer (12th level) The Damage die of your Hunter's Mark is a 1d10 instead of a 1d6. This is at least an idea I came up with. Would need to come up with a 13th level, 17th level and 20th level feature though. And would have to work on the wording for the addition to relentless hunter so it's not so convoluted/confusing. But I was thinking about how the lore of possibly learning HM could be a rite of passage for rangers.
One thing about the new grasping vine spell that's particularly nice is that they removed the requirement that the vine grows out of the floor- so now you can have it come out of a wall or ceiling that's elevated off the ground and either turn your target into a pinata for everyone else to hit or have the vine grab the target, haul it up 30' off the floor and then immediately let go to do some extra falling damage.
I've changed my views on the new Ranger over time, with closer look at everything that isn't Hunter's Mark. Weapon Mastery with Nick means you get your bonus action freed up while still doing two weapon attacks, for instance to cast Hunter's Mark, or Shillelagh, or Produce Flame from your Guide Background. That's right, three attacks at level two, one of them with Hunter's Mark. And if you used your Short Bow the prior round to Vex your target, you have Advantage on one of them. If you come across a Rapier that's better than Shillelagh, then you can Vex in melee as well as at range. Admittedly, there's almost zero reason to advance beyond Ranger level 5, when Extra Attack gives the last combat effect boost that can't be gotten otherwise. There are plenty of ways of getting Advantage, and because of the cost of losing Concentration on any other spell than Hunter's Mark, making Precise Attack moot. Once you have a spell list, you can get the class unique spells through scrolls, if you really feel the need. And scrolls level 3-5 are not outrageously expensive. So while the world needs some high level rangers, it doesn't need you to be one. Multiclass to Druid for Conjure Minor Elementals at level 12, and fifteen levels of druidic goodness, and you'll still be able to cast at CL 9 by level 19, though you'll never get level nine spells without a scroll. But how many of us are obsessed with once-a-day spells that are never better than upcasting CME for ten minutes of nova damage of the type of your choosing -- remember Hunter's Lore at rank 3 -- on every attack, extra attack (possibly with circlet of blasting or wand of magic missiles), nick attack, bonus action produce flame attack, horde breaker attack.. And if one of your feats gives you Chromatic Orb in your spell list, then upcasting to level 6+ there is 100% chance of five jumps, affecting six targets per casting with boggling damage of the elemental type of your choosing, plus CME. Gish Ranger/Druid is very compelling as a damage generator. Cleric can also work, but no CME.
@@jesseseva2219 A gish only awesome until level 5 remains awesome as a more than dip for multiclass. The fit with WIS-based caster avoids SAD, and if you're trying to bring Perception and ability to engage multiple simultaneous opponents to a party, far better than a CHA- or INT-based class. Ranger/Rogue would be a devastating DEX-based combatant, if that's your jam, too, and a top skill monkey. Nor are Ranger 6+ features actively bad, merely average, if you don't multiclass. Likely the most fragile of the Martials, lacking defensive options; and I'm still displeased with Hunter's Mark needing Concentration: it takes a nice flavor-benefit and turns it into a handcuff, so, sure, Ranger's not perfect. Ranger/Druid Wizard Initiate for Chromatic Orb with that extra Horde Breaker per turn and CME doles out more DPS than any other build I can come up with past level 11. Kinda minmaxy, but a plausible, playable character, if you have healers and tanks to keep them standing up.
The thing is. Later levels you most likely will have magic Weapons. If you get a 2d6 fire sword, or a +3 weapon. More attack with dual wilder (4 attacks) that can be biiig. 4x(dex+3+ hunters mark+ 1d6 weapon) i think it can sky rocker with Stronger Weapons
That is very true. But on the flip side, if you were to stop taking ranger levels and went to something more beneficial, you'd still end up with that magic weapon, so I think the late level features should encourage the player to stay in the class.
Ty for the video, super informative. Piercer is a good feat for ranged rangers at lvl 8 and i think xbow expert is the best for ranged rangers and it doesn't make you mad, you can use a heavy xbow with extra attack or a longbow when doing HM, then use two hand xbows when concentrating in other spells. Very well rounded. Btw, i am very curious about the DPR of a WIS based melee beast master ranger if you want to highlight it in the future. It would take shilelagh as fighting style (druidic warrior) a quarterstaff and a shield, focusing on boosting wis for their spell DC, their beast stats and concentrating on summon beast. Maybe taking shieldmaster for more control and better dex saves once wis is maxed.
Yea I think it is probably a better option to just use other spells and not do HM, thus freeing up your BA. Then you can do TWF with Dual Wielder or xbow expert, or longbow with Hail of Thorns. Probably wis based beast master is a good option especially with shillelagh!
13:30 This table is very interesting... I've seen a few other content creators say Hunters Mark is not good. But your numbers have it as a very viable option.
It is pretty comparable to other spells except levels 13-16. But this is assuming 2 attacks, if you get 3 in melee with Nick then its even better. Or course, other spells can be great options for things besides just damage, controlling the battlefield, soaking up hits, etc. and deal a similar amount of damage as HM.
There are lots of other changes that affect the ranger more than other classes. The nerf to SS and CA, CWB hurt and also having many features linked to Wis instead of proficiency bonus makes the 2024 ranger a lot more MAD than before and there is so much demand for the BA too.
Overall great videos - but a couple of high level issues. Your spell DPS calculations assumed you make your ranger build NOT have a bonus action (thus using HM didn't compete with anything). The moment you take crossbow expert or go TWF - these two feat's added damage almost instantly overrides the value of hunters mark (ie they do more damage). Yes, if you assume you can cast HM on a single target and attack if for 4 rounds that might not be true; however as soon as you factor moving the HM to different targets (and giving up multiple bonus action attacks) this spell instantly loses value.
Yes, I assume using BAs for Hunter's Mark. It does end up pretty BA heavy in most encounters. Dual wielding in some fashion vs HM is an option too, but I would totally skip HM at that point and go for Summon Fey or something.
One thing about Rangers (well, any Dex based build really) is that they get a ton of versatility in their build. You can take Dual Wielder and Sharpshooter and swap weapons as needed without suffering as much as before due to Weapon Swapping rules, weapon masteries, and that they're both half feats. When the bad guys are far away use your Longbow, when they get up close start dual wielding instead. Same with spells. Hail of Thorns is a decent blast, but you don't need to cast it unless the AoE lets you hit a lot of people (same with lightning arrow). You can also be flexible with using Spike Growth when there's a good choke point or using entangle when you're fighting a lot of enemies with low strength. Your "typical" turn might be attacking twice with a weapon, but you aren't stuck with using that every round.
While I ultimately agree, I think we need to admit that even the most stereotypical ranger isn't above or rather not stubborn enough to not cast things like the entangle or ensnaring strike spells or silence, spike growth, conjure animals, lightning arrow, summon fey, grasping vine and tree stride. Conjure Volley and Conjure barrage are decent blast spells that don't really get in the way of Hunter's Mark. Even if we assume this happening only 30% of 25% of the time. This will inevitably happen. So the representation isnt entirely accurate.
I understand the part that these calculations are for a stereotypical ranger that only uses HM, and appreciate the numbers presented (thanks!). However, I think that some sort of damage of other spells could be added in calculactions. For example, 1 o 2 casts of Hail of Thorns per combat (considering that in other rounds HM is moved to diferent enemies). I think assuming casts of HoT would be a fair representation of the spellcasting power for the stereotypical ranger, even taking into account a low DC because HoT does half damge on a save. I mean, even a stereotypical ranger would try to use their resourses.
Yes you are correct. I think that is probably something I could have added even if you are using MOST BA for Hunter's mark. I have a pinned comment showing damage using all spell slots for Hail of Thorns and Lightning Arrow, and it does help the damage out. Put a subclass on there and the damage becomes pretty good. Of course that one assumes using a spell every turn plus hunters mark which is impossible. So it would be somewhere in the middle. I might edit the final ranger tier damage to include a couple of spells as you have said.
I'm playing a now 9th level 2024 beast master ranger and having a blast. The concentration thing had not really been a problem. Yes, it limits some things, but all spellcasters have to deal with it and make choices. You can't have too many concentration spells anyway.
Were Elven Accuracy, Piecer, or the Boon of Irresistible Offense in consideration for the feats/Epic boons a Ranger might want to take? I ask this because they seem to combine well together.
Elven accuracy is always a good idea when you can get it. Probably don't pick it up until high level with ranger though because you get regular advantage then. Boon of irresistible offense is good, but probably doesn't boost ranger offense too much because you have a good chance to land every attack in the turn. I haven't been mentioning legacy feats, but perhaps I should.
@@DndUnoptimized isn’t Boon of Irresistible Offense the one where whenever roll a 20, you add your ability score that you increased , probably 21 at level 19, to the damage of the roll? If I’m wrong, I’m wrong, and that’s ok because I’ll be learning.
I'd have to crunch the numbers, but using true strike and going all Wis and cast spells like summon fey might be a good option at higher levels. You'll almost certainly do less damage at lower levels though
Slight correction to the math on summon fey, pretty sure the fuming option only gets advantage on the first attack it makes after teleporting, so an extra attack shouldn't double the damage.
That is correct. In the math I assume advantage on one attack and not on the other. But you do get another +1 to damage on both attacks too, so it ends up close to double.
I do think that in 2024, DMs should stongly consider starting long range combats and combats in difficult terrain to overcome imbalance demonstrated in "white void" scenarios such as this.
Love the channel. But gotta say this ignores 2014s ranger doing tons of damage with conjure animals. By level 20. they have 8 castings of conjure animals enough to account for the adventuring day. You can technically add +50 from raptors to all those long bow dpr values (which should be crossbow expert + sharp shooter values) As such because the new CA runs completely off wisdom it punishes rangers alot (thanks wotc). The ranger is massively massively nerfed. That being said plant growth is unchanged and prob their best bet with 3rd level slots. The new conjure woodland beings is ok with long strider but miles better on a druid wildshape into an owl (see cmcc builds)
Always good to see you stop by! That's very true. For these builds, we are always using hunters mark so can't concentrate on CA, but generally speaking, yea it was a big potential power bump for Rangers in 2014.
I think that there should be an optional feature to swap the extra language proficiencies for tool proficiencies, since it is strange that a trapper living in the forest knows more languages rather than leather working and wood crafting for example.
Spear and shield with PAM? I guess you won't be using HM and will use BA for PAM then? I think that's probably a great option. Summon Fey, then go to town.
@@DndUnoptimized Give a turn to set up but yeah, BA pole strike. You can give yourself some distance with Nick Dagger or Light Hammer and still retain attacks.
Have you factored in the better basic builds of ranger when making the final comparison chart? It feels like with fighter and barbarian (because you get to use more of their base kit because they have no spells to consider) that you end up using 80-90% of their features, while dropping to a much lower 60-75% of ranger features...and it also feels like you are comparing apples to oranges when you take one of their better damage dealing builds of the other classes (GWM in both cases I think) and compare it to the nerfed bow builds (that don't even get as much bonus from hunter's mark, only getting 2d6 extra damage a round rather than the potential 4d6 that a twf ranger gets). Add that we never consider anything but the concentration spells (hail of thorns and lightning arrow seem potentially good and are in the base class) and we end up with a ranger that looks heavily nerfed in those charts but might feel much better in play. I get you are trying to avoid using subclasses for this to get base levels of things, but this looks to disadvantage classes like the ranger to a pretty significant margin.
All of these are great points. Yes, pure martials get to use everything vs our Ranger doesn't use up their spell slots in this build. I did make a new build and pinned it in the comments where we use every spell slot to do Hail of thorns or lightning arrow and it boosted damage. The problem is that we end up with huge bonus action conflict. So it's pretty difficult to use Hunters Mark AND those "ranger smite" spells because they use a BA too. The other only real option I see is that we can do a blast spell first turn (conjure barrage or something). Then it uses one spell and we keep HM. I think in general though, it is MUCH harder for a ranger to actually use their spells in combat than other martial/spellcaster people. Ie. Paladins can always smite and don't have a built in BA conflict. As for comparing melee to ranged. Yea, rangers are primarily thought of as ranged characters, so that's what I built. Perhaps I should have said in the build, "this isn't an attack on the ranger class as a whole, just showing that HM Longbow ranger just doesn't keep up. Other martials got boosts that keep them strong, but rangers didn't, and the features that boost HM don't help enough". And I did show a build with the Hunter Subclass, which is the "standard one". But yes, the tier Ranking numbers don't show that build if that's what you mean.
@DndUnoptimized i was more asking if the ranking numbers were based on the bow build, whose only bonus action seemed to be moving hunters mark. If I was running a bow I would of necessity (if I was trying to do damage) be using hail of thorns or lightning arrow any round I wasn't moving my mark, just to utilize my bonus action. And I'm also over here wondering if their ranking would be raised if they were using twf (with that 1-2 extra d6 from hunters mark every round and a consistent damage source in their bonus action and nick attack). But I also get it. Figuring out what assumptions to make is hard, and with the fighter and Barbarian you don't have to make too many. The ranger, you have to guess at how often they need to move mark, how often they use spell slots, whether multiple targets are together if they do use spells, even when just using their basic damage spells (lightning arrow is so much better against a group than a single target). But what i saw is you making some of those assumptions with the Barbarian (giving them the benefit of the doubt that they would be able to push two targets together to achieve cleave) but didn't seem to be making the same kinds of allowances here, skewing the ranking (and yes, that's not including the subclasses at all).
The one thing i'll say to defend the designers on HM related features is that it doesnt make sense to consider not using HM as a ranger, its like considering not raging as a barbarian or not smiting as a paladin just because they are not always optimal. Issue is that is a badly design feature because its a spell.
That is true. I don't dislike the feature, or that people should use it, but rage gets better and so do smites as you level up. Hunters mark just stays the same until 17. It not only generates Concentration clog, but also Bonus Action clog, so it makes you really limited in what you can do. Meanwhile, Paladins can swap out one smite with another, concentrate on any spell they want and combine it with smite too. Even without smite they are a strong.
You didn't mention the Piercer feat to boost range damages that because you don't rate it? Rerolling 1 damage die and an unreliable crit boost looks meh to me.
It is such a minor boost that I wouldn't really recommend it. I'd rather take something to boost defense or utility than a "damage boosting" feat that does almost nothing.
What ranger really needs is a banger of a fourth level spell that is handcrafted for them. To nincrease dpr. (Guardian of nature 2.0) Class falls off way too much tier three. Every fourth level spell they have is concentration except for freedom of movement.
@@DndUnoptimizedtwo weapon fighting and longbow seem to be weaker options but damage is really good on hand xbow dagger or a thrown weapon fighter with plus 2 to all attacks. 3-4 attacks per turn with HM at range protects concentration. Ultimate scrimmager with their move speed.
Is 5.5 Ranger better than 5.0? I'd say so. Is it good? Eh... I dunno. Looks to me that the new Ranger has the same problem as it used to have: Past level 5 it scales so poorly that there's no reason not to just multiclass instead. And now we don't even have the game-breaking Conjure Animals to look forward to if we stay singleclass all the way to lvl 9, so there is arguably even less reason to stay singleclass. Ranger 5/Rogue 3/Fighter 3 looks like it will still be the foundation for your typical martial focused Ranger. Ranger 5/Monk 1/Rogue 3/Fighter 3 if you go melee and don't agree that the Dual Wielder feat + Nick can give you 2 bonus attacks. What I don't get is why is it so hard for WotC to make martials scale properly? They literally just have to give martial characters a new, meaningfully impactful feature every odd numbered level to match with spellcasting. The recipe is so obvious that every Tom, Rick and Harry looking at the system could figure it out, yet these professional designers consistently fail. I do appreciate that now melee is a realistic option this time around though. Since the game has so few ways of punishing ranged builds, melee needs to do more damage than ranged ones just to be able to do the same damage in practice. Melee will often lose combat rounds to lack of mobility, having to take defensive actions and having to stay back because of ally AoE.
@@DndUnoptimized Ranger needs a repeat of 3.5, where they completely rebuilt the class from ground up. I'd say thee 3.5 Ranger is still probably one of the best designed martial PHB classes they ever made, only trumped by some prestige classes and the Book of Nine Swords.
@@robf88 Maybe? It's hard to say when we're looking at options outside of the class. If we're comparing with power attack, are we going to look at multiclassing too, like tthe new possible Mink dip for melee? What interpretation of the Dual WIelder feat are we going with? Etc. I think it'll be a little while before we have a good grasp of what is and isn't good damage for OneD&D, but some of the early theorycrafting suggests that it'll be higher for martials than 5e overall.
Of course melee needs to do more damage than ranged. The entire foundation of the fantasy genre is built upon the viability of melee fighters, when real life teaches us the opposite. Plainly put: if you're melee you're offering up your warm body to the opponent attacks. Ranged is significantly safer - so there absolutely must be a price to pay. Every edition of D&D understands this (if we leave out magic for a second), EXCEPT 5.0 which for some reason dropped all the 3E restrictions on range and made ranged melee king. Which was bad for the game, so fixing it is good!
I honestly think that rangers are not combat experts nor meant to be one.. they are exploration and utility experts. I also think that not taking into account all of their control options on their spell list is doing them a disservice because by that standard the wizard would have 0 control.
Yes I felt bad doing that honestly, but I still believe that is the stereotypical ranger and that IS how much control they would do if they didn't cast control spells. I did mention several times that they CAN have great control though if they cast the right spells. As for wizard, the stereotypical wizard is one that casts control spells. But yes... I know that you mean and it felt bad to do it.
@@DndUnoptimized I totally get where you are coming from but I am a sucker for the comparative charts that you did. I really love them. Having the ranger’s greatest strength not reflected hurts my soul lol
Not adding damage from the party benefiting from advantage is wrong. This is a cooperative game and choosing an option that increases the entire party's damage is way more beneficial than any personal increase. Sure you cannot predict who will be in my party. I might not even know myself who will be in my party next session (if I play at convention or in-store with random players that drop in and join in) Bu in regular party that work together, If my party knows that I can offer them regular advantage on all their attack, well, the warlock might not need to cast darkness, allowing him to use a different spell and still benefit from the advantage I give him. And preventing the warlock from casting darkness, allowed me to shoot my arrow on the main target without being impaired by the darkness spell. and the enemy being entangle, prevent him from attacking the barbarian, so the cleric might be able to use offensive spell or wing his mace instead of healing the barbarian. And the Barbarian won't need to use topple and prone the target (giving the archer disadvantage) and he will be able to use a cleave weapon. All those synergistic changes when you added them up together they add up to way more damage then any Hunter Mark (or any pure damage spell, maybe except for the probably typo Conjure minor elemental ridiculous scaling. Yes you cannot predict what character will be in my next party. and you cannot predict if they will adapt their strategy to mine, Is the fighter using a topple-heavy weapon? a cleave heavy weapon? maybe he is fighting two weapons with vex and nick? and this is just one possible character Personally if I do not know the party composition and how willing the player are to adapt their strategies to synergize between each other, I assume a basic party composition made of: Life cleric, a champion fighter, an assassin rogue and an evoker cleric and I add my character as the 5th party member. I have a basic team make up that represent every style of play usign only SRD free material (as to avoid broken combo, yes I now that the free SRD give the thief rogue and not the assassin, but the thief rogue require so many more assumption since he his so dependant on magical item, will the campaign give him magical scroll at will to use or it's a low magic campaign with almost no magical item? so to avoid this headache I took the assassin, fairly simple, straight forward no assumption required (every combat will have a first round of combat, and if the campaign do not have combat, then this entire process of calculating the damage worth of CC spell is meaningless anyway)
I think it's just impossible to add any numbers from granting your party advantage, but if you have a standard party that you use to calculate then I guess that works.
To play the ranger now, I think you need to go to Stranger. I think you want to take MI wizard as your origin feat to pick up a balde cantrip or truestrike (truestrike being better for ranged attacks and single attacks vs multi attacks, the others being better for multi attacks). Dual wield and use Nick or Great Weapon and use something like a maul for topple to get those advantage strikes or greatclub for push and grouping enemies. Carry a heavy crossbow for control and when someone is out of range. That way, you still make use of your HM feature but are not as limited as your traditional ranger build. Crusher, charger and speedy are good fits for the build as well and you have more options and can use your conjure spells more effectively.
@@neileddy6159 blade cantrips can't trigger nick since it needs an attack action, casting a cantrip is a magic action. Plus what do you plan at level 5 when you get access to multi-attacks? You're not a Valor Bard or Eldritch Knight.
Ranger struggles. The action economy is a puzzle, and Hunter's Mark concentration just becomes a hinderance to their other spells. I think it needs some homebrew to fix, which I think there are lots of good options, so it's however people can agree at their table. Deft Explorer and Roving could/should be 1 feature. Tireless is very underwhelming. Precise Hunter is a completely wasted/useless feature by level 17.
I talked about it in the video about how I won't compare it to HM. It is great, but it's not the "Stereotypical" ranger play. It's used in certain situation OR if your party is built around it, and can be a fantastic option either way.
Not really a defensive duelist fan on Ranger. Rangers have free casts of hm and this leaves all the first levels free for shield from mi wizard Also you absolutely should see a melee build of the Ranger it’s significantly better. It’s misleading in my opinion.
I've seen several melee builds of Rangers and I do believe they can deal very good damage if done right. Twig has one that goes Fey wanderer and does the summon fey for free. That ends up being pretty good damage. Shield is better if you want to grab it through your origin feat since it applies to all attacks, not just melee. As long as you have enough slots to handle it, then it's definitely better.
@@DndUnoptimized generally it’s the best use of your original feat. Someone else is better off with musician and while you could take alert it’s less important than defense. You can even get two usefull utility cantrips or blade cantrips/ blade ward
@@Tuga.28 yea it is sad... As for what's next, there is a poll going on, so I'll follow whatever people vote for, but personally I'm hoping for Rogue next.
I just don't understand why the class is designed around a single spell that locks up a precious commodity like Concentration. Yes, yes, multiclassing shenanigans, but then maybe HM wasn't all that well designed to begin with? When one option is so clearly the "right" option in the eyes of the developers, that just strips away all the other options, making the class as a whole less three dimensional. What good is it to play a class with OK damage and utility, if it still doesn't *feel* right, if you are having a bad time and always feel that you are restrained in your choices?
Alas, the 5 level ranger dip remains. However, I would highly recommend a Wisdom Based Ranger build that utilizes a club or a quarterstaff + Shield with the boosted Shillelagh cantrip. Also pick up a Sling using the legacy cantrip Magic Stone to have a ranged option. Go, beast master + summon beast. Hunters Mark if you have a big hit point boss, otherwise use control spells. Then dip onto Cleric or Druid for more spell slots and options.
Yea, there are certainly a lot of ways to optimize ranger much more. Probably 3-5 levels of ranger is the best for optimization. And Shillelagh is a good option too, especially since you can pick it up with your fighting style.
@DndUnoptimized the build I made, I took the guide background to pick up all those Wisdom Cantrips and faerie fire. So I could still get Dualing fighting style. Also went High Elf to pick up Booming Blade. Which I will switch out to Mage hand or somthing once I get extra attack at 5.
It has two issues. Fixing either one of them gives it a lot more potential. The first and most obvious is that concentration prevents other, perhaps better spells. The other is that it takes a bonus action every time you need to move it to another target. This makes it compete with a whole other list of spells and abilities that help the ranger do damage or other things. For example, with the two weapon fighting build, you have to have hunter's mark compete with the damage of an additional bonus action attack...so it's 3d6 competing with, potentially, something like 1d6 +5, which is something like hunter's mark doing 10 damage average vs the extra attack doing 8. If the target dies, you lose that bonus action attack again. In contrast, summon fey just gives extra damage with only the initial spell action cast...doing damage over all the following rounds while you still do your bonus action attacks. So, a 2d6+6 to start, so 12 damage. Ignoring a setup round for convenience, that means a twf build has 8 damage from it's bonus attack, and 12 damage on average (a little less cause of hit chance) for summon fey that doesn't then have upkeep later. This is why it annoys people so bad, because they have made this kinda meh spell a core component of the class that eats several features, but will often be beaten by a lvl 3 spell because of how costly it is for the action economy and concentration economy and therefore all those features will, for some players, get used very seldom, and for others, not at all. That kinda sucks. And that doesn't even count the extra bonus actions you can use to do some smite spells like hail of thorns to do some upcasted pretty serious damage. This isn't to say the ranger isn't better than it was. There are spells that used to require concentration that just don't anymore, and so hunter's mark can potentially be more useful. It's just that there are so many ways to be better than hunter's mark and fixing either of these two main problems would have shifted it from meh to actually pretty good.
I think I'd rather remove the need for Bonus action to shift targets. Then Rangers can use other BA spells, and reliably use TWF with DW, or two xbows. But this probably just makes early game even crazier. I think I'd make it a d4, bonus action cast, concentration, but free action move once per turn. Then as you get higher levels the ranger class let's you scale that damage up to a d12. Then we get better scaling, and free up BA. The problem there, is that you end up with HM being very strong and probably outdoing every other damage dealing spell. It really is a tough problem. I don't envy the game designers
@DndUnoptimized I mean, that's essentially divine favor without the lvl 17 advantage rider. And advantage is relatively cheap in 2024 with weapon masteries and such. Hell, divine favor isn't even concentration, it just doesn't last as long. I'd be happy with an alternate version within the spell that doesn't use the bonus action but ends after a minute...even if they dropped the damage to allow it. I could make a choice based on whether i needed to follow a target or if i needed to get through a combat. I just kinda want to not feel bad about such a primary feature.
My favorite ranger of all time was an Outlander Paladin (Ancients). Ranger, as a class, has been ill-defined since 2e. (4e has its niche, but 3.x and 5.x tried to fill a niche often better filled by other builds.)
Unfortunately damage is rarely the issue with playing a class. If it was everyone would just play the most powerful build. Its about playing an archetype as an adventurer. 2024 is terrible for fulfilling the varied fantasy that makes a "ranger".
Of course damage isn't all that matters, that's why I put up the other combat things like durability, control, and resistance. Out of combat stuff is obviously very important too, but a lot of D&D campaigns spend a good chunk of time in battle, so it's helpful to get a rough idea.
Ranger has long had an identity problem and spellcasting comes at the cost of the Hunter and Beastmasters features. You want a class and subclass to excel in their core fantasy but they only need to be tolerable outside of it. Ranger also suffers from how unsatisfying the mechanics for exploration are. Most GMs basically skip it. Imagine playing a battlemaster fighter, but all your combats were just narratively skipped.
Yes, I agree with this. I think there are very specific campaigns where being an exploration expert will be really fulfilling, but almost no campaigns do that.
Video games have done such a disservice to TTRPG design. Rogues used to be a necessity in games, not because they had Backstab but because they kept you alive in the dungeon. Always have this argument with one of my younger players about how they think combat is literally the end all be all of D&D for "balance". With the new edition/rewrite so many things are just grey goo now... everyone gets all the same crap now. Literally everyone gets expertise in some form or another. There are a lot of things I do like with the new rules but there is at least twice as much stuff that is really freaking stupid and I won't implement in my games. I can't lay down my final judgement till I see the MM however, although I don't have high hopes. Bottom line is that if you build a character and think they are only good if they can do damage then fine, I guess. Seems blah though to me.
That's fair, out of combat utility is very important especially at certain tables. I don't think damage is the most important, I just want players to feel strong in combat throughout their career if that's what they are made for, not dwindle down and down and watch other people get cool features while you get things you don't use.
I appreciate that wotc chose to buff an iconic spell over the life of the ranger to keep up with the other spell options. Iconic spells shouldn't lose value over time. That said, the current best ranger spell is hail if thorns for aoe smite damage at range. Such a cool spell slot option. if hunters mark could be moved with a reaction, the combo would always be used. As is, the ranger class just seems boring now if you make your two attacks and move hunters mark every turn. If you attack the same enemy for two turns, you can smite (hail of thorns) but by then, your allies are probably in melee. If I want to play a ranged character, I will probably go vengeance pal with thrown daggers, divine favor, hunters mark or enlarge, and smite spells. Rangers just lose out on interest.
Yes, I appreciate that they wanted HM to remain useful through its career, it's just too bad that going that route ends up boring and the buffs come too late.
I have 2 problems with Ranger spell list 1. For many of useful spells such as Entangle, Spike Growth, or Plant Growth, Druids gain access to them way eaelier than Rangers and due to Druid's new overhaul, it is much easier to roleplay as Ranger while playing Druids. 2. Many of more unique and cool spells, such as Conjure Barrage or Zypher Strike conpetes spell slot or concentration with other non unique spells In short, I wonder why WotC didnt turn unique and cool Ranger Spells into class feature.
While I do agree, thankfully entangle, spike growth, and plant growth are all spells that are still useful at all levels, and there are several other ones like lesser restoration. So at least there is that.
During the playtest, hunters mark was not concentration, and made the focus on the spell far more reasonable. They reverted that despite outright approval from the playerbase, and now we are here. To be fair, the way they hit smite in 2024 depresses me. The ranger likely now keeps up just fine with paladin. Rogue got more interesting, without losing much besides a die of damage only if you engage with those options.
Yes they played around with Ranger quite a bit during play testing. I think everyone was nervous about it since it seemed still in flux. Well, here we are.
The idea that best dual wielder hand crossbow loadout is to throw a nick knife, crossbow, crossbow is so dumb I'm just going to allow hand crossbow to be Nick.
@@DndUnoptimized I mostly don't mind it. It just feels that to get the best out of it, you are railroaded to do things you don't want to do. The homebrew to fix is easy though. I think we will see widrspread use of custom weapons with alternative masteries and properties (GWM users would love heavy versions of some of the versatile weapons even if the base die is lower).
Ranger had gloomstalker, conjure animals, pass w.o trace, lifeberry, and sharpshooter holding it up. And every single one of those was nerfed. It used to have a niche as decent round 1 dmg, while providing concentration on a utility spell or CA, and being able to lifeberry dip really easily. Now? Literally no reason to go ranger: Class mechanics? None, only a concentration tax with hm to achieve mediocre dmg. Flavor? None. No class identity included in this package. Somehow it's even more bland than 2014. No question the laziest class design in either edition.
It does feel a little boxed in by nerfs that is unique to ranger. I think nick is a significant buff that helps out TWFs, but there isn't a ton of other stuff.
The 2024 ranger will always feel bad because the Tasha's ranger was bad. They basically used a bandaid to fix a compound fracture. Every class can deal damage. The ranger needed a damage buff, but these changes traded the most minor of damage buffs for a complete gutting of flavor. The new ranger has no features that help the party be better at wilderness survival or expliration. The features that let it ignore difficult terrain are gone. The one stealth feature they have left lets them turn invisible once for 6 seconds at a level that rarely sees play and about ten levels after all the other casters get the invisibility spell. What does ranger have left? One waste of time spell that adds one damage die to attacks on one target. And it got that feature to replace the one that gave them specialized expertise when dealing with specific creature types. The 2014 ranger was bad, but 2024 is not an improvement. It's a lateral move at best. Part of the problem is ranger exists for a style of play that WotC is never going to support. The fix for ranger starts with looking at third-party rules systems for overland travel and wilderness exploration and then giving the ranger features that provide buffs to those rules. The core fantasy of the ranger is not "I can put a debuff on one creature and deal extra damage to that one creature." The core fantasies of the ranger are supercharging the party's stealth, mobility/travel, and tracking/hunting/survival capabilities. I did a full rework of the ranger, and the core change I made was simple. I threw out favored terrains, favored creature types, and Hunter's Mark. In place of those features, rangers get favored mana. At levels 1, 3, 6, 14, and 20 rangers pick one of the mana colors from Magic the Gathering. White, blue, black, red, green, or colorless. Every creature type, terrain type, class, background, and faction is tied to one or more colors. When dealing with anything tied to their favored mana colors, rangers get the following. Weapons deal one extra damage die of their base type. Dex, Int, and Wis ability checks are made with advantage. Travel through related terrains is much faster, and more distance can be covered in a day of traveling. While exploring related terrains, the party rolls twice as often for discoveries or treasure and half as often for combat encounters.
It's too bad the only way to play a good Ranger is to not play a Ranger as we typically envision them and focus on spellcasting instead It would've been nice to see the new rules improve the core chassis of the Ranger a lot more because as it is right now it's super mid
Rangers seem like the worst class now. I think they should have a few changes/additions. 3 Weapon masteries, some magic actions instead of your second attack (what valor bard/EK get), Deft Explorer/Expertise being combined and come at 2/9, but be 1 language/1 expertise at 2 and at 9 (but just 1 feature instead of 2 being used), at level 9 the hunter's mark features begin, so 9/13/17 instead of 13/17/20. The old ranger capstone or a brand new one being set to the now empty 20. The Beast Companion feature becoming a spell, and the beast master getting a better version of that spell (it has awful action economy). Ranger spells seem... fine. Not sure what to do with Hunter's Mark, but the 13 at 9 would help a lot. Gloomstalker's Dread Ambush should probably get something back on short rest, instead of just Long Rest. Feywalker might be ok, but seems lack luster compared to the other Telestalkers (Shadow Monk/Feybladelock/etc). A Dex paladin is just straight up better than TWF Ranger, I think the best build atm is using a Maul. I think Rangers probably peak at level 4 or 5 atm, and it isn't the best class at that level, it just is less bad. Pretty sure every other class might out damage them. The level 14 might be ok, but yea the Ranger is bad. I like the Spell List, but I think most of the level 5 spells (only 6 of them if I recall) and I think the best two are Tree Stride (no damage) and Greater Restoration. I suppose Conjure Volley is ok. Not a fan of Swift Quiver or the Steel Wind Strike spell (it isn't awful, but some miss damage would have been nice, I suppose it could be seen as a 7 square teleport if you have that type of positioning, but seems pretty situational). Hunter still seems bad. The best overall subclass is probably the Fey Wanderer, but the best individual feature is probably Umbral Sight? The Beastmaster + 2 attacks/bonus action to tell the pet to attack, a creature that you have marked, is probably the best overall damage. I imagine you'd rather just do some sort of Heavy Crossbow build though, but then you are in stat hell with Dex/Con/Wisdom/Strength. But yea, Rogue looks better for Damage/Skill stuff, and maybe even more survivability. TLDR: Definitely Homebrew this class, it is the worst one.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
NOTE: Several people have pointed out that I should have used up the Ranger's spell slots in combat. THAT'S FAIR! I have done a new build where they use all spell slots to cast Hail of Thorns and Lightning Arrow. We are assuming HM up too, so we are only using our free castings of it, and we are never moving it. It also ignores BA clog. I think this is extremely generous. but it does help boost damage.
Here is an overview of the numbers.
Lvl 1: 9.7 DPR (54% Combat Space)
lvl 5: 24.9 DPR (47.8%)
lvl 9: 32.5 DPR (41.2%)
lvl 13: 38.2 DPR (33%)
lvl 17: 48.3 DPR (31.8%)
lvl 20: 50.4 DPR (28.5%)
Overall, average Combat Space in career is 37.3%. Hopefully this gives a better idea. Note that this doesn't include subclasses, so it would end up at around 42% with Hunter.
Compared to 24:53
Level 1 8.3 vs 9.7
Level 5 24.6 vs 24.9
Level 9 30.6 vs 32.5
That's a very small increase.
Don't care about the rest because high tier play rarely happens.
Thanks for doing the extra work and I hope it shows to the people bickering that the change in damage is minimal. Control *might* go up, but at the cost of reducing damage even more (Silence, Entangle, etc don't do damage, the only Control spell that does any damage consistently before level 9 is Spike Growth and that's situational).
Thansk for the extra work you did on this one.
I think you made a much worse mistake than merely not using spells in terms of comparing the Ranger to other martials: You made it a ranged build. For better or worse, in the 2024 rules, melee builds do a lot more damage than ranged ones. Like...a lot, when examined. Whether this is a problem is a different question (they do have some advantages) but they do less damage by a fair bit. This is even more true when considering per attack riders like Hunter's Mark on a TWF build.
For a proper comparison with melee damage dealers you need to do a melee Ranger, likely using TWF and Nick. Otherwise it's not an apples to apples comparison. Not unless you also do an archery Fighter or Javelin-tossing Barbarian and compare them instead.
Like, right now you are not primarily comparing the Ranger to the Fighter, you are comparing ranged combat to melee combat.
@@DeadmanwalkingXI I showed a basic TWF one. It does a ton of damage early levels then drops off around 10.
As for melee vs ranged. Of course I'll do a ranged ranger, it feels the most iconic to the class. Every ranger picture has them with a longbow. The damage is ok, but much less than melee. And that's fine, but people should know that at least. Ranged has a lot of advantages, so I think it's still worth it.
@@DndUnoptimized Yes, it’s iconic. But do you not see that, as this person pointed out, your analysis is now confounding class vs class with ranged vs melee?
@hawkname1234 @Dndunoptimized yeah, this. I really appreciate the analysis, but the ranger is fighting an uphill battle already with lots of people calling it the worst class of 2024. If, when you rank them, you show a pretty bad build for them compared to solid builds for the other classes then we end up making that narrative more prominent.
Hell, I'm not even sure they aren't the worst class but if we are going to make direct comparisons we need to give it as fair a shake as possible. With your build (again, seriously, I appreciate the work that went into this) we compound a feature that works poorly for it's damage, we ignore a lot of the classes' potential control, and we don't give it any grace when it came to the advantages that this build would have. Like when you did the extra calculations with the hail of thorns and lightning arrow spells did you have them only doing damage to one target? Finding targets who are grouped up would be the smiting longbow ranger's bread and butter! It can hit almost anywhere on the battlefield at anytime. Anytime they cast those spells they should be able to find an enemy with other enemies close enough to do damage (again, I point out you allowed for this kind of grace with the Barbarian cleave attacks even though it would require more work there). Switch from longbow to heavy crossbow and this gets even easier with push.
I like knowing longbow archer numbers. I'm playing a longbow artificer in a game that is switching to 2024 rules. But I also, in a comparison, want that comparison to compare builds that are at least at a basic level similar levels of optimized. Honestly, that probably wouldn't be a hunter's mark longbow build...it probably would be a summoning or conjuring two weapon fighting build.
Just imagine how the ranger would feel if hunters mark were actually the divine favor spell.
Fantastic video as always and essentially aligns with my experiences too. I’ve built a few test Rangers to see how it goes and the early levels are fantastic (particularly if you go Dual Wielder) but it quickly tapers off and just stagnates from about level 7 or so which is just disappointing.
I’ve tried leaning into HM and not and the issue always arises that the damage you’re gaining from other spells is not totally offset by not using HM unless you can guarantee multiple enemies like for Conjure Animals etc.
I’ve always loved the Ranger and I also agree that my “stereotypical” Ranger is one wielding a longbow. Unfortunate that it seems like it’ll be a lot “better” going melee.
I was worried you'd hard disagree since you told me Ranger is your favourite class haha.
I really wish they got more damage bumps because you go from being a super damage dealer to an OK damage dealer and more focused on utility and exploration. I think it's just weird to have a class shift like that.
@@DndUnoptimizedyeah the class fantasy isn’t consistent across the level progression for sure. I think in a weird way the Ranger should be a sort of Jack of all trades with their decent ability to be a martial, and the utility they get from their spells, but in a weird way that seems to be the problem with their design, and is why they are so weak at both.
Idk what the answer would be, but imo having a concentration spell be a huge focus for their class features isn’t the right way to go about it. Maybe turning HM into a class feature that doesn’t require concentration OR has a consistent growth to its added damage or something would have helped.
@@DndUnoptimized To be fair Rogue damage before L5 is often among the highest in the party and then the class downgrades to out of combat efficacy.
My rough understanding is as soon as you give the ranger a bonus action attack (crossbow expert or dual weilder feat) the bonus damage from these options basically overrides anything that HM gives you.
Really great video. Subscribed!
One small detail that people are often overlooking for Rangers is the synergy between Hunter’s Mark and Magic Weapon. It’s no more a concentration spell, has 1h duration, so it’s fair to assume you can setup in advance, but even when you activate it in the second round, it’s quite good.
That's definitely true and it can help you out at low levels. Tier 2 and onwards it's pretty likely you'll have a magic weapon already though
My personal favorite ranger build with the new phb is a beast master using beast of the land, dual wielding short sword and scimitar. Using Hunter's Mark until level 13, and from then on using Conjure Woodland Beings instead. Start with 17 dex and 16 wisdom, at 4th level, pick your feat of choice that gives +1 dex (I would probably pick Defensive Duelist for the huge boost in survivability), and at 8th and 12th levels take +2 to wisdom, and 16th take +2 dex.
Use bonus action to control your beast, unless you needed to use it to hunter's mark something that turn, in which cases you just replace one of your own attacks with the beasts attack. Always do your beasts attack first, which does 1d8+1d6+2+your wisdom modifier, and on a hit, automatically knocks the target prone, no save, which will give advantage to rest of your attacks (it has 40 feet movement speed so it can always move 20 feet away from the enemy and then back to activate the knockdown). Even if the beast misses, you still have vex on your short sword to have decent chance to give your attacks advantage. Your own attacks will do 2d6+your dex modifier.
At 5th level your already doing 4 attacks per round (or 3 if you need to mark something that turn), with most of the attacks having advantage. The beast will do 1d8+1d6+5 (average 13), and your own 2-3 attacks do 2d6+4 (average of 11) each.
Next big damage jump is 11th level when your beast gets second attack and also benefits from hunters mark. At this point you also already have 18 wisdom, the beast is doing 2d8+2d6+12 (average 28) damage per round if it hits with both attacks, and the rest of your attacks are still doing 2d6+4 (average 11) each, and you still have advantage on most of those attacks.
13th level is where damage really goes crazy, when you get access to conjure woodland beings for the fights that really matter, which will do more damage than hunters mark even on single target, and way more if you hit multiple targets. Now your wisdom is 20 already, making the save dc for woodland beings pretty good, and your beast is now doing 2d8+1d6+14 (average 26.5) if it hits with both attacks, your own attacks now do 1d6+4 (average 7.5) each, and on top of that your doing 5d8 (average 22.5) dc 17 Wisdom save for half, to every enemy nearby, and since you can disengage as a bonus action, you can easily move around to hit a lot of enemies on your turn, and in addition to that, any enemy that enters it on their turn or ends their turn in it takes this damage again.
At 17th level you can now upcast Conjure Woodland Beings to add another d8 to the damage it does to everything, and also by now your dex is 20 as well to further bump your damage.
At 19th level, the epic boon I would choose is probably the irresistible offense one that makes crits do significantly more damage since with as many attacks as your doing, most of the time with advantage, your bound to get crits reasonable often.
That sounds like a nice build!
Ultimately I feel this is misleading and not representative of its actual combat space. The fact that it has spells is an important attribute of the class and I don’t see any of its actual utility being used here. It’s like if the fighter was done without mastery. Ranger by very virtue of having those slots is valuable and getting free castings of hm is great for ensuring they always have something.
It's definitely true that rangers can outperform these numbers by using different spells or potentially using blast spells instead of attacking.
If you did a longbow build, what would your "stereotypical" ranger do over 4 rounds of combat?
@@DndUnoptimized I mean things like summon fey would increase the control, add in things like lightning arrow , hail of thorns , but more importantly you can take a turn to do things like silence, plant growth and spike growth or even barrage for aoe. These are important aspects of the control and damage respectively that aren’t accounted. Simply having spells and free castings allows for higher defenses due to freed up shield slots.meaning its defense is good. id also account for the fact Ranger gets pass without trace and with the new suprise rules can easily give them and the party advantage on initiative.
@insertname5371 yea, that's fair. I really could have gone over the other spells that don't compete with HM to talk about their uses and power. Probably should have done that.
They do have good flexibility because silence, plant growth, and spike growth can completely change an encounter. I might need to rethink how to deal these kinds of things to take them into account in the builds, it's just that they are situational so you aren't necessarily going to pop those out every combat.
Paladins will end up similarly because I'll probably smite with all slots because that's the stereotypical thing to do, but they have lots of other spells options.
He *does* mention there are other ways to compliment Ranger in the video. The biggest issue is as a half caster you're not actually going to be able to use them all that often because spell slots are few.
Ensnaring Strike is kinda good before level 5, but are you going to waste HM on something that needs a Str Save to work, only restrains, and only gives additional damage on a failed save? When you can get guaranteed damage with HM?
These also aren't supposed to be optimized builds. These are 'baselines'. And the Ranger baseline is HM + Attacks.
Again, he does say multiple times in fact that you *can* make the Ranger better. But at it's core, this is where it sits. You can (and i may have) done up to 3rd level spells how much more control can a Ranger do and how much less damage is it. He gives the control percentages right there and you can assume a +2 Wis (array likely is 16 dex, 14 Wis, 13 Str, 12 Con, 10 and 8 for either Cha or Int your pick).
But at its core, this is where Ranger is. With Spike Growth, damage goes up and bit and control does as well if there are 2 targets AND you use a crossbow instead of a longbow (take crossbow expert instead of Sharpshooter and SS instead of GWM - pushing them 10ft with crossbow instead of slowing with longbow makes up for the GWM difference).
Additionally, Lightning Arrow increases nova damage, but not to the initial target - only if there are multiple enemies.
So there's a slight increase to the Ranger's overall combat utility when there are multiple enemies, but you'd have to opti for it which is not the purpose of the video.
Ok. I have made adjustments to the ranger build to use all spell slots on Hail of Thorns and Lightning Arrow. I think that'll keep the same "archer" stereotype but still make use of the spells during combat.
I will share the results in a pinned comment. Thanks for pointing this out.
This channel is so underrated. I can't wait to say I was here early when you get big.
Thanks! I'm waiting for that day too lol
I don't know how I feel about a ranger by the numbers analysis that literally doesn't take spells into consideration. It feels like sure, there is emphasis on hunters mark in the class, but you get spell slots for a reason, you should use somr of them.
That's super fair. Once you get to spells, the number of options in combat increases dramatically, so it becomes a lot harder to make the Stereotypical build. I think considering the number of features dedicated to HM, it seemed fair to do an analysis based on just that, but there are definitely levels where it is more optimal to concentrate on Summon Fey or something else. Hopefully the HM vs other spells section helps give some context for that.
This issue will really balloon once we get to full Casters where many people will disagree on the "Stereotypical" build for that class and what spells best serve that.
@DndUnoptimized I get that it's complicated, but I think it makes the ranger look much worse than they are to not take those options into consideration at all. I feel like you need to have your paladin analysis to not cast spells either if you're going to approach things this way. And I don't know what you should do with full casters, if you give them their full casting and only assume 1 combat, they're obviously going to wildly over perform.
@gloryrod86 that's very fair. Alright how about this. We use excess slots to cast our "smite spells" such as Hail of Thorns and Lightning Arrow. Then it'll be equivalent to a paladin using smites.
(speaking as someone who's been trying to get into DnD, so please understand my mindset is a newbies)
Great vid!
I know the video is old so i don't expect a reply.
I kinda wish they made hunter's mark more versatile, like maybe instead of the concentration not being able to be lost, maybe allow for something like brutalize from Shadow of War. Where if you kill a creature that had Hunter's mark you can use a bonus action to viscously attack the corpse to attempt to make hostile creatures that can see you fear you and gain disadvantage or possibly flee. I feel ideally a ranger wants to do what they can to gain advantage. Be it phycological warfare or martial. They could've maybe went if you land the killing blow on a creature with Hunter's mark you can gain a few movement equal to half your move speed as well. If they were going to go all in on Hunter's mark they should've been unique with the ways to use it. Allowing the ranger to be more tactical with who they mark, and how it affects the course of the fight. Most depictions of rangers from books and games want to either stay moving once a fight breaks out or end it as soon as possible. But before a fight want to be patient.
It feels like WotC didn't know what to do for them in combat.
Then too, for me the ideal rangers are Talion from shadow of mordor, the mc of watch dog's 1, Cobb/Uther/Dawson from the portal wars saga books, and some of the Far Cry serie's mcs.
Welcome to D&D! and thanks for watching
Yes those are all really interesting design spaces that they decided not to touch. I like a lot of those ideas because they give a very unique flavour. Some feature to decide what benefit you gain when you drop a creature with HM on it would be really cool. Feels a little "warlocky" but still really cool.
Agreed that WotC doesn't seem like they knew what to do with rangers, especially considering they had two playtest rangers that were both pretty different than this.
@@DndUnoptimized thank you and no problem!
Another thing I just thought of is maybe a feature of allowing allies to gain the damage boost of HM. Allowing the Ranger to feel like a part of a hunting party. That way there's more of a reason to use the bonus action to switch who has HM and makes the lvl 20 1d10 feel more impactful since everyone would get the boost. I can see it making a close fight more manageable while allowing the Ranger to feel more important during the combat.
Like imagine the rouge sneak attacking the new HM target killing it because of the damage boost after the Ranger takes out the initial HM target. Or the fighter doing all the attacks they can do with the extra damage. Rewarding teamwork. Could maybe have a thing where the ranger in character needs to call out the HM target, either verbally or hand motions or something along those lines.
Yea that idea could he cool too. I think that one you need to be more careful based on how it'll interact with multiple rangers in the party.
Fair enough.
Thinking of how to make HM less of a liability. I tried homebrewing a "revision" to the favorite enemy feature.
1st level same+ you gain an additional benefit when you reach 6th level, 9th level and 12th level in this class
Relentless Hunter (6th level):
Taking damage can't break your concentration on Hunter's Mark. Also, if your concentration on Hunter's Mark would end while it's on a creature, that Hunter's Mark stays on that creature for 10 minutes. If Hunter's Mark would've been on that creature for the maximum time allowed by Hunter's Mark the spell ends like normal. You can regain concentration on your Hunter's Mark but subtract the time you didn't have concentration on Hunter's Mark and that you were concentrating before you lost it to the remaining time you can concentrate on Hunter's Mark.
Precise Hunter (9th level)
You have advantage on attack rolls against the creature currently marked with Hunter's Mark.
Foe Slayer (12th level)
The Damage die of your Hunter's Mark is a 1d10 instead of a 1d6.
This is at least an idea I came up with. Would need to come up with a 13th level, 17th level and 20th level feature though. And would have to work on the wording for the addition to relentless hunter so it's not so convoluted/confusing. But I was thinking about how the lore of possibly learning HM could be a rite of passage for rangers.
One thing about the new grasping vine spell that's particularly nice is that they removed the requirement that the vine grows out of the floor- so now you can have it come out of a wall or ceiling that's elevated off the ground and either turn your target into a pinata for everyone else to hit or have the vine grab the target, haul it up 30' off the floor and then immediately let go to do some extra falling damage.
Ooo that's a really cool idea!
I've changed my views on the new Ranger over time, with closer look at everything that isn't Hunter's Mark.
Weapon Mastery with Nick means you get your bonus action freed up while still doing two weapon attacks, for instance to cast Hunter's Mark, or Shillelagh, or Produce Flame from your Guide Background. That's right, three attacks at level two, one of them with Hunter's Mark. And if you used your Short Bow the prior round to Vex your target, you have Advantage on one of them. If you come across a Rapier that's better than Shillelagh, then you can Vex in melee as well as at range.
Admittedly, there's almost zero reason to advance beyond Ranger level 5, when Extra Attack gives the last combat effect boost that can't be gotten otherwise. There are plenty of ways of getting Advantage, and because of the cost of losing Concentration on any other spell than Hunter's Mark, making Precise Attack moot.
Once you have a spell list, you can get the class unique spells through scrolls, if you really feel the need. And scrolls level 3-5 are not outrageously expensive. So while the world needs some high level rangers, it doesn't need you to be one.
Multiclass to Druid for Conjure Minor Elementals at level 12, and fifteen levels of druidic goodness, and you'll still be able to cast at CL 9 by level 19, though you'll never get level nine spells without a scroll. But how many of us are obsessed with once-a-day spells that are never better than upcasting CME for ten minutes of nova damage of the type of your choosing -- remember Hunter's Lore at rank 3 -- on every attack, extra attack (possibly with circlet of blasting or wand of magic missiles), nick attack, bonus action produce flame attack, horde breaker attack..
And if one of your feats gives you Chromatic Orb in your spell list, then upcasting to level 6+ there is 100% chance of five jumps, affecting six targets per casting with boggling damage of the elemental type of your choosing, plus CME.
Gish Ranger/Druid is very compelling as a damage generator.
Cleric can also work, but no CME.
Yea it has a lot of great options for combing with other classes
A class only worth taking until level 5 is good?
@@jesseseva2219 A gish only awesome until level 5 remains awesome as a more than dip for multiclass. The fit with WIS-based caster avoids SAD, and if you're trying to bring Perception and ability to engage multiple simultaneous opponents to a party, far better than a CHA- or INT-based class. Ranger/Rogue would be a devastating DEX-based combatant, if that's your jam, too, and a top skill monkey.
Nor are Ranger 6+ features actively bad, merely average, if you don't multiclass.
Likely the most fragile of the Martials, lacking defensive options; and I'm still displeased with Hunter's Mark needing Concentration: it takes a nice flavor-benefit and turns it into a handcuff, so, sure, Ranger's not perfect.
Ranger/Druid Wizard Initiate for Chromatic Orb with that extra Horde Breaker per turn and CME doles out more DPS than any other build I can come up with past level 11. Kinda minmaxy, but a plausible, playable character, if you have healers and tanks to keep them standing up.
The thing is. Later levels you most likely will have magic Weapons.
If you get a 2d6 fire sword, or a +3 weapon. More attack with dual wilder (4 attacks) that can be biiig.
4x(dex+3+ hunters mark+ 1d6 weapon) i think it can sky rocker with Stronger Weapons
That is very true. But on the flip side, if you were to stop taking ranger levels and went to something more beneficial, you'd still end up with that magic weapon, so I think the late level features should encourage the player to stay in the class.
Ty for the video, super informative. Piercer is a good feat for ranged rangers at lvl 8 and i think xbow expert is the best for ranged rangers and it doesn't make you mad, you can use a heavy xbow with extra attack or a longbow when doing HM, then use two hand xbows when concentrating in other spells. Very well rounded.
Btw, i am very curious about the DPR of a WIS based melee beast master ranger if you want to highlight it in the future. It would take shilelagh as fighting style (druidic warrior) a quarterstaff and a shield, focusing on boosting wis for their spell DC, their beast stats and concentrating on summon beast. Maybe taking shieldmaster for more control and better dex saves once wis is maxed.
Yea I think it is probably a better option to just use other spells and not do HM, thus freeing up your BA. Then you can do TWF with Dual Wielder or xbow expert, or longbow with Hail of Thorns.
Probably wis based beast master is a good option especially with shillelagh!
13:30 This table is very interesting... I've seen a few other content creators say Hunters Mark is not good. But your numbers have it as a very viable option.
It is pretty comparable to other spells except levels 13-16. But this is assuming 2 attacks, if you get 3 in melee with Nick then its even better.
Or course, other spells can be great options for things besides just damage, controlling the battlefield, soaking up hits, etc. and deal a similar amount of damage as HM.
There are lots of other changes that affect the ranger more than other classes. The nerf to SS and CA, CWB hurt and also having many features linked to Wis instead of proficiency bonus makes the 2024 ranger a lot more MAD than before and there is so much demand for the BA too.
Agreed! The ranger seems a little boxed in by nerfs.
I actually like the nerfs on the whole, but I think not play testing this version of the ranger was a massive mistake.
Overall great videos - but a couple of high level issues. Your spell DPS calculations assumed you make your ranger build NOT have a bonus action (thus using HM didn't compete with anything). The moment you take crossbow expert or go TWF - these two feat's added damage almost instantly overrides the value of hunters mark (ie they do more damage). Yes, if you assume you can cast HM on a single target and attack if for 4 rounds that might not be true; however as soon as you factor moving the HM to different targets (and giving up multiple bonus action attacks) this spell instantly loses value.
Yes, I assume using BAs for Hunter's Mark. It does end up pretty BA heavy in most encounters.
Dual wielding in some fashion vs HM is an option too, but I would totally skip HM at that point and go for Summon Fey or something.
One thing about Rangers (well, any Dex based build really) is that they get a ton of versatility in their build. You can take Dual Wielder and Sharpshooter and swap weapons as needed without suffering as much as before due to Weapon Swapping rules, weapon masteries, and that they're both half feats. When the bad guys are far away use your Longbow, when they get up close start dual wielding instead. Same with spells. Hail of Thorns is a decent blast, but you don't need to cast it unless the AoE lets you hit a lot of people (same with lightning arrow). You can also be flexible with using Spike Growth when there's a good choke point or using entangle when you're fighting a lot of enemies with low strength. Your "typical" turn might be attacking twice with a weapon, but you aren't stuck with using that every round.
Very true!
While I ultimately agree, I think we need to admit that even the most stereotypical ranger isn't above or rather not stubborn enough to not cast things like the entangle or ensnaring strike spells or silence, spike growth, conjure animals, lightning arrow, summon fey, grasping vine and tree stride. Conjure Volley and Conjure barrage are decent blast spells that don't really get in the way of Hunter's Mark. Even if we assume this happening only 30% of 25% of the time. This will inevitably happen. So the representation isnt entirely accurate.
That is totally fair and I agree.
I understand the part that these calculations are for a stereotypical ranger that only uses HM, and appreciate the numbers presented (thanks!). However, I think that some sort of damage of other spells could be added in calculactions. For example, 1 o 2 casts of Hail of Thorns per combat (considering that in other rounds HM is moved to diferent enemies). I think assuming casts of HoT would be a fair representation of the spellcasting power for the stereotypical ranger, even taking into account a low DC because HoT does half damge on a save. I mean, even a stereotypical ranger would try to use their resourses.
Yes you are correct. I think that is probably something I could have added even if you are using MOST BA for Hunter's mark. I have a pinned comment showing damage using all spell slots for Hail of Thorns and Lightning Arrow, and it does help the damage out. Put a subclass on there and the damage becomes pretty good. Of course that one assumes using a spell every turn plus hunters mark which is impossible.
So it would be somewhere in the middle. I might edit the final ranger tier damage to include a couple of spells as you have said.
I'm playing a now 9th level 2024 beast master ranger and having a blast. The concentration thing had not really been a problem. Yes, it limits some things, but all spellcasters have to deal with it and make choices. You can't have too many concentration spells anyway.
That's great to hear! I think there are definitely good ranger builds that exist and aren't too hard to find.
Ranger has become my favourite class, it's super hard to optimise!
Lol
Were Elven Accuracy, Piecer, or the Boon of Irresistible Offense in consideration for the feats/Epic boons a Ranger might want to take? I ask this because they seem to combine well together.
Elven accuracy is always a good idea when you can get it. Probably don't pick it up until high level with ranger though because you get regular advantage then.
Boon of irresistible offense is good, but probably doesn't boost ranger offense too much because you have a good chance to land every attack in the turn.
I haven't been mentioning legacy feats, but perhaps I should.
@@DndUnoptimized isn’t Boon of Irresistible Offense the one where whenever roll a 20, you add your ability score that you increased , probably 21 at level 19, to the damage of the roll? If I’m wrong, I’m wrong, and that’s ok because I’ll be learning.
@mariusbrandon2617 oh shoot, sorry I got them mixed up. Yea the extra crit damage would probably do more in this case, especially with elven accuracy.
If you take the feat like Magic Initiate Wizard you could go for the cantrip True Strike.
Would that be a great bonus for DPR calculations?
I'd have to crunch the numbers, but using true strike and going all Wis and cast spells like summon fey might be a good option at higher levels. You'll almost certainly do less damage at lower levels though
Slight correction to the math on summon fey, pretty sure the fuming option only gets advantage on the first attack it makes after teleporting, so an extra attack shouldn't double the damage.
That is correct. In the math I assume advantage on one attack and not on the other. But you do get another +1 to damage on both attacks too, so it ends up close to double.
These videos are cool can ya do monk and Druid by the numbers too?
He does polls to see which one we want next, check community tab. Monk is on there, but rogue is winning.
Yup! I'll get to them all and you can vote for which you'd like next. I want to do all the martials first before casters though.
I do think that in 2024, DMs should stongly consider starting long range combats and combats in difficult terrain to overcome imbalance demonstrated in "white void" scenarios such as this.
Having a mix of combat scenarios is always a good idea to keep things interesting and give opportunities for different people to shine
Love the channel.
But gotta say this ignores 2014s ranger doing tons of damage with conjure animals.
By level 20. they have 8 castings of conjure animals enough to account for the adventuring day. You can technically add +50 from raptors to all those long bow dpr values (which should be crossbow expert + sharp shooter values)
As such because the new CA runs completely off wisdom it punishes rangers alot (thanks wotc). The ranger is massively massively nerfed.
That being said plant growth is unchanged and prob their best bet with 3rd level slots.
The new conjure woodland beings is ok with long strider but miles better on a druid wildshape into an owl (see cmcc builds)
Always good to see you stop by! That's very true. For these builds, we are always using hunters mark so can't concentrate on CA, but generally speaking, yea it was a big potential power bump for Rangers in 2014.
I think that there should be an optional feature to swap the extra language proficiencies for tool proficiencies, since it is strange that a trapper living in the forest knows more languages rather than leather working and wood crafting for example.
Yea, that makes sense to me
Polearm Shillelagh with Dueling Fighting Style & Shield is pretty good.
Spear and shield with PAM? I guess you won't be using HM and will use BA for PAM then? I think that's probably a great option. Summon Fey, then go to town.
@@DndUnoptimized Give a turn to set up but yeah, BA pole strike. You can give yourself some distance with Nick Dagger or Light Hammer and still retain attacks.
Have you factored in the better basic builds of ranger when making the final comparison chart? It feels like with fighter and barbarian (because you get to use more of their base kit because they have no spells to consider) that you end up using 80-90% of their features, while dropping to a much lower 60-75% of ranger features...and it also feels like you are comparing apples to oranges when you take one of their better damage dealing builds of the other classes (GWM in both cases I think) and compare it to the nerfed bow builds (that don't even get as much bonus from hunter's mark, only getting 2d6 extra damage a round rather than the potential 4d6 that a twf ranger gets). Add that we never consider anything but the concentration spells (hail of thorns and lightning arrow seem potentially good and are in the base class) and we end up with a ranger that looks heavily nerfed in those charts but might feel much better in play.
I get you are trying to avoid using subclasses for this to get base levels of things, but this looks to disadvantage classes like the ranger to a pretty significant margin.
All of these are great points. Yes, pure martials get to use everything vs our Ranger doesn't use up their spell slots in this build.
I did make a new build and pinned it in the comments where we use every spell slot to do Hail of thorns or lightning arrow and it boosted damage. The problem is that we end up with huge bonus action conflict.
So it's pretty difficult to use Hunters Mark AND those "ranger smite" spells because they use a BA too. The other only real option I see is that we can do a blast spell first turn (conjure barrage or something). Then it uses one spell and we keep HM.
I think in general though, it is MUCH harder for a ranger to actually use their spells in combat than other martial/spellcaster people. Ie. Paladins can always smite and don't have a built in BA conflict.
As for comparing melee to ranged. Yea, rangers are primarily thought of as ranged characters, so that's what I built. Perhaps I should have said in the build, "this isn't an attack on the ranger class as a whole, just showing that HM Longbow ranger just doesn't keep up. Other martials got boosts that keep them strong, but rangers didn't, and the features that boost HM don't help enough".
And I did show a build with the Hunter Subclass, which is the "standard one". But yes, the tier Ranking numbers don't show that build if that's what you mean.
@DndUnoptimized i was more asking if the ranking numbers were based on the bow build, whose only bonus action seemed to be moving hunters mark. If I was running a bow I would of necessity (if I was trying to do damage) be using hail of thorns or lightning arrow any round I wasn't moving my mark, just to utilize my bonus action. And I'm also over here wondering if their ranking would be raised if they were using twf (with that 1-2 extra d6 from hunters mark every round and a consistent damage source in their bonus action and nick attack).
But I also get it. Figuring out what assumptions to make is hard, and with the fighter and Barbarian you don't have to make too many. The ranger, you have to guess at how often they need to move mark, how often they use spell slots, whether multiple targets are together if they do use spells, even when just using their basic damage spells (lightning arrow is so much better against a group than a single target). But what i saw is you making some of those assumptions with the Barbarian (giving them the benefit of the doubt that they would be able to push two targets together to achieve cleave) but didn't seem to be making the same kinds of allowances here, skewing the ranking (and yes, that's not including the subclasses at all).
The one thing i'll say to defend the designers on HM related features is that it doesnt make sense to consider not using HM as a ranger, its like considering not raging as a barbarian or not smiting as a paladin just because they are not always optimal. Issue is that is a badly design feature because its a spell.
That is true. I don't dislike the feature, or that people should use it, but rage gets better and so do smites as you level up. Hunters mark just stays the same until 17. It not only generates Concentration clog, but also Bonus Action clog, so it makes you really limited in what you can do.
Meanwhile, Paladins can swap out one smite with another, concentrate on any spell they want and combine it with smite too. Even without smite they are a strong.
You didn't mention the Piercer feat to boost range damages that because you don't rate it? Rerolling 1 damage die and an unreliable crit boost looks meh to me.
It is such a minor boost that I wouldn't really recommend it. I'd rather take something to boost defense or utility than a "damage boosting" feat that does almost nothing.
What ranger really needs is a banger of a fourth level spell that is handcrafted for them. To nincrease dpr. (Guardian of nature 2.0) Class falls off way too much tier three. Every fourth level spell they have is concentration except for freedom of movement.
I'm sure that would help, but having their summon spells get an extra attack there does give a decent option.
@@DndUnoptimizedtwo weapon fighting and longbow seem to be weaker options but damage is really good on hand xbow dagger or a thrown weapon fighter with plus 2 to all attacks.
3-4 attacks per turn with HM at range protects concentration. Ultimate scrimmager with their move speed.
Is 5.5 Ranger better than 5.0? I'd say so. Is it good? Eh... I dunno.
Looks to me that the new Ranger has the same problem as it used to have: Past level 5 it scales so poorly that there's no reason not to just multiclass instead. And now we don't even have the game-breaking Conjure Animals to look forward to if we stay singleclass all the way to lvl 9, so there is arguably even less reason to stay singleclass.
Ranger 5/Rogue 3/Fighter 3 looks like it will still be the foundation for your typical martial focused Ranger. Ranger 5/Monk 1/Rogue 3/Fighter 3 if you go melee and don't agree that the Dual Wielder feat + Nick can give you 2 bonus attacks.
What I don't get is why is it so hard for WotC to make martials scale properly? They literally just have to give martial characters a new, meaningfully impactful feature every odd numbered level to match with spellcasting. The recipe is so obvious that every Tom, Rick and Harry looking at the system could figure it out, yet these professional designers consistently fail.
I do appreciate that now melee is a realistic option this time around though. Since the game has so few ways of punishing ranged builds, melee needs to do more damage than ranged ones just to be able to do the same damage in practice. Melee will often lose combat rounds to lack of mobility, having to take defensive actions and having to stay back because of ally AoE.
Yea.. that's my feeling on it too. It's better than 2014 for sure, but it still feels off.
@@DndUnoptimized Ranger needs a repeat of 3.5, where they completely rebuilt the class from ground up. I'd say thee 3.5 Ranger is still probably one of the best designed martial PHB classes they ever made, only trumped by some prestige classes and the Book of Nine Swords.
In a vacuum it's better. Loosing power attack though. They actually deal less damage
@@robf88 Maybe? It's hard to say when we're looking at options outside of the class. If we're comparing with power attack, are we going to look at multiclassing too, like tthe new possible Mink dip for melee? What interpretation of the Dual WIelder feat are we going with? Etc.
I think it'll be a little while before we have a good grasp of what is and isn't good damage for OneD&D, but some of the early theorycrafting suggests that it'll be higher for martials than 5e overall.
Of course melee needs to do more damage than ranged. The entire foundation of the fantasy genre is built upon the viability of melee fighters, when real life teaches us the opposite.
Plainly put: if you're melee you're offering up your warm body to the opponent attacks. Ranged is significantly safer - so there absolutely must be a price to pay.
Every edition of D&D understands this (if we leave out magic for a second), EXCEPT 5.0 which for some reason dropped all the 3E restrictions on range and made ranged melee king. Which was bad for the game, so fixing it is good!
I honestly think that rangers are not combat experts nor meant to be one.. they are exploration and utility experts. I also think that not taking into account all of their control options on their spell list is doing them a disservice because by that standard the wizard would have 0 control.
Yes I felt bad doing that honestly, but I still believe that is the stereotypical ranger and that IS how much control they would do if they didn't cast control spells. I did mention several times that they CAN have great control though if they cast the right spells.
As for wizard, the stereotypical wizard is one that casts control spells.
But yes... I know that you mean and it felt bad to do it.
@@DndUnoptimized I totally get where you are coming from but I am a sucker for the comparative charts that you did. I really love them. Having the ranger’s greatest strength not reflected hurts my soul lol
Not adding damage from the party benefiting from advantage is wrong. This is a cooperative game and choosing an option that increases the entire party's damage is way more beneficial than any personal increase.
Sure you cannot predict who will be in my party. I might not even know myself who will be in my party next session (if I play at convention or in-store with random players that drop in and join in)
Bu in regular party that work together, If my party knows that I can offer them regular advantage on all their attack, well, the warlock might not need to cast darkness, allowing him to use a different spell and still benefit from the advantage I give him. And preventing the warlock from casting darkness, allowed me to shoot my arrow on the main target without being impaired by the darkness spell. and the enemy being entangle, prevent him from attacking the barbarian, so the cleric might be able to use offensive spell or wing his mace instead of healing the barbarian. And the Barbarian won't need to use topple and prone the target (giving the archer disadvantage) and he will be able to use a cleave weapon. All those synergistic changes when you added them up together they add up to way more damage then any Hunter Mark (or any pure damage spell, maybe except for the probably typo Conjure minor elemental ridiculous scaling.
Yes you cannot predict what character will be in my next party. and you cannot predict if they will adapt their strategy to mine, Is the fighter using a topple-heavy weapon? a cleave heavy weapon? maybe he is fighting two weapons with vex and nick? and this is just one possible character
Personally if I do not know the party composition and how willing the player are to adapt their strategies to synergize between each other, I assume a basic party composition made of:
Life cleric, a champion fighter, an assassin rogue and an evoker cleric and I add my character as the 5th party member. I have a basic team make up that represent every style of play usign only SRD free material (as to avoid broken combo, yes I now that the free SRD give the thief rogue and not the assassin, but the thief rogue require so many more assumption since he his so dependant on magical item, will the campaign give him magical scroll at will to use or it's a low magic campaign with almost no magical item? so to avoid this headache I took the assassin, fairly simple, straight forward no assumption required (every combat will have a first round of combat, and if the campaign do not have combat, then this entire process of calculating the damage worth of CC spell is meaningless anyway)
I think it's just impossible to add any numbers from granting your party advantage, but if you have a standard party that you use to calculate then I guess that works.
To play the ranger now, I think you need to go to Stranger. I think you want to take MI wizard as your origin feat to pick up a balde cantrip or truestrike (truestrike being better for ranged attacks and single attacks vs multi attacks, the others being better for multi attacks). Dual wield and use Nick or Great Weapon and use something like a maul for topple to get those advantage strikes or greatclub for push and grouping enemies. Carry a heavy crossbow for control and when someone is out of range. That way, you still make use of your HM feature but are not as limited as your traditional ranger build. Crusher, charger and speedy are good fits for the build as well and you have more options and can use your conjure spells more effectively.
@@neileddy6159 blade cantrips can't trigger nick since it needs an attack action, casting a cantrip is a magic action. Plus what do you plan at level 5 when you get access to multi-attacks? You're not a Valor Bard or Eldritch Knight.
Ranger struggles. The action economy is a puzzle, and Hunter's Mark concentration just becomes a hinderance to their other spells. I think it needs some homebrew to fix, which I think there are lots of good options, so it's however people can agree at their table.
Deft Explorer and Roving could/should be 1 feature. Tireless is very underwhelming. Precise Hunter is a completely wasted/useless feature by level 17.
Uh where's spike growth?
I talked about it in the video about how I won't compare it to HM. It is great, but it's not the "Stereotypical" ranger play. It's used in certain situation OR if your party is built around it, and can be a fantastic option either way.
Not really a defensive duelist fan on Ranger. Rangers have free casts of hm and this leaves all the first levels free for shield from mi wizard
Also you absolutely should see a melee build of the Ranger it’s significantly better. It’s misleading in my opinion.
I've seen several melee builds of Rangers and I do believe they can deal very good damage if done right. Twig has one that goes Fey wanderer and does the summon fey for free. That ends up being pretty good damage.
Shield is better if you want to grab it through your origin feat since it applies to all attacks, not just melee. As long as you have enough slots to handle it, then it's definitely better.
@@DndUnoptimized generally it’s the best use of your original feat. Someone else is better off with musician and while you could take alert it’s less important than defense. You can even get two usefull utility cantrips or blade cantrips/ blade ward
Sad to see one of the most iconic archetypes barely changed in terms of power but hopefully rogue will be better is that whats next ?
@@Tuga.28 yea it is sad... As for what's next, there is a poll going on, so I'll follow whatever people vote for, but personally I'm hoping for Rogue next.
Don't hold your breath for Rigue being better, surely.
I just don't understand why the class is designed around a single spell that locks up a precious commodity like Concentration. Yes, yes, multiclassing shenanigans, but then maybe HM wasn't all that well designed to begin with? When one option is so clearly the "right" option in the eyes of the developers, that just strips away all the other options, making the class as a whole less three dimensional. What good is it to play a class with OK damage and utility, if it still doesn't *feel* right, if you are having a bad time and always feel that you are restrained in your choices?
Well said
Alas, the 5 level ranger dip remains.
However, I would highly recommend a Wisdom Based Ranger build that utilizes a club or a quarterstaff + Shield with the boosted Shillelagh cantrip. Also pick up a Sling using the legacy cantrip Magic Stone to have a ranged option.
Go, beast master + summon beast. Hunters Mark if you have a big hit point boss, otherwise use control spells.
Then dip onto Cleric or Druid for more spell slots and options.
Yea, there are certainly a lot of ways to optimize ranger much more. Probably 3-5 levels of ranger is the best for optimization. And Shillelagh is a good option too, especially since you can pick it up with your fighting style.
@DndUnoptimized the build I made, I took the guide background to pick up all those Wisdom Cantrips and faerie fire. So I could still get Dualing fighting style. Also went High Elf to pick up Booming Blade. Which I will switch out to Mage hand or somthing once I get extra attack at 5.
Tbf there are some points to go for 7, 9 or 11 levels for certain features, but going beyond that is truly just unnecessary
@sharmelfattakhov5041 forsure. Especially if your subclass has features that are worth picking up.
And if Hunter mark was not under concentration, will it fox the ranger?
It has two issues. Fixing either one of them gives it a lot more potential. The first and most obvious is that concentration prevents other, perhaps better spells. The other is that it takes a bonus action every time you need to move it to another target. This makes it compete with a whole other list of spells and abilities that help the ranger do damage or other things. For example, with the two weapon fighting build, you have to have hunter's mark compete with the damage of an additional bonus action attack...so it's 3d6 competing with, potentially, something like 1d6 +5, which is something like hunter's mark doing 10 damage average vs the extra attack doing 8. If the target dies, you lose that bonus action attack again.
In contrast, summon fey just gives extra damage with only the initial spell action cast...doing damage over all the following rounds while you still do your bonus action attacks. So, a 2d6+6 to start, so 12 damage. Ignoring a setup round for convenience, that means a twf build has 8 damage from it's bonus attack, and 12 damage on average (a little less cause of hit chance) for summon fey that doesn't then have upkeep later.
This is why it annoys people so bad, because they have made this kinda meh spell a core component of the class that eats several features, but will often be beaten by a lvl 3 spell because of how costly it is for the action economy and concentration economy and therefore all those features will, for some players, get used very seldom, and for others, not at all. That kinda sucks. And that doesn't even count the extra bonus actions you can use to do some smite spells like hail of thorns to do some upcasted pretty serious damage.
This isn't to say the ranger isn't better than it was. There are spells that used to require concentration that just don't anymore, and so hunter's mark can potentially be more useful. It's just that there are so many ways to be better than hunter's mark and fixing either of these two main problems would have shifted it from meh to actually pretty good.
I think I'd rather remove the need for Bonus action to shift targets. Then Rangers can use other BA spells, and reliably use TWF with DW, or two xbows. But this probably just makes early game even crazier.
I think I'd make it a d4, bonus action cast, concentration, but free action move once per turn. Then as you get higher levels the ranger class let's you scale that damage up to a d12. Then we get better scaling, and free up BA.
The problem there, is that you end up with HM being very strong and probably outdoing every other damage dealing spell.
It really is a tough problem. I don't envy the game designers
@DndUnoptimized I mean, that's essentially divine favor without the lvl 17 advantage rider. And advantage is relatively cheap in 2024 with weapon masteries and such. Hell, divine favor isn't even concentration, it just doesn't last as long. I'd be happy with an alternate version within the spell that doesn't use the bonus action but ends after a minute...even if they dropped the damage to allow it. I could make a choice based on whether i needed to follow a target or if i needed to get through a combat.
I just kinda want to not feel bad about such a primary feature.
My favorite ranger of all time was an Outlander Paladin (Ancients). Ranger, as a class, has been ill-defined since 2e. (4e has its niche, but 3.x and 5.x tried to fill a niche often better filled by other builds.)
Unfortunately damage is rarely the issue with playing a class. If it was everyone would just play the most powerful build. Its about playing an archetype as an adventurer. 2024 is terrible for fulfilling the varied fantasy that makes a "ranger".
Of course damage isn't all that matters, that's why I put up the other combat things like durability, control, and resistance. Out of combat stuff is obviously very important too, but a lot of D&D campaigns spend a good chunk of time in battle, so it's helpful to get a rough idea.
Ranger has long had an identity problem and spellcasting comes at the cost of the Hunter and Beastmasters features. You want a class and subclass to excel in their core fantasy but they only need to be tolerable outside of it. Ranger also suffers from how unsatisfying the mechanics for exploration are. Most GMs basically skip it. Imagine playing a battlemaster fighter, but all your combats were just narratively skipped.
Yes, I agree with this. I think there are very specific campaigns where being an exploration expert will be really fulfilling, but almost no campaigns do that.
Video games have done such a disservice to TTRPG design. Rogues used to be a necessity in games, not because they had Backstab but because they kept you alive in the dungeon. Always have this argument with one of my younger players about how they think combat is literally the end all be all of D&D for "balance". With the new edition/rewrite so many things are just grey goo now... everyone gets all the same crap now. Literally everyone gets expertise in some form or another. There are a lot of things I do like with the new rules but there is at least twice as much stuff that is really freaking stupid and I won't implement in my games. I can't lay down my final judgement till I see the MM however, although I don't have high hopes.
Bottom line is that if you build a character and think they are only good if they can do damage then fine, I guess. Seems blah though to me.
That's fair, out of combat utility is very important especially at certain tables. I don't think damage is the most important, I just want players to feel strong in combat throughout their career if that's what they are made for, not dwindle down and down and watch other people get cool features while you get things you don't use.
I appreciate that wotc chose to buff an iconic spell over the life of the ranger to keep up with the other spell options. Iconic spells shouldn't lose value over time. That said, the current best ranger spell is hail if thorns for aoe smite damage at range. Such a cool spell slot option. if hunters mark could be moved with a reaction, the combo would always be used. As is, the ranger class just seems boring now if you make your two attacks and move hunters mark every turn. If you attack the same enemy for two turns, you can smite (hail of thorns) but by then, your allies are probably in melee. If I want to play a ranged character, I will probably go vengeance pal with thrown daggers, divine favor, hunters mark or enlarge, and smite spells. Rangers just lose out on interest.
Yes, I appreciate that they wanted HM to remain useful through its career, it's just too bad that going that route ends up boring and the buffs come too late.
I have 2 problems with Ranger spell list
1. For many of useful spells such as Entangle, Spike Growth, or Plant Growth, Druids gain access to them way eaelier than Rangers and due to Druid's new overhaul, it is much easier to roleplay as Ranger while playing Druids.
2. Many of more unique and cool spells, such as Conjure Barrage or Zypher Strike conpetes spell slot or concentration with other non unique spells
In short, I wonder why WotC didnt turn unique and cool Ranger Spells into class feature.
While I do agree, thankfully entangle, spike growth, and plant growth are all spells that are still useful at all levels, and there are several other ones like lesser restoration. So at least there is that.
During the playtest, hunters mark was not concentration, and made the focus on the spell far more reasonable. They reverted that despite outright approval from the playerbase, and now we are here.
To be fair, the way they hit smite in 2024 depresses me. The ranger likely now keeps up just fine with paladin.
Rogue got more interesting, without losing much besides a die of damage only if you engage with those options.
Yes they played around with Ranger quite a bit during play testing. I think everyone was nervous about it since it seemed still in flux. Well, here we are.
I def disagree w analysis
That's all good. I think the build I did is painting ranger in a bad light but that isn't representative of the whole range of builds.
The idea that best dual wielder hand crossbow loadout is to throw a nick knife, crossbow, crossbow is so dumb I'm just going to allow hand crossbow to be Nick.
Lol, the weapon juggling in this edition is crazy.
@@DndUnoptimized I mostly don't mind it. It just feels that to get the best out of it, you are railroaded to do things you don't want to do. The homebrew to fix is easy though. I think we will see widrspread use of custom weapons with alternative masteries and properties (GWM users would love heavy versions of some of the versatile weapons even if the base die is lower).
Ranger had gloomstalker, conjure animals, pass w.o trace, lifeberry, and sharpshooter holding it up. And every single one of those was nerfed. It used to have a niche as decent round 1 dmg, while providing concentration on a utility spell or CA, and being able to lifeberry dip really easily. Now? Literally no reason to go ranger:
Class mechanics? None, only a concentration tax with hm to achieve mediocre dmg. Flavor? None. No class identity included in this package. Somehow it's even more bland than 2014. No question the laziest class design in either edition.
Also the art is garbage. Really brings the whole experience togather.
It does feel a little boxed in by nerfs that is unique to ranger. I think nick is a significant buff that helps out TWFs, but there isn't a ton of other stuff.
The 2024 ranger will always feel bad because the Tasha's ranger was bad. They basically used a bandaid to fix a compound fracture.
Every class can deal damage. The ranger needed a damage buff, but these changes traded the most minor of damage buffs for a complete gutting of flavor.
The new ranger has no features that help the party be better at wilderness survival or expliration. The features that let it ignore difficult terrain are gone. The one stealth feature they have left lets them turn invisible once for 6 seconds at a level that rarely sees play and about ten levels after all the other casters get the invisibility spell.
What does ranger have left? One waste of time spell that adds one damage die to attacks on one target. And it got that feature to replace the one that gave them specialized expertise when dealing with specific creature types.
The 2014 ranger was bad, but 2024 is not an improvement. It's a lateral move at best.
Part of the problem is ranger exists for a style of play that WotC is never going to support. The fix for ranger starts with looking at third-party rules systems for overland travel and wilderness exploration and then giving the ranger features that provide buffs to those rules.
The core fantasy of the ranger is not "I can put a debuff on one creature and deal extra damage to that one creature." The core fantasies of the ranger are supercharging the party's stealth, mobility/travel, and tracking/hunting/survival capabilities.
I did a full rework of the ranger, and the core change I made was simple. I threw out favored terrains, favored creature types, and Hunter's Mark. In place of those features, rangers get favored mana.
At levels 1, 3, 6, 14, and 20 rangers pick one of the mana colors from Magic the Gathering. White, blue, black, red, green, or colorless. Every creature type, terrain type, class, background, and faction is tied to one or more colors.
When dealing with anything tied to their favored mana colors, rangers get the following.
Weapons deal one extra damage die of their base type.
Dex, Int, and Wis ability checks are made with advantage.
Travel through related terrains is much faster, and more distance can be covered in a day of traveling.
While exploring related terrains, the party rolls twice as often for discoveries or treasure and half as often for combat encounters.
Ranger 2024 design is lazy garbage.
It definitely feels like there are significant hiccups building it and using its features
It's too bad the only way to play a good Ranger is to not play a Ranger as we typically envision them and focus on spellcasting instead
It would've been nice to see the new rules improve the core chassis of the Ranger a lot more because as it is right now it's super mid
I wish they got more, especially at higher levels, yea...
Rangers seem like the worst class now. I think they should have a few changes/additions. 3 Weapon masteries, some magic actions instead of your second attack (what valor bard/EK get), Deft Explorer/Expertise being combined and come at 2/9, but be 1 language/1 expertise at 2 and at 9 (but just 1 feature instead of 2 being used), at level 9 the hunter's mark features begin, so 9/13/17 instead of 13/17/20. The old ranger capstone or a brand new one being set to the now empty 20. The Beast Companion feature becoming a spell, and the beast master getting a better version of that spell (it has awful action economy). Ranger spells seem... fine. Not sure what to do with Hunter's Mark, but the 13 at 9 would help a lot. Gloomstalker's Dread Ambush should probably get something back on short rest, instead of just Long Rest. Feywalker might be ok, but seems lack luster compared to the other Telestalkers (Shadow Monk/Feybladelock/etc). A Dex paladin is just straight up better than TWF Ranger, I think the best build atm is using a Maul. I think Rangers probably peak at level 4 or 5 atm, and it isn't the best class at that level, it just is less bad. Pretty sure every other class might out damage them. The level 14 might be ok, but yea the Ranger is bad. I like the Spell List, but I think most of the level 5 spells (only 6 of them if I recall) and I think the best two are Tree Stride (no damage) and Greater Restoration. I suppose Conjure Volley is ok. Not a fan of Swift Quiver or the Steel Wind Strike spell (it isn't awful, but some miss damage would have been nice, I suppose it could be seen as a 7 square teleport if you have that type of positioning, but seems pretty situational). Hunter still seems bad. The best overall subclass is probably the Fey Wanderer, but the best individual feature is probably Umbral Sight? The Beastmaster + 2 attacks/bonus action to tell the pet to attack, a creature that you have marked, is probably the best overall damage. I imagine you'd rather just do some sort of Heavy Crossbow build though, but then you are in stat hell with Dex/Con/Wisdom/Strength. But yea, Rogue looks better for Damage/Skill stuff, and maybe even more survivability.
TLDR: Definitely Homebrew this class, it is the worst one.
Definitely lots people could improve upon!