The Ranger Finally Done Right? D&D 5e Vs Pathfinder 2e

[@IcarusGames]

What do you think, has Pathfinder 2e done a better job with the Ranger than 5e? Don't forget to check out today's sponsor, Dungeons & Lasers V: The World of Deuslair on Kickstarter: bit.ly/42v9ZSi

[@Traumatree]

The ranger is one of the worse classes in PF2: squishy, missing a lot, trying to be everything but failing most of the time, etc. Only the precision ranger is kinda cool to play imo. You are not the power house you were in 3.5/PF1, just a regular joe who from time to time perform a little better than the others, but usually, you're just there with tons of skills, can't specilized your classes and can't maximize that 3-action economy at all in combat. And don't tell me about support, or working as a team: when you are cornered and your "team" can't help you, you can't muscle out your ways out of deadly foes like you were capable in 3.5/PF1.

[@AxillaryPower2]

I essentially attempt to build the same character in every fantasy RPG (tabletop or otherwise), a dextrous two-weapon fighting Elf ranger. Easily, PF2e has been my favorite version of my character; especially with the free archetype variant to get some Rogue abilities and skills, I finally have the stealthy woodland warrior that I always wanted.

[@Prberts]

I much prefer PF2s Favoured Enemy because it is 1) opt in as a feat 2) because it is a lvl 4 feat, you are much more likely to choose your Favoured Enemy based on whats been actually happening in your campaign so far and 3) as a feat it can be retrained, so if at level 4 you've mostly been dealing with beasts you get them as your favoured enemy great, but by the time you are lvl 14 you might be swapping it to dragons as your game takes on a more epic arc.

[@tannerdaugherty407]

Man for me I just love the wide range of archetypes the Pathfinder 2e ranger can fill. You could play 4 or 5 different rangers and never feel the same.

[@Tsurunen]

Crossbow sniper is very cool, get Gravity weapon, Crossbow ace, Running reload and Hunters Aim, once you have those, you can just take pretty much whatever you think is cool. Ask if you can get an alchemical crossbow and you can even get some energy damage to exploit monster weaknesses, all at range! Sure you attack only once per turn, but you could be doing d10+d8+d6+4 at level 4 (with extra d10+2 once you get striking rune.) That's 24 average damage on hit!

[@jeffersonromao4999]

On the surface, the two classes are very similar. It's easy to say that PF2E's Flurry is a version of Two-Weapon Fighting from 5e, for example. However, while TWF is exclusive to two-weapon combat, Flurry just reduces the multiple-attack penalty and that means MORE FLEXIBILITY. You could certainly use two finesses weapons, but this is only one of the options! With Flurry you can swing a Greatsword like nobody else, or use a battleaxe and a shield attacking the enemy with both or just 1 of them multiple times. And that's just 1 feature of the class, not taking into account the incredible selection of feats available from level 1 to 20.

[@michaelshigetani433]

I think Flurry would also apply for improvised weapons . So, tavern fights just became more interesting.

[@Traumatree]

But Flurry rangers die very fast in melee in PF2.

[@Anthonyspartan514]

@@Traumatree not really they have a d10 and decent ac just play smarter

[@Jacob-gy6jl]

I love making two-handed rangers, the Precision subclass is so straightforward and the basic rotation is established at level one, which leaves so much design space to go into barbarian, mauler, magus, etc

[@mechaulfr9600]

Half Casters *Laughs in paladin, Eldritch Knight, and Arcane Trickster* I think the issue is you are looking at them as casters, not as other classes that have spell support. Plus those super high level spells... are much rarer. So yeah the Wizard gets to do something much crazier... but then they pretty much have the same spell access as you do. But for 5e Ranger... yeah there just isn't a lot there. There are some ok spells... but a lot of the "Primal" spell list is concentration so you just don't have a lot to want to do... and you will be using Hunters mark anyways... so you get a few fun attack spells... and the rest probably just wont get used very often because you need your damage boost... that every other martial class in 5e gets for non concentration and is just always on. (Improved Divine Smite, Extra Attack 2, bonus rage damage/Brutal Critical, Sneak attack). I would add a point you hit on in the earlier bit for the wrap up. The Ranger abilities in PF2E are more "utility" and not locked into an all or nothing situation. Its easy to make a useless ranger in 5e, its hard to make a useless ranger in PF2E My preference- Is the PF2E ranger. I really hope that the 1D&D Ranger is influenced by this version which itself feels influenced by the 4e Ranger (Which was one of the most bad ass classes in that version.) Cool vid, you just gained a subscriber ^_^

[@bijnahonderdeuro]

For the record, I think half casters are fun in 5e and rangers are some of my favourites, if only because you have a lot of additional options pure martials don't get. It might not match with the Aragorn fantasy, but for someone like me, it adds that little spice that pure martials desperately need. Anyhow, I've been getting into pf2e and the biggest thing I feel it "fixes" about the 5e ranger is the same thing pf2e fixes for most 5e martials. You get options and customisation. 5e ranger is actually pretty good, getting archery and some of druid's greatest hits. TCE tops you off with some pseudo-rituals, movement speed and expertise. The problem is that, the way 5e does feats and ASI, as well as balance in general, you don't have that many paths to walk from there. If you don't like the feel of sharpshooter/CBE bot with goodberry, pass without trace and conjure animals... Uh... I got some bad news if you play at a table with anyone remotely crunch-y. PF2e on the other hand, not only do you get different to build different combat options, skill feats give everyone a lot of out of combat utility. You can specialise in one area without getting massively behind the curve in another. Because you have so many different independent sources for your abilities, you get to play with way more toys. Not to mention MAP forces you to branch out, unless Flurry ranger. This allows you to build a martial in pf2e as flexibly as you build a spellcaster in 5e. I absolutely love this - but that's also where the big division comes on. If you solely come together with friends to roll dice and/or tell a story and don't like to sweat those details, you're much better served by basic 5e martial kits than I am.

[@Kevlar-78]

You always have good content. I happen to like PF2 these days, and this was before the OGL stuff..

[@timjohnson2533]

One of the players in my online game used to play rangers in 3.5 and 5e, and they said they enjoyed the 3.5 one more (Even though they're roughly the same sort of 'half-magic' hunter type in both systems if I remember right). I'm running pf2e now and that player was so happy about the features of the ranger. They do feel a lot more like a hunter and this player built them for more of a strength based melee-type. A type of 'Aragorn' that picks an enemy and outright dismantles them in a combat. I don't think I've ever personally played a ranger in D&D. I've never liked the half-caster feel of them or the Paladin for that matter, even if I can at least understand why a paladin would get spells. I'm looking forward to playing a Champion in pf2e and would totally run a Ranger as well now.

[@deadfenix3]

the thing about 3.5(and pf1) fourth level casters(there's also 6th level casters, who are arguably closer to being 'half casters'), is that spells werent tied to specific levels so they could get access to much more powerful spells, so even with a max of spell level 4 they could get spells that a druid would have to cast as level 7 or 8. That no longer works in 5e so they tend to just get a couple unique spells, or way to use spell slots(like paladin smite) that scales better or abilities that kinda buff spells(like my artificer who gets an extra 1d8 damage on spells), but that means most of their spells feel lacking. pf2 just avoids this entirely by giving focus spells which scale automatically without slots and can be recovered by resting(at the cost of generally not being quite as powerful as spell slots)

[@CopperDragonGames]

Great video, as always. I'm one of the oddballs who played D&D before exploring other fantasy literature/media. Rangers having spells goes at least back to AD&D (maybe farther, but I started with the 1E books). It's such an established D&D-ism that in my mind, to me it's weird that Aragorn and other examples of rangers from other media _don't_ have spells.

[@sylvaincousineau5073]

So far the Level Up A5e is perhaps my favorite version of the ranger .

[@CopperDragonGames]

ABSOLUTELY YES (except that I prefer my rangers with spells, so I end up feeling restricted in subclasses)

[@davidsanders6052]

Came for the video pledged to the Kickstart

[@BestgirlJordanfish]

I like the PF2E Ranger sooooo much more, but I feel more primal fantasy options like D&D Swarmkeeper would be really nice. I can imagine a gishy one that use cantrip spellcasting attacks like spell like powers but for only 1-Action once a turn, or a type that inflicts Sickened or Frightened. Debuff and Gish Rangers feel like missing Edges I’d really like to see

[@starduststriker8792]

Outwit with Demoralize could maybe almost just get there but ranger coukd use some Demoralize-specific feats. As for Gishy ranger, it'd be nice to see an Edge that maybe gives you to access to unique focus spells and maybe ways to recharge focus points mid-battle

[@gw8871]

I play Gloomstalker Ranger/Rogue in 5e....Love it.

[@cheezeofages]

My biggest problem with release 5e ranger stems fromthe fact that it had all these mechanics for a part of the game most tables handwave, limited to one region type. So if your table decides to not handwave those things then you playing a ranger actively made the party worse at those things if they leave your region. And my biggest problem that stems from that? The abilities pretty much just handwave those things. There's not really any engagement with those things. 2e ranger doesn't invest as much of it's power budget into those things and doesn't really handwave much. You can get skill feats that handwave survival stuff a bit, but Ranger's mostly a bonus to do things and new things to do. If you pick things to make you better at those things I feel there's more engagement.

[@Dracobyte]

Great video as always!

[@Machinationstudio]

I think the a Grey Wardens from the Dragon Age games best showcases the favoured enemy idea of a ranger, they are tainted by the blood of the darkspawn and can thus sense them. Does it make for fun general roleplaying that may have nothing to do with the darkspawn? Probably not.

[@jwithextrajj]

That actually sounds pretty fun, I might try playing that type of character.

[@liamcage7208]

I really prefer Pathfinder 2e to D&D 5e. The only issue is that casual players who don't have the time or inclination to pour over the rules and pick out new Feats do benefit from D&D's cookie cutter approach. Hard core players often are more attracted to the customization of P2e. In our most recent campaign, I have a player who has a "Witcher" inspired character. He is a Precision Ranger build with heavy Skill Points into crafting for his mutagens and elixirs. For his Ancestry he is a versatile human with low light vision and a + Cons in exchange for -2 Char (and another bane that I can't remember). For his "signs" I gave him telekinesis as a Focus Spell. With very little homebrewing he made a perfectly acceptable Witcher like character that isn't OP just using the Core Rules and Advanced Players Guide. Additional supplements could no doubt get the character even closer to a Geralt build. That's the flexibility of P2e and the power of the Ranger Class.

[@draggo69]

Nice!

[@scottlette]

The ranger is intended to be as a skirmisher or spy, by medieval military standards. 2e does the better job, 5e has the bigger player base. Sadly, it’s not a co-incidence.

[@torvarravenfeeder89]

Tarzan is a feral Ranger.

[@duncbot9000]

I am surpised you only compared the PHB ranger options and not Tasha's ranger options as Canny and Favoured Foe are both much more similar to PF2 options. The PHB 5e ranger is known to be really hit-or-miss depending on your favoured terrain and creature choices. Though one point you could get from this is "PF2E rangers were written right the first time".

[@IcarusGames]

I always try and go for the basic option because for the majority of people, when they first start playing, they pick up the PHB and build a character from that.

[@frodebakken528]

@@IcarusGames But do they? Won't most people do some googling, og have someone mention Tashas. If you have played at all before, it is a guarantee. If you use dndbeyond its right there as well.

[@Jason-iy9yc]

Who uses dnd beyond still

[@frodebakken528]

@@Jason-iy9yc the 31 people I play with, does. One reluctantly.

[@watcher314159]

The thing about D&D is that if you aren't a spellcaster, you're basically worthless the second the level of difficulty or optimization goes beyond the most basic level, for the simple reason that having spells gives you way more resources to throw at problems than not having them, and the ability to rewrite a large part of your character sheet on a regular basis is powerful in its own right. And the 5e Ranger does have the best spell list among half-casters by a solid margin, enough so that, when combined with their martial damage output, actually makes them capable of reaching the highest level of optimization in the edition (Paladins can reach that level too, but that's because Aura of Protection is broken good, not because their spell list is amazing). Mostly because Pass Without Trace is just that broken, especially when combined with Gloomstalker, and Druids and Shadow Monks have too much of an opportunity cost in the importance of their options to really focus on it (for the Monk, just to be able to function at all; for the Druid, because they things they can do with summoned creatures is insane), thus giving Rangers their own niche in the optimization landscape. Speaking as if 5e Rangers don't get many good class features, in short, is just really disingenuous because spells *are* class features, and are in fact the best class features in the game. Just because half-casting can't really hold a candle to full casting doesn't suddenly make having any casting at all no better than no casting, no matter how bad half-casting feels next to full casting. That said, if we put aside Ranger casting for a second (again, never forget the casting! But for the sake of argument we're shifting focus), yeah... the 5e Ranger is a bit of a disaster. Hell, the fact that WotC couldn't give them a unique mechanic just as strong as but more flavourful than casting is itself a significant indictment of the design. PF2e on the other hand actually gives non-casters nice things (most notably, a skill system worth the name and actual item crafting rules), and has a couple of mechanics like most spells costing 2 actions and sustain actions that nerf casters to be more in line with what non-casters can do. The inherently tighter balance of PF2e gave Paizo a lot more freedom to clean up their Ranger's design compared to WotC (not that WotC did a particularly good job with what they had).

[@TheUnnbreakable]

Pathfinder 2e is way better

[@sortehuse]

I just think you just don’t like that rangers have spells. 5e Ranger is not good if you ignore that they have spells, but some of the ranger spells are really good and you can use spells like Hunters Mark to mark an enemy. You can also use the options in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything to get a more versatile ranger.

[@RenoKyrie]

Just drop Hunters Mark my guy They litteraly have Spike Growth, Plant Growth, Pass Without Trace, and Conjure Animals

[@georgeuferov1497]

0:20 - not really

[@zyberkom]

Rangers are done dirty in every system out there - in my opinion - for one reason mainly: The rangers need to live up to their bloody name and out-range everything out there. They need to be treated like their historical inspirations, and be granted with the ability to control the movement of the enemy by the use of both terrain the ability to simply hit anything on the battlefield. Plus with the kind of magic arrows/bows out there, they should comfortably be able to hit a target 1/2 mile away.

[@agsilverradio2225]

I get what you have against 5E and the 5E ranger, but what do you have against other half casters? 5E rangers may be no good, but paladins and artificers are cool. Sure, 5e paladins may not use their spells often, but artificers use and reflavor all their spells. ... Besides, PF2E has half-casters too; the magus, summoner, and thaumiterge. (you can't tell me that the thaumiterge isn't using magic. That's the only way *perswation* can change physical reality.)

[@IcarusGames]

They just exist in this weird design space where there's often (not always mind) ways to achieve the core of what you want from a half caster by playing a different class that ends up being more specialised. Ranger is a great example. I'd advocate for taking arcane archer with certain skill and feat choices to achieve a "better" ranged ranger depending on what you are looking for. As for PF2, I bloody love the Thaumaturge! It's actually my favourite class because it doesn't need outright spells to perform its core gameplay loop. All the magical stuff is justified by "I've got a bag of oogly boogly tricks" and weird esoterica which I love. I just think unless the casting of spells is core to the class (like a Magus, you expect them to sling spells) then I'd rather see bespoke rules and abilities for what the character is doing. It does increase design complexity and sometimes you'll end up rewriting spells to achieve the same result, but I think when done well you get something like the Thaumaturge!

[@chrizzlybear5565]

Halfcasters in 5e have the problem of feeling less powerful than they are. Because of their delayed spellcasting progression, their shine new tools are spells that full casters have already used for multiple levels and possibly already grown out of. This hurts more for some spells than others: Pass without a trace is still great on a ranger, while fireball on an artillerist artificer just feels bad, because it's suddenly not the "big gun" it was designed to be. Pathfinder doesn't have this issue, because "halfcasters" there keep pace with full casters, they just get less slots and other things to do when they run out. The closest thing in 2e to the "subpar martial, subpar caster" halfcasters of 5e is probably the summoner. However, they compensate that by having more actions and two bodies to position on the battlefield, allowing them to do stuff like flanking by themselves.

[@RenoKyrie]

"Least enjoyed" More like most missunderstood class because no one plays it right in DnD Drop Hunters Mark, Focus on Shutdown/Utility Spells, If your DM somehow nerf your class thats their fault not you Hunter is the ONLY Ranger that is Viable as a Melee, Horizon Walker and Monster Hunter are the 2 Worst Subclasses, Gloomstalker is your best Subclass Ranger litteraly has more utility than MONK, Pathfinder Ranger is infinitely better yes but DnD Ranger is nowhere near useless

[@h347h]

Rangers were done right in 1E AD&D.

[@MedievalFantasyTV]

How so?

[@datonkallandor8687]

When they were just a better version of Fighter? No thanks.

[@h347h]

@@datonkallandor8687 No

[@MedievalFantasyTV]

@@datonkallandor8687 False. Fighters had more hit points and attacks per round. Fighters were the best fighters.

[@colmbright9822]

Dude 🤦you don’t like spell casting in a Ranger so you just ignore it but than go onto say how you love the pathfinder mechanic that is Hunters Mark but takes a full action instead of a bonus action.

[@IcarusGames]

Hunt Prey is a single action in PF2; you get 3 actions per turn, so a single action is on par with a bonus action. The hunters mark spell is the best spell Rangers get in 5e IMO, and should have been included as part of their base class design rather than being a spell.

[@sortehuse]

@@IcarusGames The ranger spells are a part of the base class design in 5e.

[@chrizzlybear5565]

Hunters mark and hunt prey are different things: You can't lose concentration on hunt prey. Hunt prey does different stuff depending on your "subclass" instead of just 1d6 points of damage. Hunt prey is not tied to a daily resource. If you want your ranger to cast spells, you can get focus spells. If you want "real" spell slot based spells, you can take the druid archetype and get a similar spell progression to 5e's ranger.

[@charlesheath7571]

I like the vid. But a more ,sry to say, off topic, I CANT EVER buy WoTC stuff again. 1st there was the ORC “problem” now….. well just google “WoTC sends goon squad”. That will explain my thoughts. If above is true, (story by polygon)…yeah…..it way to far for me support DnD. After my current DnD campaign (and I’ll inform those ppl) I try to convert them to PF2e ill DM it if I have too