Rangers and sorcerers are always next to each other in the class list.
Why have rangers and sorcerers always been weak in DND?
Rangers and sorcerers are always next to each other in the class list.
Rangers and sorcerers are always next to each other in the class list.
Why have rangers and sorcerers always been weak in DND?
Sorcerers are by lore just abusing a birth condition, of course they are weak, and rangers are only "weak" because most people skip the travel part of the game
Rangers are just fighters larping as shitty wannabe druids, and as
says, their one true unique specialty is either ignored entirely or worked around by spells like goodberry or create food and water, or just by having a background in 5e.
Clockwork Soul Sorcerers in D&D 5e have the ability to be one of the stongest character builds in the game. And Gloomstalker Rangers are one of the best options for martial characters.
>Gloomstalker Ranger
Sounds homosexual.
Who says sorcerer is weak? Divine Soul sorcerer has the biggest spell list in the game. Metamagic and flexible casting let you shift low level slots into big slots. Subtle Spell lets you make spells un-counterspellable. Only caster class that comes with a Con save for concentration at lvl 1. Cha is the god stat of 5e right after Dex. Mechanically sorcerers crush everything right now.
>Why have rangers and sorcerers always been weak in DND?
I won't speak to rangers, but sorcerers get the short end of the stick because they are spontaneous casters. In older editions, that meant more because of how spell prep worked, now the wizard can prepare more spells at any given level than the sorcerer knows so its meaningless. Back to older editions, this in theory creates a tradeoff: Have a limited spell-list but cast them more flexibly, or have any spell you want but have to dedicate slots to spells. In practice: the versatility offered to a wizard with a day to prepare just outweighs the minute-minute versatility a sorc gets. Add the bonus feats and that metamagic is better for prep casters than spontaneous and you get sorc having no reason to be played besides that the DM banned tier 1.
Nowadays, the sorc is decent because of and actually got some additional mechanics to balance out what it lost in the spell prep changes.
this is unfortunately the very same pattern of fail that has been heaped onto the fighter class since 2.5 (skills and powers). taking the classes primary abilities and giving them to all the other classes. in 2e and earlier weapon specialization was strictly a fighter ability only. not even multiclasses fighters could get it. then 2.5 rolls out and lets every class have it. what did fighters get, all their abilities got point costs, but they didn't even get the points to get them.
in 3e spell prep meant filling each specific spell slot with a specific spell, now it just means having a list of spells to cast from. which is exactly what spontaneous casting was in 3e.
this is what happens when game designers redesign the game, without an understanding of the previous mechanics AND the way they interact, and the way they are meant to interact.
5e has more classes than previous editions, but fewer character types. and it also relies heavily on the gm and players to play within the games implied limitations. for example, in earlier editions specialist wizards had restricted spell schools (or restricted lists) but 5e does not ever restrict or deny options to players. if your 5e evoker wants to throw badass fireballs, that's cool, but he does not need to pay for it by losing out on an entire school of magic. modern 5e wizards of any specialty have access to all the magic, and specialty bonuses, it isn't even pick and choose. it is just pick and get.
>biggest spell list
Doesn't mean dick when you have a tiny list of spells known.
>Sorcerers are good when given another classes spell list
Yes.
That's fine.
>Only caster class that comes with a Con save for concentration at lvl 1
What about the Artificer (presuming we're talking about D&D 5e?)
They're half-casters but even shittier because only a couple of their subclasses get extra attack
>horribly playtested half-caster in iron man suit that none of the DMs I know allow because it doesn't fit any settings.
couldn't tell you how that thing plays.
>Who says sorcerer is weak?
Every game lore imaginable.
Eh, I think rangers are pretty solid in 3.5 and pathfinder. Sorcs are just for the people who can't be bothered with dozens of spells and just want a set number of them, at any time.
The real question is: why do you care?
You might need to research some tier lists because specs were a tier in 3.X. and in 4th almost everyone is the same. Stop playing 5th ed only and you would know this zooms.
No, not almost everyone is the same. Stop posting here
>almost everyone
You don't know how utterly stupid your whole post sounds like
Because most caster and martial classes have very little reason to be separate classes. It was meant to be a flavor thing, with different schools of magic and different meta-magic abilities that went horribly wrong. Rangers were meant to be an interesting alternative to fighters, but WotC fricked up every martial class so hard and then didn't want to put in the effort to fix everything else, so they slapped together some worthless abilities like "favored enemy" and a few spells, because a Ranger isn't a Fighter, it's some kind of magical hiking enthusiast/big game hunter.
Most of these problems can be traced back the 3/3.5 when Monte Cook and the rest of the goons decided it would be cool if the entire game was designed like MtG and some classes just fricking sucked and others were better by default, because they thought they were encouraging system mastery, and not tormenting the majority of players who assumed that you shouldn't have a party of 6 wizards.
>Monte Cook
Found the problem. He is the biggest hack in the industry
Have you tried playing 4e rangers and sorcerers?
Have you tried playing Pathfinder 2e rangers and sorcerers?
>Pathfinder 2e
Why would I play a copy if I can play the original game?
>Pathfinder 2e rangers
Is there a first level feat for a polearm user?
>Is there a first level feat for a polearm user?
Depends what you mean. If you mean a special attack feat? No, you just use standard ranger flurry. Do you mean proficiency? Polearms are martial weapons, all rangers get martial weapon proficiency. At level 4 Disrupt Prey is really good with polearms. Gravity Weapon at level one is always good. 1 minute of extra damage aint nothing to sneeze at.
>Depends what you mean
Beastmaster Rangers have a 1st level feat Animal Companion, bow Rangers have a Hunted Shot, x-bow rangers have a Crossbow Ace, Outwit Rangers have a Monster Hunter, TWF Rangers have a Twin Takedown... Is there anything for a Ranger with a Guisarme?
Gravity Weapon
>4e rangers
While great, 4E Ranger is mechanically incredibly narrow. The powers of 4E Ranger are:
1. Twin Strike.
2. Twin Strike, but better: Lashing Leaves - Twin Strike + debuff, Attacks on the Run - move your speed. You may Twin Strike, Death Rend - Twin Strike with a chance of stun. Weave a Web of Steel - if you are attacked, Twin Strike. If both strikes hit, enemy missed.
3. Multiattacks. If you are melee - Blade Casdade, Cruel Cage of Steel, Circling Cascade etc. If you are ranged - Confounding Arrows, Five-Missile Dance etc.
4a. If you are melee, minor action off-hand attacks (from Off-Hand Strike to Nonchalant Collapse.)
4b. If you are ranged, immediate interrupt attacks (from Fox's Cunning to Lightning Shot.)
Powers that break the mold like Ultimate Confrontation are few and far between. (It's amazing, how much of design space is eaten up by Twin Strike.)
There are some very different ways to build rangers in 4e. They're not as hyper-efficient as the twin strike tree... but twin strike rangers are basically the best strikers by far.
>ranger
>best striker
Only if you're a shitass optimizer who doesn't know how to powergame in 4e for real.
Rangers were easily the best damage-dealing class in 4e - and they were so without spellcasting.
Sorcerers are dope in 5e.
I don't know about sorcerers, but problem with rangers is they're a core class that really shouldn't be one. Anon in one of these threads said it best with "unless your game is about wilderness exploration and travelling fast you essentially start bending backwards to make the ranger useful". Favored enemy? It's a complete 50/50 depending on what enemies GM throws at you and looking at class progression over the editions you can see them inventing more and more reasons to take the ranger with you, but none of them are really that worthwhile.
Agreed. Ranger is, at best, a fighter subclass that has no business being a core class. Then again, being a innawoods dude is virtually a gimmick any other class could wear as well
Sorcerers are weak because they require the highest IQ to play effectively. Proper spell selection/progression (and replacement) is key to being a great sorcerer and that requires a level of system mastery that simply isn't possible for most players and, more importantly, isn't as rewarding as the hypothetical same system mastery applied to a Wizard. (In reality, though, the Wizard tends to be pretty mediocre because spell selection is even trickier than it is for the Sorcerer on a day-to-day basis, but its inherent versatility offsets this quite a bit.)
Rangers suck because people freak out at the idea of someone with a Fighter HD being able to deal damage at the same rate as a Rogue or Sorc/Wiz. This is "compensated" for by giving them, idk, some undefined travel abilities. It's just bad game design at this point.
Personally, my Rangers have access to stuff like:
Pathfinder (Amateur): On a successful Background check with a relevant Background, the hero’s party ignores terrain and weather situational modifiers while traveling.
Pathfinder (Heroic): On a successful Background check with a relevant Background, the hero’s party halves the travel time for a journey. From a storytelling perspective, the hero knows some semi-secret route or has access to some herb that boosts endurance.
Pathfinder (Champion): On a successful Background check with a relevant Background, the hero’s party quarters the travel time for a journey. From a storytelling perspective, the hero has access to a magical bypass that is normally unavailable to others.
Seasoned Scout: On a successful Background check with a relevant Background, the hero’s party can opt to avoid a random encounter while traveling after finding out what sort of encounter it is.
To be clear, Pathfinder upgrades itself as the hero passes into the next tier.
>Why have rangers and sorcerers always been weak in DND?
Sorcerers as a class do not exist in real D&D and new rangers are a completely different class with an old name. The original ranger class is strong indeed but it isn't a tree hugger with a pet nor a ranged/dual-wield specialist class that people now mistakenly think of when someone says 'ranger'. 1e rangers are heavily armoured warriors who are especially effective at slaying giants and humanoids and who get magic-user and druid spells at high levels. They are almost a straight upgrade from fighter, balanced by the fact that it is quite difficult to qualify for one.
Because the classes are listed alphabetically.
> the classes are listed alphabetically
Ranger, ROGUE, Sorcerer you ritard.
>sorcerers didn't exist for the first 25 years of D&D
>Rangers in O/1/2e are tough as frick
"always"
>always been weak
Those two can't even hold a candle to monks, they're the kings of weak
Sorcerer is saved by the fact that all the casters in 5e have fairly compelling fluff that makes you want to play one over another for certain characters but all the martial classes kinda just blend together interchangeably
Both are classes that arguably lack really strong fantasy resonance.
Rangers really only exist because of Aragorn. Making them the paladins to the druid's cleric was a good idea, but then nothing really gets done with it. They're always been a Character Build more than a class.
Sorcerer is only interesting in a setting/game that has really strong rules on what magic is and who has it and who can learn it. It doesn't need to make scientific sense, it just needs to be somewhat consistent. Warlock steals a lot of potential Sorcerer stuff, too, with all their cute little invocation superpowers.
It should be noted, one of the most popular multiclasses are SorLocks.
You got a source to back that up?
Further Evidence.
DESU, I think Sorcerers should operate more like the Wu-Jen Adept; they don't know three fire spells, they know "fire," plus can also cast a limited number of traditional spells.
Make a big difference between a "spell" and a supernatural ability, maybe even call those psionics
Grease is a spell. Crown of Madness is a spell. Ice Knife is a spell. Spells get cool like idiosyncrasies and riders and such. Deal Xd6 fire damage to target is a psionic power.
It's all still magic and interacts with itself; there's no magic/psionic segregation.
>reddit spacing
This is my primary issue with Sorcerer. They are essentially low tier wizards who cast wizard spells and their only redeeming quality is that they happen to be kinda useful for multi-classing cheese.
If they could even bother with coming up with a unique system of casting for them I would be reasonably okay with them but they can't decide of sorcerers are some kind of race-as-class or fantasy X-Men mutants.
Neither of them has any measure of niche protection and both cast off the same damn list that Clerics, Druids and Wizards use, making due almost entirely with the bonuses from Favored Enemies and Metamagic, respectively. Depending on your level and how willing you are to abuse short rest mechanics, you have a limited number of points to spend on metamagic. As for Favored Enemy? It relies entirely on the DM even REMEMBERING what your favored enemies are.
Unless you're going into a game where you know damn well you're going to be fighting a lot of X monster, Favored Enemies is, at best, a crap shoot.
This applies mainly to 5e and 3.5e. I can't speak to the OSR era, but 4e didn't have this issue.
Cue the "EVERYTHING PLAYED THE SAME!" edition warrior morons.
Sorcerers didn't exist until 3e and are a bad meme created to placate those who failed school but wanted to convince themselves they're smarter than everyone else
Rangers were borderline OP when the got 2 HD at 1st level
>Why have rangers and sorcerers always been weak in DND?
>Many of these comments
The frick?
First off, Sorcerers were one of the strongest classes in the 3rd era. Yes not Wizards, or CoDzilla but easily strode up to that 2nd place podium.
Rangers have also been a very solid class for a long time.
2e. Straight up faced many of the same issue the rogue originally where people thought it was too strong. It wasn't but on the surface it did sported ALL of the fighters best ability and many of the rogues with a wilderness focus and some other bonuses.
3e. Strong enough to stand on it's own with very solid "Norma" builds. Super OP theoretical builds, a some Variants which ever so briefly touched the bottom rung of god-hood with the big-classes like Druid.
Both classes were introduced STRONG!
How to build a Ranger in D&D 3.5E:
1. More spell slots.
2. Fill them with Wizard spells.
Sorcs are fine, they're not as strong as wizards but neither is any other class. At the end of the day a full caster is still a full caster and all of them are good.
Rangers are fine because they end up with some useful druid spells that make them a lot better at control and utility than a fighter does. They don't do everything a fighter does but if they did we would complain that rangers were OP.
I genuinely liked the Quarry mechanic.
sorcerers are weak because wizard is the pet class of the developers and rangers are weak because they're a bullshit class that only exists because people wanted to play aragorn 30 years ago that's been granfathered into further editions of the game where you can make him more effectiveley in other ways so it's just a weird mish mash of shit with no identity (two swords or bow guy? animal friend or no? are you the druid version of a paladin or just some guy innawoods? are you good at hunting stuff like a sociopath big game hunter or are you just +5 to tracking skill that you never use and the rogue gets a +4 to anyway?)
>Ranger exists as an actual class in a game where Exploration basically never matters, Tracking is done better or at least just as good by other classes, Hunting/Foraging/Finding drinkable water doesn't matter because you can just create it, finding shelter doesn't matter because you can just create it, and interacting with animals can also be done better or just as good by other classes
They used to be alright, though. A long time ago.
This thread made me realize there's an overused parallel of class identities involving innate versus learned.
>Wizard: learned the ways of magic and arcane
>Sorcerer: Innately has arcane abilities
>Cleric: Learns, studies, and practices worship of a deity for powers
>Paladin: Innately embodies a deities ideals to the point they are gifted powers.
>Ranger: Learned the ways of the land, studied the wilderness and nature.
>Druid: Innately attuned to nature and wilderness.
Probably others but I'm too lazy to draw more parallels, although from the evidence above it's clear that In 2/3 cases learning something is better than having it
>Rangers and sorcerers are always next to each other in the class list
R and S are close to each other in the alphabet