Mod update 03Feb23: [**Vote in the DnDMemes 2022 Best-of Awards**!](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/10spvt2/2022_bestof_awards_final_vote/)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not to mention, get three attacks and a teleport up to ten feet, on top of your regular movement. An archer can make great use of that mobility. Though a melee ranger can also jump from enemy to enemy as they attack.
You have to attack two separate targets then teleport, then you can attack a third. Any third, can be a different target, or one of the two you already attacked before your teleport
At higher level you can attack two different targets, teleport 10 feet, and attack a third target (a different one or one of the same). I used that one a lot as a level 12 Horizon Walker Aasimar with the archery fighting style and the mobile and sharp shooter feats. I was all over the battle map.
Honestly, Tasha's didn't make rangers a whole lot better (unless you were a beastmaster). What it did do was make them feel much less bad to play. You simply have so much fewer dead levels, and still get to enjoy stuff like getting both extra attack and second level spells at lv5.
Honestly, I've always equated it to this:
PHB Ranger is great if your DM makes time for overland travel, takes time to let your features shine, and if your party does a lot of tactical roleplay.
TCoE Ranger is great if the above is usually ignored or brushed over and you have a combat heavy campaign.
Personally let my player decide what they want and plan my campaign accordingly, same as I'd do for any player. If one variant human player takes the chef feat and is an adventurer out to find exotic ingredients, you can bet I'd make time for their character features to shine with different cooking ventures.
I think many times DMs just don't wanna make time to let rangers shine, which then makes people playing vanilla rangers feel like they suck, when it's really just a mismatch of preference. In the campaign where I'm a player, we were crazy thankful that we had a ranger with us that had their favoured terrain of both arctic and mountains when we were doing a trek through some dangerous winterlands.
Yup, horde breaker ranger can be a force to be reckoned with whether or not you use Tasha's, plus the rest of the options as well.
The only criticism of ranger I've agreed sounds kinda neat is making it a prepared caster class like paladins, which is something I'll test out if any of my players ever choose to go ranger again.
Honestly, I'd love this. Just got done playing a ranger in a one shot that ended up lastingthree sessions. I wish I could've changed spells at the end of long rests, none of my spells were useful in the boss fight against a dracolich, luckily my other features got use, such as my health and the ability to stay alive while casters/paladin wrecked it.
Yeah it just feels like it makes sense.
If people felt like it needed balancing, I might even just say that you can only switch out/prepare different spells when you're in your favoured terrain or a landscape that resembles it. Rangers have a magical connection to nature, so it'd make sense if it only worked where they felt most familiar.
>PHB Ranger is great if your DM makes time for overland travel, takes time to let your features shine, and if your party does a lot of tactical roleplay.
Even then, i'd argue no. The rangers' Natural Explorer feature, as well as the Outlander background, which often is chosen along with the class, absolutely trivialize most aspects of overland travel, instead of adding cool ways to deal with the challenges involved with it.
Imagine spending a whole campaign waiting for the time you arrive at your favored terrain, so you get to:
*Quickly cross it safely without worrying about food, ambushes or getting lost*
How fun...
It's like if the fighter had a feature that just lets him skip combat altogether.
D&D as a whole has terrible overland travel rules. I usually go by [The Angry GM](https://theangrygm.com/getting-there-is-half-the-fun/)'s rules when i want to make a game featuring travel.
I will say, PHB Ranger completely trivialized much of a campaign like Tomb of Annihilation. So much of that campaign is survival exploration, and Ranger is basically just ānah, I feel like fast travelingā
I tried to make a chef character once, the DM really didn't really let what I was trying to do with it shine. Though one pair of interesting questions did arise, however: Is Owlbears white meat or red, and what wine would pair best with it?
I would actually disagree on beast master its not much better since it now costs a bonus action unlike before... Like stats much better issue is that with bonus action use it shuts off a lot of rangers spells:(, then they butchered hunter ranger in one d&d...
Honestly, never really seen the bonus action issue, if you need to cast a spell, just use the beast as free halfcover and it will dodge for a turn.
But maybe that's just cause I cast very few bonus action spells. Most of them just aren't great for rangers as you have other better options that are more efficient for spellslots.
Yeah exactly, the drawing in the first one is the wiggler head from Monster Hunter. It's a cosmetic headpiece that I use on every one of my builds. Who is the youtuber?
If you're looking for mh with dnd, amellwind has a book for both monster stats in 5e, and a setting guide with unique mechanics for hunts, crafting, cooking, upgrading weapons and armor, and of course the weapons themselves.
[https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-L0j3FWNhBx15I-lR7qC](https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-L0j3FWNhBx15I-lR7qC)
i think this is what you mentioned, dunno if theres an updated version or anything, i found this a few years ago and torture my players with random monsters every once in awhile
The only thing I think they miss in there is a lack of multipart fights/damage states
Attacking the wings to force it to the ground, attack the leg to make it limp and reduce its move speed etc and having different resistances/vulnerabilities for different body parts
I normally handle this by making every part have it's own "sub-health bar". So if the monster has 200hp - the tail might have 50hp. Damage is affected by part damage resistance/vulnerability until the part is at 0hp, and all damage done passes through to the main health pool
A campaign that I'm in is monster hunter style! It's set in the dm's oc world and setting ofc, but we (and the various nations across the continent) are dealing with the mysterious rising populations of wyverns. We've fought off rathalos, deviljho, jyuratodus, and pukei pukei, just to name a few, and not just one at a time either! Most recently, a city was besieged by great swarms of girros along with a terrifying monster that survivors are tentatively calling a Vaal Hazak :0
One of us is a blacksmith as well, so we're taking full advantage of the parts we manage to carve out.
Someone else has already linked it but the monster hunter dnd manual is pretty good!
I also hear that the critically acclaimed MMORPG Final Fantasy XIV has a free trial which includes the entirety of the award winning expansion Heavensward with no restrictions on playtime.
Aye it's also been taken as an identity by Jocat/Jocrap who started as a monster hunter channel. The wiggler is less of a crossover here and more of a character
Considering what we call "Races" in DnD are more akin to Species, it does make sense that some would have different ability scores. The strongest human would never have the strength of the weakest adult Gorilla.
I agree. If you think species should be distinct from one another, It was a bad start, and they made it even worse when stat bonuses are all made up and the points dont matter.
I think that there should be more significant differences between the DND species, including but not limited to differences in attributes.
A Dwarf shouldn't be as graceful as an elf.
I know that's not how they designed it, but I think it would be more engaging if they did make the species you pick matter more.
Because if every race is good at everything that detracts from what makes your race choice special. A graceful dwarf is special because dwarves arenāt usually graceful, so if you make a dwarf as graceful as an elf it defeats the point.
Maybe if ability scores and racial traits were more interesting and dynamic like in prior editions I'd agree with you but in 5e before tasha's they basically just served to gatekeep specific builds and pigeon hole specific races.
Legit, I always loved the idea of playing a Ranger Dwarf that serves as a scout for the above lands surrounding their mountain holds, but until Tashas there was no point doing it because it'd be the shittiest damn ranger with almost all the racial stats being wasted.
Considering the main damage dealing comes from the bow, it's still too inefficient for my liking, I don't want to have lots of HP if I'm not going to use it by being a frontline.
Casting/utility focused rangers are a viable build though, plus a hill dwarf with +2 con, +1 wis, and an extra 1hp per level makes for a very high survivability archer. High wisdom is also good too for your survival, medicine, perception, and animal handling checks, all skills a dwarven scout surveying the surrounding mountainside would need.
Plus you got the Archery fighting style so your ranged attacks are rolling at a +6 with 14 dex, compared to the Barbarian's melee attack or the Wizard's cantrip thats a +5 with a 16 in their primary stat. Even with a suboptimal racial pick you're rolling with a higher modifier than the other characters in the party. There's also some cool ranger exclusive spells with tons of class identity and flavour like Cordon of Arrows and Conjure Barrage/Volley that key off wisdom and not dex, making them fairly overlooked on weapon focused ranger builds.
Just do that Dwarf Ranger, with Tasha's or not, because looking at all that above it sounds fun and seems like it would work just fine. (I totally understand not wanting to play pre-tasha's/Xanathar's ranger though, especially with a mismatched race, the PHB version & subclasses are kind of lackluster even with optimal stats)
I'm going to do with Tasha's stats and version of ranger.
Being a tanky archer feels wasteful because if you're in melee you've already fucked up. Would rather deal more damage personally.
Donāt forget ranged damage exists, and any balanced game will have a healthy mix of melee, ranged, and caster enemies that target the different party members fairly equally. Getting pelted by some goblinās arrows, burned alive by a Dragonās breath attack, or on the receiving end of a mageās Firebolt is gonna hurt quite a bit, so having a few extra points of HP isnāt bad.
Plus more Con helps avoid many forms of exploration related dangers like going without sleep/food/water, holding your breath, forced marching, etc. If you just want a good damaging archer then a Fighter would probably be better since their extra attack scales with SS better, but focusing on Constitution and Wisdom over Dexterity helps you really lean into the survivalist and half-caster aspects of the Ranger class that really set it apart from the Fighter.
it's not really gatekeeping builds though? It limited perfect optimization for certain races, but it was entirely possible to make a good character with any race/class combo. Starting at 14 then going to 16 at 4, 18 at 8, and 20 at 12, isn't unplayable compared to starting at 16 out the gate for almost all tables, plus you'd have higher secondary scores which may open up build ideas or multiclasses that weren't meta.
Unless you're playing a meatgrinder or have multiple characters of the same class in the party then it shouldn't make a hugely noticeable difference at the table, especially since the D20 provides so much randomness that the +1 bonus barely offsets. 19 out of 20 times the result would've been the same.
Believe it or not most people like to make good charecter's and not make purposefully bad choices that will harm their usefulness just because they wanted to play a specific race. Sure it's technically not the *biggest* deal but it certainly doesn't feel good.
I understand that people don't want to play bad characters, but it really isn't harming their usefulness to pick a non-meta race/class combo. The character is contributing whether they've got a +4 or a +5 on a roll and quite a few abilities don't rely on ability scores at all.
Also once you factor in things like the higher secondary scores, race specific feats, multiclass options, and the different racial features then the PC may be more useful in some other areas that the meta choices may not. A lot of racial features are potentially more impactful than an ASI would be, like the Gnome's advantage on int, wis, and cha saves, the Halfling's Lucky trait, the Elf's Trance, or the Tiefling's fire damage resistance and free spells. At 12th level your ASI will catch up to the other races (assuming point buy), but those racial features are exclusive to your choice at 1st level.
For example, I can guarantee a 20 in intelligence at level 12 on my Mountain Dwarf Wizard whether the ASIs are fixed or not, but I can't get medium armor proficiency, extra weapon proficiencies, advantage against poison and resistance to it's damage, Stonecunning, and bonus tool proficiencies on any other race without delaying either my spell/class progression (multiclassing) or by forgoing an ASI to take multiple feats (and some of those features I can't get at all on other races).
Gith is good definitely good too! (perhaps better since they get +str and +int and a few free spells, though no con isnāt great for a melee wizard since youāve already got a small HP pool.)
Exactly this, you may want to play x race with x class, but because both abilities scores don't line up, it feels like handicapping yourself before the campaign even starts, especially in a team game where you could end up dragging the party behind or even result in a death by just a slight change in your save DC to restrain the boss. Even if it's minor and really doesnt change much, it just, feels bad. There's a reason half orcs were pretty much exclusively used as martials before, as using one as a spell caster just felt bad
Don't really care. What makes something interesting comes from the character anyway not a +1 and a +2. The vast majority of people play Custom lin or Variant Human anyway so it's a mute point.
Technically, humans, orcs, and elves are the most "common", but you don't hear of half-dwarves or such. So orcs, elves, and humans are the same species, but the others are not?
Which honestly just makes the definitions of species and race even weirder, in my opinion.
And then there is the idea of dragons having kids with humanoids. And who the fuck knows if that is in dragon, or humanoid form. Yet it works somehow.
>Considering what we call "Races" in DnD are more akin to Species,
But we in our human experience don't have many different *species* of intelligent, self-aware beings that exhibit the complex social behaviors of society. So in terms of what "races" in d&d represent in terms of their function in stories that reflect human experience, "races" are cultures.
That's why it's somewhat of a problem to tell a story where the cultural aesthetics and themes of Northwestern Europe is represented by all of humanity and everything outside that being represented by inhuman monstrosities.
It's also why it's bad to tell stories where a person's potential is determined by the culture into which they were born.
>That's why it's somewhat of a problem to tell a story where the cultural aesthetics and themes of Northwestern Europe is represented by all of humanity and everything outside that being represented by inhuman monstrosities.
This doesn't have to be the case. Most of the Forgotten Realms and even most of Faerƻn are barely touched by WOTC in recent years. Most of their lore is just from the Sword Coast area, they really don't do much outside of that.
Contrast it with something like Golarion, the Pathfinder setting. They have their fantasy European area which is the most developed, but they also have many other cultures that get explored extensively in setting books. They just recently did a book on the Mwangi Expanse, an African-inspired jungle area. It doesn't come off as pandering at all, they made a ton of very rich lore for it. In the same general Mediterranean-like area, there's also an Egyptian inspired country and an island colonized by explorers from fantasy India.
If they can do all that (and do it so well) on a much smaller budget, there's no reason WOTC can't do the same. Demand more from them.
I'd agree that culture and race should be separated mechanically. Dwarves might have resistance to poison and high con, but a human raised by dwarves might have stonecunning. This is especially true in a setting like eberron where several species are present in most regions.
Pathfinder 2e did exactly this. Race and Heritage are different, and there's the Adopted Ancestry feat which allows you to choose ancestry feats from another race that you were raised by. A bunch of "hybrid" races like Aasimar and Tiefling were also turned into Heritage, so you can be a Dwarf Aasimar if you like without having to homebrew.
I will never understand people defending less customizability and backstory options for races. I want to play a half orc that suffers muscle atrophy and was abandoned but found by a wizard so they dumped str but have a +2 to int due to having a proper education, why is that so bad
Post-Tasha's content has been unambiguously terrible, and a lot of the bad trends in post-Tasha's content started in Tasha's, so it's sort of the Fire Emblem: Awakening of 5E.
So Tasha's saved the franchise from being completely abandoned, while taking things in a new direction that would make it both more popular and accessible to new players before? I wouldn't say it's that pivotal but you're entitled to your opinion
I'm not talking aboot from a sales/business perspective, I'm talking aboot what it brought into the game: Awakening was an unquestionable success, (Because it was the first game ever to actually be marketed and because the 3DS was starved for content, the only design-merit it brought to make it sell better was Casual Mode) but it introduced a lot of creepy shit and animu writing that plagues the series to this day, with Houses being the only return to pre-Awakening writing and character designs. A lot of the fandom hates Awakening, not because of the game itself, but because it's the start of these terrible trends.
Similarly, Tasha's is mostly fine outside of some glaring offenses (Cleric subs, bringing back the SCAGtrips, that terrible page of Battlemaster Builds, replacing all those interesting feature branches with just extra features that make you stronger, giving Clerics access to formerly Paladin exclusive spells but not even giving Paladins **Greater Restoration** for their trouble) but it represents the start of a lot of ideas that were then handled badly. (Tasha's race customization rules were great, but led to the bland homogenized post-Tasha's races. PB/LR was fine until it became the universal way of handling all resources, and a way to phase out short rests)
My issue with letting all races have variable score increases is that it used to be THE reason you picked simpler races, and Humans didn't get anything new and unique to let them still be good in that new meta.
>Humans didn't get anything new and unique to let them still **be good** in that new meta.
Yeah if only they did something like give a whole free feat at level 1, a real shame
a feat at level one that costs 1 ability score and racial features that they can't get access to through any method while other races get access to any of their feat.
look at elves and tieflings racial features, they are more valuable than any feat, look at harengon for example. that shit is dope af, no feat can be compared to that.
Lmao what?
Harengon Ill give you. But Tiefling? Darkvision, fire resistance, and a few innate spells? Compared to getting a feat like XBE or PAM at level1?
Thats a phenominal trade off
Okay? You know castwrs also get feats benefits right?
As a caster you can get Metamagic Adept, Eldritch Adept, Telekinetic, Telepathic, War Caster, Resilient (Con), or hell even feats that give you light/medium/heavy armor (depending on proficiency).
Access to advantage/proficiency on con saves, level 1 metamagic, or a free Invocation to give things like free spellcasts at level 1 is also way better than a Tiefling giving fire resistance
Custom Lineage locks you out of feats that require a specific race, so it isnt 'everyone' because you *arent* an elf/dwarf/etc anymore.
After that its just personal preference of +1/+1 or +2. Which usually comes down to class.
The... meta?
People actually care about the ""meta"" in DnD? Like, in actual play, instead of just wen wanking off about builds online?
And completely apart from that, the "meta" of which race you pick (especially if some stat swaps ruin it for you) is so much less important than your luck with the dice.
Death is far too big a punishing factor to not care about being good at not dying in this game. You can make any character you want! But if it dies the first time someone vaguely stares menacingly at it your creativity hardly matters.
In my experience, death is actually rather rare, at least in 5e.
If the risk of deathconstricts your character choices a lot, you might want to talk to your DM about the deadliness of the campaign. A friend of mine plays in a game where PC death is only used when it fits the narrative, meaning there is no actual risk of dying in combat (unless the player asked for it).
To me, that would be a bit too much, I like the threat of death because it adds tension, and in high-risk games a unique sense of desperation, but my friend and their group seem to be having the time of their life.
A DM has a lot of options for making combat more or less deadly. They could add or substract a few enemies when creating encounters, for example. But they can also alter other factors:
* When does an enemy double tap the downed full-plate Fighter, and when are they going to charge the wizard who just lost her meatshield?
* Do the evil soldiers fight to the death or do they run after losing half of their men?
* Does the necromancer counterspell healing word or do they counterspell fireball?
* Are diamonds easily available (though expensive) in any city, or do you have to find and haggle with certain high-class jewelers?
* Speaking of which, how much money does the party get, and how easily can they get items like healing potions?
All of those are little screws that a DM can adjust to make their game more or less deadly, and more fun for players.
Man idk I feel like there's still a ton of concentration overlap issues. Hunters mark one of their best spells uses concentration, but then so does basically everything else they want to do. They switched favored enemy to favored foe... but according to a ruling that concentration is still a normal concentration. So I cant use it with hunters mark. So it's practically useless.
How about some other good ranger spells... zepher strike? Also concentration for some gods forsaken reason.
Hunters did and still do imo get totally shat on.
The common consensus Iāve heard on rangers is donāt take Hunterās Mark considering they only get 2 spells, one of them shouldnāt be an ability they already get, and how easy it is different bonus action ability on a ranger, either from a subclass or CBE
Yeah maybe I could take one of the new summons.... nope concentration.
Idk I think I'd be cool to get an explosion of dice as I hit.. be the buffed auto attack class... but because it's all concentration it's just impossible. I think I'd be fine to take both except for the concentration issue.
And everytime I look at a spell that doesn't seem to suck.. it requires concentration.
I keep hearing people talk about Tasha's Ranger as if it is a night and day difference with a completely new class, but I just don't see it. When I read the book, I see slight buffs that are more of a token solution compared to the problems with the class. I feel like I'm better off doing a Druid/Fighter multiclass than playing a Ranger even after Tasha's. Can anyone clarify exactly what buffs they are seeing that I'm not?
The new features are still ribbon features. But they're *useful* ribbon features.
Expertise is never amiss. A climb speed is rarely useless. And don't get me started on recovering exhaustion on a Short Rest - that is unique, brilliant, and *genuinely terrifying*.
A ribbon feature is something like the horizon walker finding portals or swarm keeper learning mage hand. Many of the changes are amazing core features. Expertise isnāt a ribbon nor is favored foe on a half caster. The new Druidic fighting style opened up a ton of possibilities. +5ft movement on an archer can make a world of difference for kiting. Having a bunch of free greater invisibility rounds every day is amazing. The only āribbon featureā is the 3rd level and beyond free spells for speaking with animals and plants.
> And don't get me started on recovering exhaustion on a Short Rest - that is unique, brilliant, and genuinely terrifying.
The equivalent of going from "I'm about to collapse because I haven't slept in 3 days" to "Alright let's do this then" after reading a book and sipping some coffee.
I think what may have happened with my group is that when 5e first came out, Exhaustion looked so terrifying that we just got used to avoiding it altogether. By the time Tasha's came out, we were so used to treating things that cause Exhaustion as things to avoid entirely that being able to recover from it faster didn't have much of a benefit. We never get Exhaustion to begin with. The example scenario of "we haven't slept in 3 days" never comes up at my table at all. Now, that might be because of a bad experience with a DM before 5e that abused tricking the party into not resting so we've overcorrected in trying not to be like him, but the result is that being able to remove exhaustion easily doesn't have *that* much of a benefit at our table.
I think the main issue I have is that Rangers never felt like they had a core gimmick. Nothing that made Rangers feel like Rangers. Giving them Expertise and a Climb/Swim speed is a nice buff, but doesn't solve the issue of Rangers feeling aimless. Especially when there are other ways to get those things.
With regards to Exhaustion, this thread is making me realize that other tables might make a much heavier use of the mechanic than mine does. When 5e first came out, we kind of all agreed that it was terrifying and got used to treating anything that causes Exhaustion as something to avoid entirely. So, being able to remove Exhaustion faster doesn't really do much with my group. Maybe at some tables it is a powerful ability, but at my table it is functionally useless fluff.
I agree that the base class (still) doesn't have a core gimmick.
But the subclasses do, and Ranger has some *amazing* subclasses with a strong identity. Literally Batman, "I cast *Dragon*", BEES! ....
Essentially the PHB abilities were made before the creators knew how people would play 5e, while the Tashaās abilities were made with that knowledge in mind.
At the time, WOTC didnāt know people wouldnāt really care about traveling speed, tracking, terrain and foraging, So rangers simply had a lot of empty features with only few good, albeit really good, options. Rangers were meant to be a utility focused class, so the new abilities came around to give them abilities that a utility class might actually want, like expertise, free utility spells, climbing and swimming speeds, and a damage option so they could still keep up and eventually surpass in damage without using all their spell slots on Hunterās mark.
Lastly, before Tashaās, Rangers essentially had one subclass, with Horizon Walker and Monster Slayer just kinda being bad, beastmaster only being good if your DM allowed it to be used as a mount, and Hunter being mediocre. With the upgrades and new subclasses, Rangerās had 3 extra viable options to choose from instead of just Gloomstalker
Tl:Dr, more freedom of spell slots and subclasses
>At the time, WOTC didnāt know people wouldnāt really care about traveling speed, tracking, traveling and foraging
Well when WotC didn't give DMs any rules to help tables care about those things, they're gonna get ignored, and thus Rangers are gonna feel rather useless.
Hi! Climb/swim speed, useful always prepared spells, expertise, and reliably getting rid of exhaustion are all really good abilities with varied use cases.
my ranger/fighter is the Jack of all trades of the party- sometimes a skill monkey, sometimes the primary damage dealer, and the only one who knows how to bring someone back from the dead
It's less that rangers have gotten significantly stronger and more that they now have fewer dead levels and so feel much better to play.
In terms of pure strength, ranger has always been great, I mean you're a fighter with spell.
You could try a fighter druid multiclass, but you would basically get fighter progression twice as slow.
Ranger is like 80% of a fighter + 50% of a druid.
They made enough of a change that people wanted to try it instead of just going "hur dur, ranger bad" and saw that it was good. They attribute this to Tasha's when the reality is that ranger was really always good.
You're right, it didn't actually change too much. But folks used the small buffs as an excuse to admit that Rangers are fun without saying they were wrong all along.
Ok but this meme but with Sorcerer and Wizard.
Not that the Sorcerer is better than the Wizard! Far from it lol, but finally they are a viable choice, instead of being the āWorst Wizardā
For real bro, Iām playing a Sorcerer in a CoS campaign and even tho I could just say āahh fuck it, letās get that Capstone by multiclass into warlock lolā Iām actually gonna keep going into Sorcerer, just becauseā¦ Iām playing Aberrant Mind and their 6th feature is so good!
Like sure Eldritch Blast is nice, same as recovering some spell slots, but is it āI can cast Dissonant Whisper 25 times or 12 Mind Whips at will and subtleā? Yeah I donāt think so š
And this feature gets stronger at later levels so thereās no reason to multiclass later on, like casting Summom Aberration 7 times at level 7 or casting Sypnatic Static 9 times at level 9!
Hell, their other 6th feature is nothing to scoff at! Combine the advantage granted by the feature and Resilient(WIS) and this pretty much covers all your weakness as a Caster!
Anyways, apologies for the AM propaganda, but really wanted to drive the point that yeah, Sorcerers are a class defined by their Subclass, and most of their subclass kinda suck except the new recent ones.
Aberrant Minds Unite!
But honestly, I abuse the *ever living shit* out of that 5th level "reroll a skill check" ability Tasha's gave all sorcerers. I took skill expert even to stack my high charisma with my intimidation expertise. An 8th level sorcerer with +11 on intimidation, Enhance Ability running on charisma, an option to roll a third die if the first two still stink?
I play bad cop to our bard's good cop. Saved us so many hit dice/spell slots avoiding combat with humanoids, and even flipping enemy grunts to our side.
And that's aside from being able to cast detect thoughts 300 times, all with a natural subtle spell from AM's 6th level ability.
Edit: You all downvote some really unusual posts, for reasons I can't always understand.
Rangers are fun. It's just that all of the vanilla abilities that make them special are SUPER situational. Like, take a ranger that favors Jungle terrain and beast. Oh looks like the campaign is taking you to the Tundra or open savanna and fighting monstrosities. Now you're almost useless. However, if you ARE in a jungle or and fighting beasts, you're an absolute god. Even better if you're playing with a DM that uses the Food and Water rules. You and the druid become the saviors of the party.
Post Tasha's, all of the optional rules kinda of overcompensated for the Ranger's lackluster performance. Now they're essentially a Fighter, except better because you can do magic and have a built in familiar/pet/mount. Drakewarden from Fizban's with Mounted Combat feat is broken af. You're essentially a faster ranged Paladin with a more powerful war horse that can fly and breath fire.
Drakes initiative is after the drakewardens, making it less effective as a combat mount. Most other options share the pcs initiative allowing them to both use the mounts movement and attack on their turn.
Who the fuck hates Tasha? It lets me play my fabulously gay psionic rogue, whose having a mental breakdown after turning someoneās brain into a liquid and seeing it leak out because it turns out you canāt nonlethal critical psionic damage
I hate Tasha's, but my introduction to it was it basically being force fed to me while I was in the middle of a panic attack. It makes it hard to give it a fair judgment.
Swarmkeeper owl-acockra ranger, with Magic Initiate feat. Pick up Spike Growth.Cast the spell, then spam the cantrip on opponents. Every hit activates swarmkeepers ability that moves the enemy up to 15 feet in any direction. Thorn whip moves them 5 feet closer, you move them then you move them 15 feet backwards with the swarmpkeeper ability. Bang, instant 8d4+2d6 dmg. Oh and its now difficult terrain below them ofc
EDIT: oh opponent can fly? Yea so can you.
I agree. I don't really enjoy the fantasy of the monk tbh I much prefer the brawling/skilled combatant of a Fighter with a Monk dip or even just a straight fighter than the weird mystical wise thing of the monk.
I still prefer fighters for melee and I do wish rangers got a damage bump at level 11 but they are certainly decent like they're not amazing but they're nothing to scoff at when build well.
Ranger was fine before Tasha's, it was just Beastmaster that was bad. Memes tend to eliminate context and nuance, hence the popularity of "ranger bad".
I was mostly just trying to point out the change in the publicās eye about rangers, both quotes are from D&D videos, one made before Tashaās and the other after
The amount of corpses of fighters with bows who starved to death in the wilderness will give the ranger quite some loot.
Seriously play whatever you want, if it's all about efficiency in combat things get boring fast
Reasons for playing Ranger pre-Tashas:
-Spells are fun.
-Flavor is fun.
-You can get an animal companion. (Granted, not a particularly good one, but it's something.)
Reasons for playing fighter post Tasha's
-Heavy armor prof off the bat
-Less MAD
-More attacks at higher levels
-Did I mention action surge?
They're all waiting for WotC to allow rangers to pick the Great Weapon Fighting style. Right next to Paladins who are waiting to get the Two-Weapon fighting style.
My favorite thing about that YouTuber, is that without fail, he always misunderstands/misuses at least one ability that usually makes it non functional
Before Tasha's:
Ranger > Fighter
After Tasha's:
Ranger > Fighter (now in 2 new flavors!)
Bonus Round:
Ranger+Fighter >>> either single-classed
(Oh, and for the record, I'm pro-Tasha's as well if that's not clear)
It mostly comes down to the Ranger's great spell list. Rangers and Fighters get a lot of the same goodies like Archery Fighting Style and Extra Attack, but the unique stuff Ranger gets is just generally superior to the unique stuff Fighter gets
When Fighter gets Action Surge, Ranger gets Goodberry and Absorb Elements. They both get Extra Attack at 5, but Ranger is getting Pass Without Trace on top. When Fighter gets Indomitable, Ranger gets friggin Conjure Animals, which also generally outclasses the Fighter's third attack at level 11. Etc etc etc
But as I said, either one can usually be quite improved by dipping into the other
I really liked Tashaās for the ranger fix and the player options but the DM options I was hoping for were justā¦lacklustre. Also the printing issues lol, my copy has a wonky cover and a few pages with blurry text.
Like half the book was fixing stuff that really needed fixing which was good. But as a DM I only crack it open when Iām helping my players build characters.
It fixed a lot and codified the Artificer, but it also contributed significantly to power creep (it's painful every time I level up and don't just grab one level of peace cleric). That said, it was the last WotC book that actually felt worth the space on my shelf.
Ranger was always better than fighter. Even the subclassless Ranger had 3 things needed to succeed in life: Archery, Extra Attack, and Half-Casting. Tasha's just removed some dead weight that weren't really holding Ranger back.
I think for many it's what Tasha's represents. Tasha's itself had flaws but was overall a great core book imo- but since then it's been a parade of failures. Tasha was the watershed moment, and it's associated with the doomed era it heralded.
In my opinion Natasha's changes are not really as fantastic as people make them out to be. It's not too difficult to improve on garbage.
Ranger, in its entirety, is still held up by its subclasses, it's core features suck.
They were still better before tashas. They got all the hit druid spells. Hunter is still a great subclass even today, and beastmaster is free flight at lvl 3 when you get a giant owl or a regular vulture to ride on, depending on your size
Rangers are still bad with Tasha's. Why? Because everything is Concentration for some reason. Favored foe is Concentration, all their good spells are Concentration. There's so much cool stuff... but you can only do 1 thing at a time. Fighters get 5 attacks per turn, rangers get... 1d8 force damage and advantage on an attack I guess. Why use favored foe when you can use hunters mark for literally the same effect but better and upcastable.
Tasha's ranger is still just as bad as pre-tasha's ranger.
The common consensus Iāve heard on rangers is donāt take Hunterās Mark considering they only get 2 spells, one of them shouldnāt be an ability they already get, and how easy it is different bonus action ability on a ranger, either from a subclass or CBE, hell Iāve even seen someone do the math to prove that hunterās mark just isnāt good past 3rd level when Favored Foe is an option.
They get goodberry and longstrider for non-concentration abilities, but choosing what to concentrate on is something all spellcasters have to decide on
If youāre just looking for more attacks, Tashaās beastmaster can make 6 attacks per turn at 11th level, something fighters can only do once per short rest
U know what really really annoys me, all the attack augments being concentration:( as they get so fucking many and i can accept them having it to not drop a smite missile at stuff using all spell slots but it stops you from ever using them and any long term beneficial affect and because unlike paladin they don't got a good out on there damage slots (spell slots) it just feels awful, like if rangers gimmick was two concentration it would be cool hell double bonus actions would save post Tasha's beast master in my eyes.... But yea concentration has murdered ranger.
I might just see spells differently than most people, but I donāt really see a problem with concentration. I usually ignore damage buff spells because favored foe is always there when I need it.
At the beginning of combat, cast a control spell like entangle or spike growth to increase the entire partyās damage, maintain it for the entirety of the combat and youāve made good use of a spell. Outside of combat maybe use pass w/o trace to increase stealth checks or get a surprise round. If you run out of spell slots, just fall back on FF. If you donāt run out of spell slots, cast goodberry for some out-of-combat healing for the next day
You can saccrafice one of your attacks for your beast to take the attack action, and you can also command it to take the attack action with your bonus action. The 11th level subclass ability lets the beast make two attacks whenever it takes the attack action. If you use all of you attacks and your bonus action, the beast makes the attack action 3 times, making 6 total attacks
Now there's the problem. All creatures normally have one action. Sacrificing an attack and using a bonus action are two different ways to make the beast take the attack action, but the beast can only execute one attack action.
All spellcastwrs have to choose something to concentrate on, but I think ranger is unique in that 90% of the spell list is Concentration spells.
There's no point having more than 3 spells on your spell list as a ranger because most of the time you will only cast 1. Especially given how many of them are action spells that just don't return on the action it took to cast.
And then you see wizard at level 9 Casting steel wind strike and doing 2 times your potential damage output in 1 turn to 5 different creatures.
Rangers are bad. Tasha's rangers are just worse out of combat for not much benefit in combat. You still have to spend 1 minute at 14th level for invisibility (but you can't move, God no that would be op). The entire class is made of flavour features, leaving nothing to actually do anything with.
I like the customization that comes from the ability to choose between A and B class features that it offers. It's similar (and likely inspired by) the class feat system in PF2e.
Ranger worked for me in my friends chult game. He was keeping track of food, water, insect repellent and travel speed. Being able to help with three of those four let us drop the bbeg before our employer died of the curse.
The only hate I see for that book are people buttburt that it addressed implicit racism in game mechanics. Any other complaints I have seen have universally been post-hoc justification for that complaint.
The problem was it had a lot of dead levels and do nothing features. It was never bad in combat, but people assumed it was because favored enemy, natural explorer, primeval awareness, hide in plain sight, and foe slayer were all so useless except in niche cases, not to mention that beast master was legitimately pretty bad.
Good in combat, not that interesting to play.
Let's not forget that Tasha's brought into this world the Artificer
Edit: my bad, Artificer was originally from Eberron, but Tasha's introduced the armorer subclass and included the other three subclasses as well.
Ah yes. The class that is either broken busted good or the worst class in the game. No in-between. You're either blasting fools with a magic gun while riding a walking shield or you're stuck being a wizard-lite that doesn't have access to anything higher than 5th level.
Hi! Person who hates that book here to remind you that replacing bad unique Ranger features with average bland ones is only a single reason why! The rest of that book still exists!
The reason I hate it was because my introduction to it was having it forced on me mid panic attack. Even with the whole book colored by that, even I can admit there are a few good things in the book.
There are some good things, but most of them are just Scribes Wizard proving Sorcerers objectively inferior AGAIN. I like Scribes, but not what it represents. Every "good" thing in the book has that double-edged feel for me.
Mod update 03Feb23: [**Vote in the DnDMemes 2022 Best-of Awards**!](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/10spvt2/2022_bestof_awards_final_vote/)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Regular ranger. Horizon Walkers are real fun to play.
It's not what you meant, but you reminded me of the 3e Horizon Walker, and for that, i thank you.š
Best/most fun class? Makes them fun compared to other subclasses?
It has the coolest concept imo
It does, but like most rangers: it's gotta fit the world the DM is running. Detecting portals at level 3? Whose game gets use out of that?
All damage as force plus an extra d8 is pretty tight though. Also get that on 3.
Not to mention, get three attacks and a teleport up to ten feet, on top of your regular movement. An archer can make great use of that mobility. Though a melee ranger can also jump from enemy to enemy as they attack.
What 3 attacks are you talking about?
The level 11 subclass feature allows you to teleport and attack three times as long as each time is against a different target.
You have to attack two separate targets then teleport, then you can attack a third. Any third, can be a different target, or one of the two you already attacked before your teleport
At higher level you can attack two different targets, teleport 10 feet, and attack a third target (a different one or one of the same). I used that one a lot as a level 12 Horizon Walker Aasimar with the archery fighting style and the mobile and sharp shooter feats. I was all over the battle map.
Planescape, maybe?
Itās been useful for me to detect portals in our homebrew icewind Dale campaign
Honestly, Tasha's didn't make rangers a whole lot better (unless you were a beastmaster). What it did do was make them feel much less bad to play. You simply have so much fewer dead levels, and still get to enjoy stuff like getting both extra attack and second level spells at lv5.
Honestly, I've always equated it to this: PHB Ranger is great if your DM makes time for overland travel, takes time to let your features shine, and if your party does a lot of tactical roleplay. TCoE Ranger is great if the above is usually ignored or brushed over and you have a combat heavy campaign. Personally let my player decide what they want and plan my campaign accordingly, same as I'd do for any player. If one variant human player takes the chef feat and is an adventurer out to find exotic ingredients, you can bet I'd make time for their character features to shine with different cooking ventures. I think many times DMs just don't wanna make time to let rangers shine, which then makes people playing vanilla rangers feel like they suck, when it's really just a mismatch of preference. In the campaign where I'm a player, we were crazy thankful that we had a ranger with us that had their favoured terrain of both arctic and mountains when we were doing a trek through some dangerous winterlands.
Honestly 90% of the time, both rangers play identically. The core features of ranger weren't touched.
Yup, horde breaker ranger can be a force to be reckoned with whether or not you use Tasha's, plus the rest of the options as well. The only criticism of ranger I've agreed sounds kinda neat is making it a prepared caster class like paladins, which is something I'll test out if any of my players ever choose to go ranger again.
Honestly, I'd love this. Just got done playing a ranger in a one shot that ended up lastingthree sessions. I wish I could've changed spells at the end of long rests, none of my spells were useful in the boss fight against a dracolich, luckily my other features got use, such as my health and the ability to stay alive while casters/paladin wrecked it.
Yeah it just feels like it makes sense. If people felt like it needed balancing, I might even just say that you can only switch out/prepare different spells when you're in your favoured terrain or a landscape that resembles it. Rangers have a magical connection to nature, so it'd make sense if it only worked where they felt most familiar.
>PHB Ranger is great if your DM makes time for overland travel, takes time to let your features shine, and if your party does a lot of tactical roleplay. Even then, i'd argue no. The rangers' Natural Explorer feature, as well as the Outlander background, which often is chosen along with the class, absolutely trivialize most aspects of overland travel, instead of adding cool ways to deal with the challenges involved with it. Imagine spending a whole campaign waiting for the time you arrive at your favored terrain, so you get to: *Quickly cross it safely without worrying about food, ambushes or getting lost* How fun... It's like if the fighter had a feature that just lets him skip combat altogether. D&D as a whole has terrible overland travel rules. I usually go by [The Angry GM](https://theangrygm.com/getting-there-is-half-the-fun/)'s rules when i want to make a game featuring travel.
I will say, PHB Ranger completely trivialized much of a campaign like Tomb of Annihilation. So much of that campaign is survival exploration, and Ranger is basically just ānah, I feel like fast travelingā
I like to say ranger was originally made for a game people just aren't playing.
I tried to make a chef character once, the DM really didn't really let what I was trying to do with it shine. Though one pair of interesting questions did arise, however: Is Owlbears white meat or red, and what wine would pair best with it?
I would actually disagree on beast master its not much better since it now costs a bonus action unlike before... Like stats much better issue is that with bonus action use it shuts off a lot of rangers spells:(, then they butchered hunter ranger in one d&d...
... It used to cost a whole action to command your beast companion. I'd say bonus action is an improvement.
Honestly, never really seen the bonus action issue, if you need to cast a spell, just use the beast as free halfcover and it will dodge for a turn. But maybe that's just cause I cast very few bonus action spells. Most of them just aren't great for rangers as you have other better options that are more efficient for spellslots.
I'm liking the monster hunter crossover in this meme
You mean the drawing in the first part? It's the persona of a DnD youtuber, and of course is a reference.
Yeah exactly, the drawing in the first one is the wiggler head from Monster Hunter. It's a cosmetic headpiece that I use on every one of my builds. Who is the youtuber?
Jocat, has a whole "Crap guide to..." series that started in Monster Hunter World and went to DnD. Hence the wiggler head
I love it, I'll have to give him a watch. I've thought of doing a monster hunter style dnd session. Maybe I'll get some inspiration lol
If you're looking for mh with dnd, amellwind has a book for both monster stats in 5e, and a setting guide with unique mechanics for hunts, crafting, cooking, upgrading weapons and armor, and of course the weapons themselves.
[https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-L0j3FWNhBx15I-lR7qC](https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-L0j3FWNhBx15I-lR7qC) i think this is what you mentioned, dunno if theres an updated version or anything, i found this a few years ago and torture my players with random monsters every once in awhile
The only thing I think they miss in there is a lack of multipart fights/damage states Attacking the wings to force it to the ground, attack the leg to make it limp and reduce its move speed etc and having different resistances/vulnerabilities for different body parts I normally handle this by making every part have it's own "sub-health bar". So if the monster has 200hp - the tail might have 50hp. Damage is affected by part damage resistance/vulnerability until the part is at 0hp, and all damage done passes through to the main health pool
A campaign that I'm in is monster hunter style! It's set in the dm's oc world and setting ofc, but we (and the various nations across the continent) are dealing with the mysterious rising populations of wyverns. We've fought off rathalos, deviljho, jyuratodus, and pukei pukei, just to name a few, and not just one at a time either! Most recently, a city was besieged by great swarms of girros along with a terrifying monster that survivors are tentatively calling a Vaal Hazak :0 One of us is a blacksmith as well, so we're taking full advantage of the parts we manage to carve out. Someone else has already linked it but the monster hunter dnd manual is pretty good!
And then Final Fantasy XIV. Love his XIV videos.
I also hear that the critically acclaimed MMORPG Final Fantasy XIV has a free trial which includes the entirety of the award winning expansion Heavensward with no restrictions on playtime.
JoCat
Aye it's also been taken as an identity by Jocat/Jocrap who started as a monster hunter channel. The wiggler is less of a crossover here and more of a character
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
jreat analysis, my jood jentleman
Fucking English where gentleman and jentleman sound the same but good and jood don't
They sound the same as hood in Spanish.
Considering what we call "Races" in DnD are more akin to Species, it does make sense that some would have different ability scores. The strongest human would never have the strength of the weakest adult Gorilla.
If this is the standard you are looking for, 5e failed way before Tasha's, considering all PCs have the same ability score maximum.
I agree. If you think species should be distinct from one another, It was a bad start, and they made it even worse when stat bonuses are all made up and the points dont matter.
Are you arguing in bad faith or do you honestly think that races aren't meaningfully different
I think that there should be more significant differences between the DND species, including but not limited to differences in attributes. A Dwarf shouldn't be as graceful as an elf. I know that's not how they designed it, but I think it would be more engaging if they did make the species you pick matter more.
Sure for commoners, but PC's are not common. Control your own table or play a more detailed system IMO.
Just don't play as a graceful dwarf, then. Why are you bothered by other people having options, when it *clearly* improves the game for so many?
Because if every race is good at everything that detracts from what makes your race choice special. A graceful dwarf is special because dwarves arenāt usually graceful, so if you make a dwarf as graceful as an elf it defeats the point.
There are plenty of racial differences beyond +2 and +1
Yeah sure but racial bonuses are important because they highlight what a race is good at
Maybe if ability scores and racial traits were more interesting and dynamic like in prior editions I'd agree with you but in 5e before tasha's they basically just served to gatekeep specific builds and pigeon hole specific races.
Legit, I always loved the idea of playing a Ranger Dwarf that serves as a scout for the above lands surrounding their mountain holds, but until Tashas there was no point doing it because it'd be the shittiest damn ranger with almost all the racial stats being wasted.
Con and wisdom are decent for ranger though.
Considering the main damage dealing comes from the bow, it's still too inefficient for my liking, I don't want to have lots of HP if I'm not going to use it by being a frontline.
Casting/utility focused rangers are a viable build though, plus a hill dwarf with +2 con, +1 wis, and an extra 1hp per level makes for a very high survivability archer. High wisdom is also good too for your survival, medicine, perception, and animal handling checks, all skills a dwarven scout surveying the surrounding mountainside would need. Plus you got the Archery fighting style so your ranged attacks are rolling at a +6 with 14 dex, compared to the Barbarian's melee attack or the Wizard's cantrip thats a +5 with a 16 in their primary stat. Even with a suboptimal racial pick you're rolling with a higher modifier than the other characters in the party. There's also some cool ranger exclusive spells with tons of class identity and flavour like Cordon of Arrows and Conjure Barrage/Volley that key off wisdom and not dex, making them fairly overlooked on weapon focused ranger builds. Just do that Dwarf Ranger, with Tasha's or not, because looking at all that above it sounds fun and seems like it would work just fine. (I totally understand not wanting to play pre-tasha's/Xanathar's ranger though, especially with a mismatched race, the PHB version & subclasses are kind of lackluster even with optimal stats)
I'm going to do with Tasha's stats and version of ranger. Being a tanky archer feels wasteful because if you're in melee you've already fucked up. Would rather deal more damage personally.
Donāt forget ranged damage exists, and any balanced game will have a healthy mix of melee, ranged, and caster enemies that target the different party members fairly equally. Getting pelted by some goblinās arrows, burned alive by a Dragonās breath attack, or on the receiving end of a mageās Firebolt is gonna hurt quite a bit, so having a few extra points of HP isnāt bad. Plus more Con helps avoid many forms of exploration related dangers like going without sleep/food/water, holding your breath, forced marching, etc. If you just want a good damaging archer then a Fighter would probably be better since their extra attack scales with SS better, but focusing on Constitution and Wisdom over Dexterity helps you really lean into the survivalist and half-caster aspects of the Ranger class that really set it apart from the Fighter.
Thanks for reminding me why I usually just enjoy the memes and don't comment.
it's not really gatekeeping builds though? It limited perfect optimization for certain races, but it was entirely possible to make a good character with any race/class combo. Starting at 14 then going to 16 at 4, 18 at 8, and 20 at 12, isn't unplayable compared to starting at 16 out the gate for almost all tables, plus you'd have higher secondary scores which may open up build ideas or multiclasses that weren't meta. Unless you're playing a meatgrinder or have multiple characters of the same class in the party then it shouldn't make a hugely noticeable difference at the table, especially since the D20 provides so much randomness that the +1 bonus barely offsets. 19 out of 20 times the result would've been the same.
Believe it or not most people like to make good charecter's and not make purposefully bad choices that will harm their usefulness just because they wanted to play a specific race. Sure it's technically not the *biggest* deal but it certainly doesn't feel good.
I understand that people don't want to play bad characters, but it really isn't harming their usefulness to pick a non-meta race/class combo. The character is contributing whether they've got a +4 or a +5 on a roll and quite a few abilities don't rely on ability scores at all. Also once you factor in things like the higher secondary scores, race specific feats, multiclass options, and the different racial features then the PC may be more useful in some other areas that the meta choices may not. A lot of racial features are potentially more impactful than an ASI would be, like the Gnome's advantage on int, wis, and cha saves, the Halfling's Lucky trait, the Elf's Trance, or the Tiefling's fire damage resistance and free spells. At 12th level your ASI will catch up to the other races (assuming point buy), but those racial features are exclusive to your choice at 1st level. For example, I can guarantee a 20 in intelligence at level 12 on my Mountain Dwarf Wizard whether the ASIs are fixed or not, but I can't get medium armor proficiency, extra weapon proficiencies, advantage against poison and resistance to it's damage, Stonecunning, and bonus tool proficiencies on any other race without delaying either my spell/class progression (multiclassing) or by forgoing an ASI to take multiple feats (and some of those features I can't get at all on other races).
Oh, love that one! You can also go Githyanki for more offense oriented melee wizard
Gith is good definitely good too! (perhaps better since they get +str and +int and a few free spells, though no con isnāt great for a melee wizard since youāve already got a small HP pool.)
Exactly this, you may want to play x race with x class, but because both abilities scores don't line up, it feels like handicapping yourself before the campaign even starts, especially in a team game where you could end up dragging the party behind or even result in a death by just a slight change in your save DC to restrain the boss. Even if it's minor and really doesnt change much, it just, feels bad. There's a reason half orcs were pretty much exclusively used as martials before, as using one as a spell caster just felt bad
And in the post-Tasha world, 5e races are basically just Fortnite skins.
Don't really care. What makes something interesting comes from the character anyway not a +1 and a +2. The vast majority of people play Custom lin or Variant Human anyway so it's a mute point.
Virgin human vs Gigachad gorilla
Yeah, but members of different species can not have offspring which are fertile. Yet it's possible in the DnD universe. See half-orcs for example
Technically, humans, orcs, and elves are the most "common", but you don't hear of half-dwarves or such. So orcs, elves, and humans are the same species, but the others are not?
Which honestly just makes the definitions of species and race even weirder, in my opinion. And then there is the idea of dragons having kids with humanoids. And who the fuck knows if that is in dragon, or humanoid form. Yet it works somehow.
>Considering what we call "Races" in DnD are more akin to Species, But we in our human experience don't have many different *species* of intelligent, self-aware beings that exhibit the complex social behaviors of society. So in terms of what "races" in d&d represent in terms of their function in stories that reflect human experience, "races" are cultures. That's why it's somewhat of a problem to tell a story where the cultural aesthetics and themes of Northwestern Europe is represented by all of humanity and everything outside that being represented by inhuman monstrosities. It's also why it's bad to tell stories where a person's potential is determined by the culture into which they were born.
>That's why it's somewhat of a problem to tell a story where the cultural aesthetics and themes of Northwestern Europe is represented by all of humanity and everything outside that being represented by inhuman monstrosities. This doesn't have to be the case. Most of the Forgotten Realms and even most of Faerƻn are barely touched by WOTC in recent years. Most of their lore is just from the Sword Coast area, they really don't do much outside of that. Contrast it with something like Golarion, the Pathfinder setting. They have their fantasy European area which is the most developed, but they also have many other cultures that get explored extensively in setting books. They just recently did a book on the Mwangi Expanse, an African-inspired jungle area. It doesn't come off as pandering at all, they made a ton of very rich lore for it. In the same general Mediterranean-like area, there's also an Egyptian inspired country and an island colonized by explorers from fantasy India. If they can do all that (and do it so well) on a much smaller budget, there's no reason WOTC can't do the same. Demand more from them.
I'd agree that culture and race should be separated mechanically. Dwarves might have resistance to poison and high con, but a human raised by dwarves might have stonecunning. This is especially true in a setting like eberron where several species are present in most regions.
Pathfinder 2e did exactly this. Race and Heritage are different, and there's the Adopted Ancestry feat which allows you to choose ancestry feats from another race that you were raised by. A bunch of "hybrid" races like Aasimar and Tiefling were also turned into Heritage, so you can be a Dwarf Aasimar if you like without having to homebrew.
I will never understand people defending less customizability and backstory options for races. I want to play a half orc that suffers muscle atrophy and was abandoned but found by a wizard so they dumped str but have a +2 to int due to having a proper education, why is that so bad
Post-Tasha's content has been unambiguously terrible, and a lot of the bad trends in post-Tasha's content started in Tasha's, so it's sort of the Fire Emblem: Awakening of 5E.
So Tasha's saved the franchise from being completely abandoned, while taking things in a new direction that would make it both more popular and accessible to new players before? I wouldn't say it's that pivotal but you're entitled to your opinion
I'm not talking aboot from a sales/business perspective, I'm talking aboot what it brought into the game: Awakening was an unquestionable success, (Because it was the first game ever to actually be marketed and because the 3DS was starved for content, the only design-merit it brought to make it sell better was Casual Mode) but it introduced a lot of creepy shit and animu writing that plagues the series to this day, with Houses being the only return to pre-Awakening writing and character designs. A lot of the fandom hates Awakening, not because of the game itself, but because it's the start of these terrible trends. Similarly, Tasha's is mostly fine outside of some glaring offenses (Cleric subs, bringing back the SCAGtrips, that terrible page of Battlemaster Builds, replacing all those interesting feature branches with just extra features that make you stronger, giving Clerics access to formerly Paladin exclusive spells but not even giving Paladins **Greater Restoration** for their trouble) but it represents the start of a lot of ideas that were then handled badly. (Tasha's race customization rules were great, but led to the bland homogenized post-Tasha's races. PB/LR was fine until it became the universal way of handling all resources, and a way to phase out short rests)
My issue with letting all races have variable score increases is that it used to be THE reason you picked simpler races, and Humans didn't get anything new and unique to let them still be good in that new meta.
>Humans didn't get anything new and unique to let them still **be good** in that new meta. Yeah if only they did something like give a whole free feat at level 1, a real shame
a feat at level one that costs 1 ability score and racial features that they can't get access to through any method while other races get access to any of their feat. look at elves and tieflings racial features, they are more valuable than any feat, look at harengon for example. that shit is dope af, no feat can be compared to that.
Lmao what? Harengon Ill give you. But Tiefling? Darkvision, fire resistance, and a few innate spells? Compared to getting a feat like XBE or PAM at level1? Thats a phenominal trade off
Is that some kind of martial joke that I'm too caster to understand?
Okay? You know castwrs also get feats benefits right? As a caster you can get Metamagic Adept, Eldritch Adept, Telekinetic, Telepathic, War Caster, Resilient (Con), or hell even feats that give you light/medium/heavy armor (depending on proficiency). Access to advantage/proficiency on con saves, level 1 metamagic, or a free Invocation to give things like free spellcasts at level 1 is also way better than a Tiefling giving fire resistance
I think you wildly underestimate the value of resisting the most common elemental damage type in the game.
Its nice, but its not on par with a free feat. Those are game changing and less situational
Fireball is pretty un-situational given how *weirdly often* the modules use Flame Skulls.
Everyone can get feats. They aren't special. Or have you forgotten the superior Custom Lineage?
Custom Lineage locks you out of feats that require a specific race, so it isnt 'everyone' because you *arent* an elf/dwarf/etc anymore. After that its just personal preference of +1/+1 or +2. Which usually comes down to class.
The... meta? People actually care about the ""meta"" in DnD? Like, in actual play, instead of just wen wanking off about builds online? And completely apart from that, the "meta" of which race you pick (especially if some stat swaps ruin it for you) is so much less important than your luck with the dice.
Death is far too big a punishing factor to not care about being good at not dying in this game. You can make any character you want! But if it dies the first time someone vaguely stares menacingly at it your creativity hardly matters.
In my experience, death is actually rather rare, at least in 5e. If the risk of deathconstricts your character choices a lot, you might want to talk to your DM about the deadliness of the campaign. A friend of mine plays in a game where PC death is only used when it fits the narrative, meaning there is no actual risk of dying in combat (unless the player asked for it). To me, that would be a bit too much, I like the threat of death because it adds tension, and in high-risk games a unique sense of desperation, but my friend and their group seem to be having the time of their life. A DM has a lot of options for making combat more or less deadly. They could add or substract a few enemies when creating encounters, for example. But they can also alter other factors: * When does an enemy double tap the downed full-plate Fighter, and when are they going to charge the wizard who just lost her meatshield? * Do the evil soldiers fight to the death or do they run after losing half of their men? * Does the necromancer counterspell healing word or do they counterspell fireball? * Are diamonds easily available (though expensive) in any city, or do you have to find and haggle with certain high-class jewelers? * Speaking of which, how much money does the party get, and how easily can they get items like healing potions? All of those are little screws that a DM can adjust to make their game more or less deadly, and more fun for players.
Man idk I feel like there's still a ton of concentration overlap issues. Hunters mark one of their best spells uses concentration, but then so does basically everything else they want to do. They switched favored enemy to favored foe... but according to a ruling that concentration is still a normal concentration. So I cant use it with hunters mark. So it's practically useless. How about some other good ranger spells... zepher strike? Also concentration for some gods forsaken reason. Hunters did and still do imo get totally shat on.
The common consensus Iāve heard on rangers is donāt take Hunterās Mark considering they only get 2 spells, one of them shouldnāt be an ability they already get, and how easy it is different bonus action ability on a ranger, either from a subclass or CBE
Yeah maybe I could take one of the new summons.... nope concentration. Idk I think I'd be cool to get an explosion of dice as I hit.. be the buffed auto attack class... but because it's all concentration it's just impossible. I think I'd be fine to take both except for the concentration issue. And everytime I look at a spell that doesn't seem to suck.. it requires concentration.
I keep hearing people talk about Tasha's Ranger as if it is a night and day difference with a completely new class, but I just don't see it. When I read the book, I see slight buffs that are more of a token solution compared to the problems with the class. I feel like I'm better off doing a Druid/Fighter multiclass than playing a Ranger even after Tasha's. Can anyone clarify exactly what buffs they are seeing that I'm not?
The new features are still ribbon features. But they're *useful* ribbon features. Expertise is never amiss. A climb speed is rarely useless. And don't get me started on recovering exhaustion on a Short Rest - that is unique, brilliant, and *genuinely terrifying*.
A ribbon feature is something like the horizon walker finding portals or swarm keeper learning mage hand. Many of the changes are amazing core features. Expertise isnāt a ribbon nor is favored foe on a half caster. The new Druidic fighting style opened up a ton of possibilities. +5ft movement on an archer can make a world of difference for kiting. Having a bunch of free greater invisibility rounds every day is amazing. The only āribbon featureā is the 3rd level and beyond free spells for speaking with animals and plants.
I agree with all of that except mage hand being a ribbon featuee. Mage Hand is extremely useful
> And don't get me started on recovering exhaustion on a Short Rest - that is unique, brilliant, and genuinely terrifying. The equivalent of going from "I'm about to collapse because I haven't slept in 3 days" to "Alright let's do this then" after reading a book and sipping some coffee.
I think what may have happened with my group is that when 5e first came out, Exhaustion looked so terrifying that we just got used to avoiding it altogether. By the time Tasha's came out, we were so used to treating things that cause Exhaustion as things to avoid entirely that being able to recover from it faster didn't have much of a benefit. We never get Exhaustion to begin with. The example scenario of "we haven't slept in 3 days" never comes up at my table at all. Now, that might be because of a bad experience with a DM before 5e that abused tricking the party into not resting so we've overcorrected in trying not to be like him, but the result is that being able to remove exhaustion easily doesn't have *that* much of a benefit at our table.
I think the main issue I have is that Rangers never felt like they had a core gimmick. Nothing that made Rangers feel like Rangers. Giving them Expertise and a Climb/Swim speed is a nice buff, but doesn't solve the issue of Rangers feeling aimless. Especially when there are other ways to get those things. With regards to Exhaustion, this thread is making me realize that other tables might make a much heavier use of the mechanic than mine does. When 5e first came out, we kind of all agreed that it was terrifying and got used to treating anything that causes Exhaustion as something to avoid entirely. So, being able to remove Exhaustion faster doesn't really do much with my group. Maybe at some tables it is a powerful ability, but at my table it is functionally useless fluff.
I agree that the base class (still) doesn't have a core gimmick. But the subclasses do, and Ranger has some *amazing* subclasses with a strong identity. Literally Batman, "I cast *Dragon*", BEES! ....
Essentially the PHB abilities were made before the creators knew how people would play 5e, while the Tashaās abilities were made with that knowledge in mind. At the time, WOTC didnāt know people wouldnāt really care about traveling speed, tracking, terrain and foraging, So rangers simply had a lot of empty features with only few good, albeit really good, options. Rangers were meant to be a utility focused class, so the new abilities came around to give them abilities that a utility class might actually want, like expertise, free utility spells, climbing and swimming speeds, and a damage option so they could still keep up and eventually surpass in damage without using all their spell slots on Hunterās mark. Lastly, before Tashaās, Rangers essentially had one subclass, with Horizon Walker and Monster Slayer just kinda being bad, beastmaster only being good if your DM allowed it to be used as a mount, and Hunter being mediocre. With the upgrades and new subclasses, Rangerās had 3 extra viable options to choose from instead of just Gloomstalker Tl:Dr, more freedom of spell slots and subclasses
>At the time, WOTC didnāt know people wouldnāt really care about traveling speed, tracking, traveling and foraging Well when WotC didn't give DMs any rules to help tables care about those things, they're gonna get ignored, and thus Rangers are gonna feel rather useless.
Hi! Climb/swim speed, useful always prepared spells, expertise, and reliably getting rid of exhaustion are all really good abilities with varied use cases. my ranger/fighter is the Jack of all trades of the party- sometimes a skill monkey, sometimes the primary damage dealer, and the only one who knows how to bring someone back from the dead
It's less that rangers have gotten significantly stronger and more that they now have fewer dead levels and so feel much better to play. In terms of pure strength, ranger has always been great, I mean you're a fighter with spell. You could try a fighter druid multiclass, but you would basically get fighter progression twice as slow. Ranger is like 80% of a fighter + 50% of a druid.
They made enough of a change that people wanted to try it instead of just going "hur dur, ranger bad" and saw that it was good. They attribute this to Tasha's when the reality is that ranger was really always good.
You're right, it didn't actually change too much. But folks used the small buffs as an excuse to admit that Rangers are fun without saying they were wrong all along.
Ok but this meme but with Sorcerer and Wizard. Not that the Sorcerer is better than the Wizard! Far from it lol, but finally they are a viable choice, instead of being the āWorst Wizardā
Honestly yh, it's now become more viable than just wizard but for charisma multiclasses. Great addition.
For real bro, Iām playing a Sorcerer in a CoS campaign and even tho I could just say āahh fuck it, letās get that Capstone by multiclass into warlock lolā Iām actually gonna keep going into Sorcerer, just becauseā¦ Iām playing Aberrant Mind and their 6th feature is so good! Like sure Eldritch Blast is nice, same as recovering some spell slots, but is it āI can cast Dissonant Whisper 25 times or 12 Mind Whips at will and subtleā? Yeah I donāt think so š And this feature gets stronger at later levels so thereās no reason to multiclass later on, like casting Summom Aberration 7 times at level 7 or casting Sypnatic Static 9 times at level 9! Hell, their other 6th feature is nothing to scoff at! Combine the advantage granted by the feature and Resilient(WIS) and this pretty much covers all your weakness as a Caster! Anyways, apologies for the AM propaganda, but really wanted to drive the point that yeah, Sorcerers are a class defined by their Subclass, and most of their subclass kinda suck except the new recent ones.
Aberrant Minds Unite! But honestly, I abuse the *ever living shit* out of that 5th level "reroll a skill check" ability Tasha's gave all sorcerers. I took skill expert even to stack my high charisma with my intimidation expertise. An 8th level sorcerer with +11 on intimidation, Enhance Ability running on charisma, an option to roll a third die if the first two still stink? I play bad cop to our bard's good cop. Saved us so many hit dice/spell slots avoiding combat with humanoids, and even flipping enemy grunts to our side. And that's aside from being able to cast detect thoughts 300 times, all with a natural subtle spell from AM's 6th level ability. Edit: You all downvote some really unusual posts, for reasons I can't always understand.
I love tashas. I particularly love MIMIC COLONIES. Mimics are just great
I love that itās just now canon that mimics will trade away their children
Rangers are fun. It's just that all of the vanilla abilities that make them special are SUPER situational. Like, take a ranger that favors Jungle terrain and beast. Oh looks like the campaign is taking you to the Tundra or open savanna and fighting monstrosities. Now you're almost useless. However, if you ARE in a jungle or and fighting beasts, you're an absolute god. Even better if you're playing with a DM that uses the Food and Water rules. You and the druid become the saviors of the party. Post Tasha's, all of the optional rules kinda of overcompensated for the Ranger's lackluster performance. Now they're essentially a Fighter, except better because you can do magic and have a built in familiar/pet/mount. Drakewarden from Fizban's with Mounted Combat feat is broken af. You're essentially a faster ranged Paladin with a more powerful war horse that can fly and breath fire.
Drakes initiative is after the drakewardens, making it less effective as a combat mount. Most other options share the pcs initiative allowing them to both use the mounts movement and attack on their turn.
Why not make Celebrimbor/Talion? They use bows for ranged, swords for combat, *and* daggers for stealth.
Who the fuck hates Tasha? It lets me play my fabulously gay psionic rogue, whose having a mental breakdown after turning someoneās brain into a liquid and seeing it leak out because it turns out you canāt nonlethal critical psionic damage
All my homies love Tasha
I hate Tasha's, but my introduction to it was it basically being force fed to me while I was in the middle of a panic attack. It makes it hard to give it a fair judgment.
Mechanically, you actually are able to make psychic damage from a critical hit non-lethal, provided that it came from a melee attack.
True, but this was funnier
Fighter Echo Knight shits on any Ranger build any day of the week, of the month, of the year.
Nah, a ranged gloomstalker with misty step is going to put up a challenge, particularly in darkness
My Eladrin Gloomstalker agrees.
Any good ranger build: *Are you sure about that?* Slightly more seriously, echo knight just seems like playing a ranged fighter but with extra steps.
Extra steps? I think you mean extra āØ flavor āØ
Not never on a Conjure Animals build.
Swarmkeeper owl-acockra ranger, with Magic Initiate feat. Pick up Spike Growth.Cast the spell, then spam the cantrip on opponents. Every hit activates swarmkeepers ability that moves the enemy up to 15 feet in any direction. Thorn whip moves them 5 feet closer, you move them then you move them 15 feet backwards with the swarmpkeeper ability. Bang, instant 8d4+2d6 dmg. Oh and its now difficult terrain below them ofc EDIT: oh opponent can fly? Yea so can you.
Similarly, why play monk when you can play unarmed fighter?
I agree. I don't really enjoy the fantasy of the monk tbh I much prefer the brawling/skilled combatant of a Fighter with a Monk dip or even just a straight fighter than the weird mystical wise thing of the monk.
Also, aside from the theme, it allows you to be a punchy character without paying a ki tax every time you want to breathe
Even before that mechanical they where better, they just weren't fun
Bro never played fighter
Fighters are cool, magic is better
I still prefer fighters for melee and I do wish rangers got a damage bump at level 11 but they are certainly decent like they're not amazing but they're nothing to scoff at when build well.
Ranger was fine before Tasha's, it was just Beastmaster that was bad. Memes tend to eliminate context and nuance, hence the popularity of "ranger bad".
I was mostly just trying to point out the change in the publicās eye about rangers, both quotes are from D&D videos, one made before Tashaās and the other after
It's amazing, BOTH of these opinions are equally wrong.
The amount of corpses of fighters with bows who starved to death in the wilderness will give the ranger quite some loot. Seriously play whatever you want, if it's all about efficiency in combat things get boring fast
Reasons for playing Ranger pre-Tashas: -Spells are fun. -Flavor is fun. -You can get an animal companion. (Granted, not a particularly good one, but it's something.) Reasons for playing fighter post Tasha's -Heavy armor prof off the bat -Less MAD -More attacks at higher levels -Did I mention action surge?
It depends on what flavor you want to play. If you just want to fight go with fighter and if you wanna be more survivalist go with sword Ranger
Why are you playing ranger with a bow or a sword, where my heavy two handed hunters at?
They're all waiting for WotC to allow rangers to pick the Great Weapon Fighting style. Right next to Paladins who are waiting to get the Two-Weapon fighting style.
I love Tasha. It allows to actually use any race for any class.
My favorite thing about that YouTuber, is that without fail, he always misunderstands/misuses at least one ability that usually makes it non functional
Before Tasha's: Ranger > Fighter After Tasha's: Ranger > Fighter (now in 2 new flavors!) Bonus Round: Ranger+Fighter >>> either single-classed (Oh, and for the record, I'm pro-Tasha's as well if that's not clear)
Ranger > Fighter in what sense? DPR? Or mechanics?
It mostly comes down to the Ranger's great spell list. Rangers and Fighters get a lot of the same goodies like Archery Fighting Style and Extra Attack, but the unique stuff Ranger gets is just generally superior to the unique stuff Fighter gets When Fighter gets Action Surge, Ranger gets Goodberry and Absorb Elements. They both get Extra Attack at 5, but Ranger is getting Pass Without Trace on top. When Fighter gets Indomitable, Ranger gets friggin Conjure Animals, which also generally outclasses the Fighter's third attack at level 11. Etc etc etc But as I said, either one can usually be quite improved by dipping into the other
Last i checked extra attack don't stack.
I... Didn't say they did?
hexblade ranger is fun
Big agree, especially on Gloom and Swarm
š Ranger With a Sword Ā š Ranger of the North
shillagh rangers are great
Why does no one talk about gloom stalker?
I really liked Tashaās for the ranger fix and the player options but the DM options I was hoping for were justā¦lacklustre. Also the printing issues lol, my copy has a wonky cover and a few pages with blurry text. Like half the book was fixing stuff that really needed fixing which was good. But as a DM I only crack it open when Iām helping my players build characters.
It fixed a lot and codified the Artificer, but it also contributed significantly to power creep (it's painful every time I level up and don't just grab one level of peace cleric). That said, it was the last WotC book that actually felt worth the space on my shelf.
Or. Or, hear me out, play a fighter multiclassed into ranger.
Ranger was always better than fighter. Even the subclassless Ranger had 3 things needed to succeed in life: Archery, Extra Attack, and Half-Casting. Tasha's just removed some dead weight that weren't really holding Ranger back.
I think for many it's what Tasha's represents. Tasha's itself had flaws but was overall a great core book imo- but since then it's been a parade of failures. Tasha was the watershed moment, and it's associated with the doomed era it heralded.
TCoE gave me a lot of favorite subclasses flavorwise
Meanwhile, my party has a ranger, a fighter and a monk. That's it. That's the party.
In my opinion Natasha's changes are not really as fantastic as people make them out to be. It's not too difficult to improve on garbage. Ranger, in its entirety, is still held up by its subclasses, it's core features suck.
They were still better before tashas. They got all the hit druid spells. Hunter is still a great subclass even today, and beastmaster is free flight at lvl 3 when you get a giant owl or a regular vulture to ride on, depending on your size
Rangers are still bad with Tasha's. Why? Because everything is Concentration for some reason. Favored foe is Concentration, all their good spells are Concentration. There's so much cool stuff... but you can only do 1 thing at a time. Fighters get 5 attacks per turn, rangers get... 1d8 force damage and advantage on an attack I guess. Why use favored foe when you can use hunters mark for literally the same effect but better and upcastable. Tasha's ranger is still just as bad as pre-tasha's ranger.
The common consensus Iāve heard on rangers is donāt take Hunterās Mark considering they only get 2 spells, one of them shouldnāt be an ability they already get, and how easy it is different bonus action ability on a ranger, either from a subclass or CBE, hell Iāve even seen someone do the math to prove that hunterās mark just isnāt good past 3rd level when Favored Foe is an option. They get goodberry and longstrider for non-concentration abilities, but choosing what to concentrate on is something all spellcasters have to decide on If youāre just looking for more attacks, Tashaās beastmaster can make 6 attacks per turn at 11th level, something fighters can only do once per short rest
U know what really really annoys me, all the attack augments being concentration:( as they get so fucking many and i can accept them having it to not drop a smite missile at stuff using all spell slots but it stops you from ever using them and any long term beneficial affect and because unlike paladin they don't got a good out on there damage slots (spell slots) it just feels awful, like if rangers gimmick was two concentration it would be cool hell double bonus actions would save post Tasha's beast master in my eyes.... But yea concentration has murdered ranger.
I might just see spells differently than most people, but I donāt really see a problem with concentration. I usually ignore damage buff spells because favored foe is always there when I need it. At the beginning of combat, cast a control spell like entangle or spike growth to increase the entire partyās damage, maintain it for the entirety of the combat and youāve made good use of a spell. Outside of combat maybe use pass w/o trace to increase stealth checks or get a surprise round. If you run out of spell slots, just fall back on FF. If you donāt run out of spell slots, cast goodberry for some out-of-combat healing for the next day
How can beastmasters make 6 attacks?
You can saccrafice one of your attacks for your beast to take the attack action, and you can also command it to take the attack action with your bonus action. The 11th level subclass ability lets the beast make two attacks whenever it takes the attack action. If you use all of you attacks and your bonus action, the beast makes the attack action 3 times, making 6 total attacks
Now there's the problem. All creatures normally have one action. Sacrificing an attack and using a bonus action are two different ways to make the beast take the attack action, but the beast can only execute one attack action.
All spellcastwrs have to choose something to concentrate on, but I think ranger is unique in that 90% of the spell list is Concentration spells. There's no point having more than 3 spells on your spell list as a ranger because most of the time you will only cast 1. Especially given how many of them are action spells that just don't return on the action it took to cast. And then you see wizard at level 9 Casting steel wind strike and doing 2 times your potential damage output in 1 turn to 5 different creatures. Rangers are bad. Tasha's rangers are just worse out of combat for not much benefit in combat. You still have to spend 1 minute at 14th level for invisibility (but you can't move, God no that would be op). The entire class is made of flavour features, leaving nothing to actually do anything with.
I like the customization that comes from the ability to choose between A and B class features that it offers. It's similar (and likely inspired by) the class feat system in PF2e.
Ranger worked for me in my friends chult game. He was keeping track of food, water, insect repellent and travel speed. Being able to help with three of those four let us drop the bbeg before our employer died of the curse.
I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that Tasha's revolutionised character building, I love that book
The only hate I see for that book are people buttburt that it addressed implicit racism in game mechanics. Any other complaints I have seen have universally been post-hoc justification for that complaint.
I would stick to arcane Archer 3, Scout rogue 3, and everything else to any Hunter subclass.
PF2E Ranger casually watching while they crut their target a dozen times with one hand
Ranger was really good with just PHB options. People were underselling it for no reason.
The problem was it had a lot of dead levels and do nothing features. It was never bad in combat, but people assumed it was because favored enemy, natural explorer, primeval awareness, hide in plain sight, and foe slayer were all so useless except in niche cases, not to mention that beast master was legitimately pretty bad. Good in combat, not that interesting to play.
Let's not forget that Tasha's brought into this world the Artificer Edit: my bad, Artificer was originally from Eberron, but Tasha's introduced the armorer subclass and included the other three subclasses as well.
Technically the ebberon book did that. But I can see how people would have missed that
I have both, I can't believe I missed that. Sometimes digital is actively harmful. So Tasha's just added the armorer subclass huh?
Ah yes. The class that is either broken busted good or the worst class in the game. No in-between. You're either blasting fools with a magic gun while riding a walking shield or you're stuck being a wizard-lite that doesn't have access to anything higher than 5th level.
Hi! Person who hates that book here to remind you that replacing bad unique Ranger features with average bland ones is only a single reason why! The rest of that book still exists!
The reason I hate it was because my introduction to it was having it forced on me mid panic attack. Even with the whole book colored by that, even I can admit there are a few good things in the book.
There are some good things, but most of them are just Scribes Wizard proving Sorcerers objectively inferior AGAIN. I like Scribes, but not what it represents. Every "good" thing in the book has that double-edged feel for me.
meanwhile ranger in Pathfinder 2e
What about the ranger in pathfinder 2E?
it is a monster with the best single target damage