Let's face it; it's no secret that the vanilla ranger (but especially beast-master holy crap) in 5th edition eh... isn't great. THere's been two different UA "revised" versions of it, and a bunch of optional rules to try and fix what went wrong at the start; so it's "better" now... still not great.
Let's run down the list of what a Ranger SHOULD do, but this version is failing at by in large:
1) Ranged damage-dealer - For fun a bit ago a friend challenged us to make 1-shot level 10 characters for a one-and-done fight everything sort of affair. I decided to make a gunslinger-style character... I used: ZERO levels of Ranger. This is because: no matter how you divide it up: Rogue, Fighter, or blaster caster just do this job better. They have more tools, and higher output. So there's one archetype of the ranger down.
2) Skill monkey/Jack of all trades - Bard and Rogue are just objectively superior at this job too. Bard literally has the "jack of all trades" feature, and Rogues have expertise; whether you need specific skills, or all of them, there are better choices than the Ranger.
3) Wilderness tracking/survival - And here's the "big" one that is down to your DM by in large... but the simple fact is: 5E doesn't put much emphasis rules-wise on this style of gameplay; so even if your DM DOES want to do some heavy survival elements; there aren't many resources for them to use... And you could always just take a Druid instead and have all that nature magic on your side. The ranger's rules as written are so region-specific that it doesn't so much scream "master of the outdoors" as it does "guy who has never left his backyard"; and if your campaign happens to go anywhere besides your preferred terrain or doesn't feature your chosen enemies well: then once again, you're up Styx without a paddle.
4) Stealth - Just take a level or two of Rogue; you're better off AND you get sneak-attack.
To sum up: the Ranger WANTS to be a "jack of all trades": but there are better jacks of all trades, and for each thing it's good at, there's someone else who is better. And for the ONE thing where that isn't necessarily the case; the game doesn't really have rules or focus on it.
Ranger desperately needs "a new thing" to be about; a new niche to fill as it were.
Edit: I don't mean to come off as attacking rangers: I LOVE the archetype; my first ever D&D character back in 3rd edition was a Ranger... But dear friends; 5E Ranger isn't looking that good; even after all the UA and optional rules.
I partially agree with your points. I’m playing a Goblin Ranger Gloomstalker using entire TCoE optional variant rules and I must say that my character is actually outshining the entire group in all the pillars you mentioned (Bard, Paladin, Monk).
My DM likes Gritty Realism rules, so full casters and classes who rely in long-rest are suffering a little bit. We are at level 5 right now, traditional point-buy and our DM allowed custom origin from Tasha’s, so I customized my Goblin with +2 DEX, +1 WIS instead of CON.
1) Ranged damage-dealer: between Dread Ambusher, Favored Foe for easy combats and Hunters Mark for hard encounters, my average DPR have been around 25~30 using a Shortbow +1 and Bracers of Archery. Archery FS makes consistency the name of the game. Often attacking with advantage thanks to Umbral Sight, +10 to hit and never missing... I did some calculations and an equivalent Rogue 5 can not match the numbers. Fighters can have a better nova round with Action Surge, but Dread Ambusher + HM is actually better. At least from levels 1 to 8, Rangers have a superior DPR without considering Sharpshooter/Crossbow Expert shenanigans.
2) Skill-monkey: High DEX and WIS, Urchin background and the new feat Skill Expert brought a lot of versatility to my Ranger. DEX 18 makes my Sleight of Hands and Thieves’ Tool rolls quite good, Gloomstalker gives me Disguise Self spell and alongside Disguise Kit, I can try to blend myself and pass unnoticed whenever needed; as long as I don’t need to roll Deception, hehe. Expertise in Perception with WIS 16 gives me a +9 modifier, I’m a terrific scout and not only I can disarm traps very well, but I can actually locate them effectively; WIS is not a common stat for Rogues and they can be competent with Perception expertise as well, but Rangers are better.
3) Wilderness & Survival: We are exploring a dungeon full of snakes in order to fight against a crazy Yuan-Ti cult. I’m using Speak with Animal (from Primal Awareness) a lot to gather information and support my party with intel. A Druid could do it, for sure, but Rogues and Fighters no. Goodberry is trivializing a lot things like forage and hunting.
4) Stealth: Deft Explorer gave me Stealth expertise, Gloomstalker’s Umbral Sight turns us invisible in darkness even against Darkvision and Goblin’s Nimble Escape is a mini-Cunning Action. Honestly... Rogues are dying in jealous right now.
And I didn’t even mention my versatile spell selection with protection (Absorb Elements), cure (Cure Wounds or Goodberry) and great battlefield control (Ensnaring Strike or Entangle). At level 6 I’ll finally be able to invest more in party buffs like Aid or Pass Without a Trace.
I have never played post level 9-10, and I do agree Rangers could fall off at higher levels. But from levels 1-8, IMHO they are far superior to Rogues and Fighters.
Speak with Animals is a popular target of DM buffing, in my experience, and it sounds like your DM is no different. When a DM plays it straight, getting a snake's take on a dungeon is... well...
"Hey, snake, where are the cultists?"
"I like eating!"
"Ok, can you tell me where you were earlier?"
"I chased something small and warm down the way that smells like rot, and I caught it, and I ate it!"
"Left or right?"
"What are those? Can I eat them?"
And so on. And I'm being overly generous myself, here. Snakes aren't as smart as I just portrayed, but I can't bring myself to whip out a derpy accent on the forum just to prove a point. In reality you're casting a spell to talk to something dumber than a toddler. The ideal way to handle Speak with Animals is if a player has an actual child on hand to show up and voice-act the snake.
Speak with Animals is a popular target of DM buffing, in my experience, and it sounds like your DM is no different. When a DM plays it straight, getting a snake's take on a dungeon is... well...
"Hey, snake, where are the cultists?"
"I like eating!"
"Ok, can you tell me where you were earlier?"
"I chased something small and warm down the way that smells like rot, and I caught it, and I ate it!"
"Left or right?"
"What are those? Can I eat them?"
And so on. And I'm being overly generous myself, here. Snakes aren't as smart as I just portrayed, but I can't bring myself to whip out a derpy accent on the forum just to prove a point. In reality you're casting a spell to talk to something dumber than a toddler. The ideal way to handle Speak with Animals is if a player has an actual child on hand to show up and voice-act the snake.
You're the same person who suggested that blinking breaks Hide in Plain Sight, so this tracks for you.
Speak with Animals is a popular target of DM buffing, in my experience, and it sounds like your DM is no different. When a DM plays it straight, getting a snake's take on a dungeon is... well...
"Hey, snake, where are the cultists?"
"I like eating!"
"Ok, can you tell me where you were earlier?"
"I chased something small and warm down the way that smells like rot, and I caught it, and I ate it!"
"Left or right?"
"What are those? Can I eat them?"
And so on. And I'm being overly generous myself, here. Snakes aren't as smart as I just portrayed, but I can't bring myself to whip out a derpy accent on the forum just to prove a point. In reality you're casting a spell to talk to something dumber than a toddler. The ideal way to handle Speak with Animals is if a player has an actual child on hand to show up and voice-act the snake.
You're the same person who suggested that blinking breaks Hide in Plain Sight, so this tracks for you.
At least you're consistent.
Yes. 100%, Envoyofwater. This...interpretation...feels like they are purposely trying to paint a picture against the spell, just like they did for the the other ranger abilities. In a world where a wizard can cast power word kill, where a cleric can raise the dead, and a druid can literally turn into a living creature made up of nothing but fire, don't tell me a character can't cast speak with animals and get a little bit of information from a delightful conversation with a cute little rabbit or overly polite spider. If someone is playing a game based that much "on reality" they had better be playing with gritty realism, variant encumbrance, and tracking EVERYTHING from ammunition to food and water. And if they are, the ranger is going to shine even more because every time the game is made harder through optional rules, house rules, or style of play at the table, the ranger gets better and better.
Let's face it; it's no secret that the vanilla ranger (but especially beast-master holy crap) in 5th edition eh... isn't great. THere's been two different UA "revised" versions of it, and a bunch of optional rules to try and fix what went wrong at the start; so it's "better" now... still not great.
Let's run down the list of what a Ranger SHOULD do, but this version is failing at by in large:
1) Ranged damage-dealer - For fun a bit ago a friend challenged us to make 1-shot level 10 characters for a one-and-done fight everything sort of affair. I decided to make a gunslinger-style character... I used: ZERO levels of Ranger. This is because: no matter how you divide it up: Rogue, Fighter, or blaster caster just do this job better. They have more tools, and higher output. So there's one archetype of the ranger down.
2) Skill monkey/Jack of all trades - Bard and Rogue are just objectively superior at this job too. Bard literally has the "jack of all trades" feature, and Rogues have expertise; whether you need specific skills, or all of them, there are better choices than the Ranger.
3) Wilderness tracking/survival - And here's the "big" one that is down to your DM by in large... but the simple fact is: 5E doesn't put much emphasis rules-wise on this style of gameplay; so even if your DM DOES want to do some heavy survival elements; there aren't many resources for them to use... And you could always just take a Druid instead and have all that nature magic on your side. The ranger's rules as written are so region-specific that it doesn't so much scream "master of the outdoors" as it does "guy who has never left his backyard"; and if your campaign happens to go anywhere besides your preferred terrain or doesn't feature your chosen enemies well: then once again, you're up Styx without a paddle.
4) Stealth - Just take a level or two of Rogue; you're better off AND you get sneak-attack.
To sum up: the Ranger WANTS to be a "jack of all trades": but there are better jacks of all trades, and for each thing it's good at, there's someone else who is better. And for the ONE thing where that isn't necessarily the case; the game doesn't really have rules or focus on it.
Ranger desperately needs "a new thing" to be about; a new niche to fill as it were.
Edit: I don't mean to come off as attacking rangers: I LOVE the archetype; my first ever D&D character back in 3rd edition was a Ranger... But dear friends; 5E Ranger isn't looking that good; even after all the UA and optional rules.
Let's face it; it's no secret that the vanilla ranger (but especially beast-master holy crap) in 5th edition eh... isn't great. THere's been two different UA "revised" versions of it, and a bunch of optional rules to try and fix what went wrong at the start; so it's "better" now... still not great.
Let's run down the list of what a Ranger SHOULD do, but this version is failing at by in large:
1) Ranged damage-dealer - For fun a bit ago a friend challenged us to make 1-shot level 10 characters for a one-and-done fight everything sort of affair. I decided to make a gunslinger-style character... I used: ZERO levels of Ranger. This is because: no matter how you divide it up: Rogue, Fighter, or blaster caster just do this job better. They have more tools, and higher output. So there's one archetype of the ranger down.
2) Skill monkey/Jack of all trades - Bard and Rogue are just objectively superior at this job too. Bard literally has the "jack of all trades" feature, and Rogues have expertise; whether you need specific skills, or all of them, there are better choices than the Ranger.
3) Wilderness tracking/survival - And here's the "big" one that is down to your DM by in large... but the simple fact is: 5E doesn't put much emphasis rules-wise on this style of gameplay; so even if your DM DOES want to do some heavy survival elements; there aren't many resources for them to use... And you could always just take a Druid instead and have all that nature magic on your side. The ranger's rules as written are so region-specific that it doesn't so much scream "master of the outdoors" as it does "guy who has never left his backyard"; and if your campaign happens to go anywhere besides your preferred terrain or doesn't feature your chosen enemies well: then once again, you're up Styx without a paddle.
4) Stealth - Just take a level or two of Rogue; you're better off AND you get sneak-attack.
To sum up: the Ranger WANTS to be a "jack of all trades": but there are better jacks of all trades, and for each thing it's good at, there's someone else who is better. And for the ONE thing where that isn't necessarily the case; the game doesn't really have rules or focus on it.
Ranger desperately needs "a new thing" to be about; a new niche to fill as it were.
Edit: I don't mean to come off as attacking rangers: I LOVE the archetype; my first ever D&D character back in 3rd edition was a Ranger... But dear friends; 5E Ranger isn't looking that good; even after all the UA and optional rules.
I totally agree with this post. Besides the whole identity and concept issues discussion since 2e, as I posted above, mechanically speaking Rangers are really good at Tiers 1 and 2, but their play style is not obvious. You need to have some experience in the game and a some knack for tactics. Fighters, Barbarians, Rogues and Paladins are pretty straightforward... Action Surge, Rage, Sneak Attack, Smite. Rangers are not that obvious. They were legging behind a little with PHB only, but after XGE and specially Tasha’s, a well played Gloomstalker can be a force multiplier to any party.
Let's face it; it's no secret that the vanilla ranger (but especially beast-master holy crap) in 5th edition eh... isn't great. THere's been two different UA "revised" versions of it, and a bunch of optional rules to try and fix what went wrong at the start; so it's "better" now... still not great.
Let's run down the list of what a Ranger SHOULD do, but this version is failing at by in large:
1) Ranged damage-dealer - For fun a bit ago a friend challenged us to make 1-shot level 10 characters for a one-and-done fight everything sort of affair. I decided to make a gunslinger-style character... I used: ZERO levels of Ranger. This is because: no matter how you divide it up: Rogue, Fighter, or blaster caster just do this job better. They have more tools, and higher output. So there's one archetype of the ranger down.
2) Skill monkey/Jack of all trades - Bard and Rogue are just objectively superior at this job too. Bard literally has the "jack of all trades" feature, and Rogues have expertise; whether you need specific skills, or all of them, there are better choices than the Ranger.
3) Wilderness tracking/survival - And here's the "big" one that is down to your DM by in large... but the simple fact is: 5E doesn't put much emphasis rules-wise on this style of gameplay; so even if your DM DOES want to do some heavy survival elements; there aren't many resources for them to use... And you could always just take a Druid instead and have all that nature magic on your side. The ranger's rules as written are so region-specific that it doesn't so much scream "master of the outdoors" as it does "guy who has never left his backyard"; and if your campaign happens to go anywhere besides your preferred terrain or doesn't feature your chosen enemies well: then once again, you're up Styx without a paddle.
4) Stealth - Just take a level or two of Rogue; you're better off AND you get sneak-attack.
To sum up: the Ranger WANTS to be a "jack of all trades": but there are better jacks of all trades, and for each thing it's good at, there's someone else who is better. And for the ONE thing where that isn't necessarily the case; the game doesn't really have rules or focus on it.
Ranger desperately needs "a new thing" to be about; a new niche to fill as it were.
Edit: I don't mean to come off as attacking rangers: I LOVE the archetype; my first ever D&D character back in 3rd edition was a Ranger... But dear friends; 5E Ranger isn't looking that good; even after all the UA and optional rules.
I totally agree with this post. Besides the whole identity and concept issues discussion since 2e, as I posted above, mechanically speaking Rangers are really good at Tiers 1 and 2, but their play style is not obvious. You need to have some experience in the game and a some knack for tactics. Fighters, Barbarians, Rogues and Paladins are pretty straightforward... Action Surge, Rage, Sneak Attack, Smite. Rangers are not that obvious. They were legging behind a little with PHB only, but after XGE and specially Tasha’s, a well played Gloomstalker can be a force multiplier to any party.
Iron soul: I mean absolute zero disrespect.
there’s no polite way for me to say this:
the need for experience in the game and knack for tactics is accurate. Rangers are not a newbie friendly class, as much as people want it to be. The ranger class is one of the harder, if not hardest classes, because it requires not just mechanical knowledge of 5e, but actual playing experience to know how and when and where to incorporate in the rangers skills and abilities. Even at higher tiers they are good, but you have to be a skilled enough person to, as your ranger, gather things like seeds, acorns, vines, etc. that way you can use plant growth to “grow” your favored terrain on the spot if needed in a pinch. But a lot of people wouldn’t/don’t/can’t think up to do that. And as such you get things like: “yeah but you have to be in your favored terrain...”
rangers can literally grow and create their favored terrain as they get higher in levels. This is only an issue if your DM is anti-ranger to begin with... which does happen, sadly.
They were lagging behind, from a purely, once combat gas started standpoint. But if your campaign had any prep work or anything like that for pre combat, they shine brightest there too.
that all said: I will 100% concede. Hide in plain sight. Still and always will need work. The time it takes is too long. Even if the fix is something stupidly simple like X uses, your wis mod, as a bonus action, until your next turn, you basically have the effect of a cloak of displacement. So, picture the camouflage of the “predator” from “predator” and “aliens” movies. Kinda like the firbolg invisibility, but for disadvantage against the ranger.
Rangers are still awesome at tiers 3 and 4. Their spells alone...
Hide in plain sight is either underwhelming (with the seemingly common (and incorrect) interpretation of the ability) or crazy good (with the correct interpretation of the ability).
I agree with both opinions above. Hide in Plain Sight is confuse and Nature’s Veil from TCoE doesn’t sound any better, but let’s be fair that from level 10+ you already have other useful abilities and spells.
I saw a great post in the other thread with the poll comparing Favored Enemy vs. Favored Foe & Favored Terrain vs. Deft Explorer, and it actually changed my opinion that TCoE options are widely superior. I believe they are overall more easy to deploy, but its usefulness really depends on DM and campaign style. Favored Terrain is god-tier in Tomb of Annihilation, for instance.
Rangers were never terrible, their abilities were more situational and unfortunately the 2016 UA Revision was more harmful in the end of the day.
Might be an unpopular opinion, but maybe less people actually know about higher tiered rangers because they always seem to be the ones multi-classing out of the class. xD
Also, if Ranger takes expertise in Stealth, they still get pass without trace, and the passives of not being able to be tracked by non-magical means. In my opinion, that actually does make them the best stealth class in the game. Ranger only gets the "Vanish" feature a bit late.
Either way, there are 13 total classes and I think it's unrealistic to expect every single class to be the 'best' at something, especially when subclasses need to be taken into account as well.
that all said: I will 100% concede. Hide in plain sight. Still and always will need work. The time it takes is too long. Even if the fix is something stupidly simple like X uses, your wis mod, as a bonus action, until your next turn, you basically have the effect of a cloak of displacement. So, picture the camouflage of the “predator” from “predator” and “aliens” movies. Kinda like the firbolg invisibility, but for disadvantage against the ranger.
You're so close to getting it.
What you basically described is the optional Nature's Veil feature from Tasha's. But what you've missed is Hide in Plain Sight makes you into Dutch.
Rangers dropping off in power in Tiers 3 & 4 is actually a misnomer, at least when it comes to the martial and half-caster brackets. It comes from people comparing the Ranger base class to the Paladin, Fighter, etc base classes and the Ranger seemingly coming up short. The issue with this is that the Ranger is built contrary to most other DnD classes in that they get most of their power from their subclasses. Action Surge, Divine Smite, Sneak Attack, Rage...these all come from the base classes, but the Ranger works differently. Worth noting is that, for example, the Paladin doesn't get any benefits from their subclasses (aside from spellcasting) at all from levels 7 - 15.
At 11th-level, the Fighter gets a 3rd Attack, and the Paladin gets Improved Divine Smite (which averages out to 2d8.) The Ranger on the surface gets nothing, but that ignores that by 11th, nearly all Ranger subclasses are providing a 3rd Attack as well. What this looks like changes between subclasses, but it ultimately amounts to 3 attacks. The exceptions to this are the Monster Slayer (who gets their 'third attack' at 15th instead,) the Swarmkeeper (who is a battlefield control subclass and doesn't care nearly as much about dpr), and the Hunter (who might actually get more than three attacks in the right circumstances.)
Furthermore, the Ranger also to gets a small, resource-free damage bump at 3rd-level when they get their subclasses. This die can range from a d4 to a d8, but the smaller ones scale at 11th, so by Tier 3, it ends up being between a d6 and a d8.
So if we look at consistent damage, the Ranger actually tends to pull ahead of the Fighter and the Paladin at 11th-level without expending any resources. Let's do some math. First, lets assume that the Fighter, the Paladin, and the Ranger are all using a d8 weapon (the actual die doesn't matter, so long as all three are using the same die.) For now, I'm also going to assume they will always hit all of their attacks (note: this is not going to be the case, but for now, let's assume it is.) Finally, I'm going to assume for simplicity's sake that all three classes have maxed out their DPR stat (Str or Dex, doesn't matter at the moment.) Lastly, I'm going to leave feats out of this for now because the amount of feats the classes get is variable and limited and what they want to do with those varies from person to person.
Note: Because of the nature of the Ranger's 3rd-Attack, the actual damage will vary somewhat from subclass to subclass. I will be making a separate post breaking down the average damage by subclass. This version is just my attempt at trying to hash out an average damage for 11th-level Rangers as a whole. I'm also going to be assuming their 3rd-level damage die is a d6, to maintain a conservative number. Please see subclass breakdown below for actual average damage of each subclass.
Without expending any resources whatsoever:
The Fighter will be doing three attacks, so that means 3(1d8+5)= 28.5 avg dmg
The Paladin will be making two attacks but adding Improved Divine Smite, so the damage calcs become 2(1d8 + 1d8 +5)= 28 avg dmg
Meanwhile, the Ranger is going to be making 3 attacks and adding their 3rd-level subclass damage, so we get 3(1d8 + 5) + 1d6= 32 avg dmg
As you can see, without expending any resources whatsoever, the average Ranger is putting out higher consistent damage than the average Fighter or Paladin at 11th-level. Now, Paladins and Fighters can easily overtake the Ranger's damage, but they do so by expending their limited resources. If a Fighter blows its Action Surge, it races right past the Ranger...for one turn. And then what? If a Paladin uses Divine Smite consistently to out-perform the Ranger...what's it going to do in the following encounter? I mean, congratulations on their massive damage output. Sincerely. It would suck if they expended such valuable resources for not much payoff. Meanwhile, the Ranger's own resources tend to play it safer, providing less damage but having it last longer. So even if the Paladin and Fighter outshine the Ranger for a few rounds, whenever they're spent (or conserving resources) the Ranger will consistently out-perform them.
If we assume, for a moment, that the Fighter has decided to pick up Crossbow Expert with its extra feat, then it begins to out-perform the Ranger's average damage...barely.
Fighter with Crossbow Expert: 4(1d6 + 5)= 34 avg dmg
If we assume the Paladin is taking a 2d6 weapon instead of a 1d8, then it also begins to outperform the Ranger...barely
All this assumes that the Ranger is sticking with its d8 weapon and not picking up any extra feats. Even when the Ranger is the least-damaging of the three, it still absolutely keeps up.
Of course, these numbers begin to get more complicated once you throw in spells, spell slots, feats, different weapons, and class features into the mix for all three of them. But even with all of those resources added for good measure, the Ranger still manages to keep up, if not overtake, the Paladin and the Fighter.
The other major point in average (consistent) damage is actually at 20th-level, where a Fighter with no resources and a d8 weapon will be doing an average of about 38 damage, a Paladin with the same build will be doing 28 damage, and a Ranger will be doing 32 + 5 (Foe Slayer.) Again, this assumes all attacks connect and no other resources are spent. Ranger keeps up just fine.
Now, let's actually do a subclass breakdown of the Ranger at 11th-level.
Let's make the same assumptions as above: all attacks hit, d8 weapon, no resources spent (other than whatever the specific subclass needs to get its 3rd-attack,) no feats, maxed out damage stats.
Let's take the average damage of the Paladin (28) and the Fighter (28.5) under these circumstances and pit them against each individual Ranger subclass. Note that Swarmkeeper doesn't care about DPR and Monster Slayer gets its damage boost at 15th, so for the sake of the Monster Slayer, let's go ahead and bump everyone to 15th-level (Paladins and Fighters don't get a consistent damage boost between 11-15 that would need to be taken into account, so their average damage remains the same.)
Hunter: At 15th-level, the Hunter has potentially the most attacks in a given round out of any martial or half-caster in the game thanks to Multiattack. For the sake of using this feature, let's assume they get to spread damage around three different targets (else they'd just use their regular attack action.) Assuming the combination is Colossus Slayer/Multiattack, you are making three attacks against three creatures and adding a d8 to the damage. This adds up to around 33 cumulative dmg. Assuming Horde Breaker/Multiattack, you can make four attacks against three different targets, so the cumulative damage becomes 38. If they only get to land their attacks against two targets, then the cumulative damage of both variants goes down to 28.5. But if single-targeting, the Horde Breaker Variant goes down further to 19. So really, you run the gamut here, but I think it's pretty safe to put the average somewhere between 28.5 and 33 damage. Either they match the Fighter or they exceed it.
Beast Master: Regular Beast Master gets three attacks at 11th-level (one from you; two from your beast.) Let's assume the beast is a regular wolf. At this point, they'll be doing 2d4 + 2 + PB damage twice. Meanwhile, you're doing 1d8 + 5 damage. We add it all together and we get an average damage of about 37.5. Note that Wolf isn't even the best Animal Companion you can have. In addition, the Ranger's Companion is also a defensive and tactical option by virtue of having another body on the battlefield.
Tasha Beast Master: Let's assume for the sake of argument that the Primal Beast gets two attacks while you also get two attacks. Attacking alongside the Beast of the Land (1d8 + 2 +PB per attack) will average out to about 42 points of damage or 45.5 if charging. Beast of the Sea (1d6 + 2 + PB per attack) will do 40 points of damage. Meanwhile, Beast of the Sky (1d4 + 3 + PB per attack) will average out to 40. If we assume that the T-Beast Master only gets three attacks, the combined damage of you and Beast of the Land becomes 32.5 or 36 if charging, Beast of the Sea becomes 30.5, and Beast of the Sky becomes 30.5. Note as well that Beast of the Land can Knock Prone, Beast of the Sea instantly grapples, and Beast of the Sky has Flyby. So in every case, you're doing more consistent damage than Paladin and Fighter while also exerting battlefield control. Moreover, the Primal Companions are also defensive and tactical options by virtue of having another body on the battlefield.
Gloomstalker: Gloomstalker is often considered the best Ranger because it gets its 3rd attack at level 3, along with an additional d8. The catch is that it's only in round one. So the Gloomstalker in round one will do an average of 33 damage, which goes down to 19 on subsequent turns. Note that this is a resource-free third attack that procs at the start of every combat. Make of these numbers what you will.
Horizon Walker: Horizon Walker is a class that gets both a Planar Warrior boost at 11th, and a third attack (provided it multi-targets.) Horizon Walker will do either 2(1d8 + 5) + 2d8 Planar Warrior against a single target (avg dmg 28) or 3(1d8 + 5) + 2d8 Planar Warrior when mulit-targeting (cumulative dmg 37.5) Note that doing this also lets them teleport 20-30 ft for free. So they're doing as much average damage as a Paladin or more, while also exerting greater mobility.
Monster Slayer: Monster Slayer is the reason we're at 15th-level, since they get their third attack here. The way it works is they can make a reaction attack against their Slayer's Prey whenever said Prey forces them to make a Saving Throw. Sounds pretty conditional, until you remember that most major enemies in this tier of play will be forcing saving throws on you. Also --and this was confirmed in Sage Advice-- when a creature attacks you and makes you save for a concentration effect, that triggers Slayer's Counter as well. So you'll be making this attack actually pretty regularly in practice (as opposed to in theory.) Anyway, assuming the conditions are met to proc the attack, you're doing 2(1d8+5) + 1d6 Slayer's Prey on your turn and then an additional 1d8 + 5 + 1d6 as a reaction, so your damage per round averages out to 35.5. If you do not proc Slayer's Counter, your average damage becomes 22.5. Please note that Slayer's Counter also works defensively as it counts as an auto-success on the saving throw if you hit, and is also the only way I can think of to make Reaction attacks with a ranged weapon.
Fey Wanderer: Fey Wanderers don't make a third attack themselves. Rather, they get to summon a Fey creature (no spell slot; no concentration) that makes the third attack for them. At 11th, Dreadful Strikes scaled from 1d4 to 1d6 (per target per turn.) Assuming you're not expending a spell slot, you're not upcasting, and you're choosing to concentrate on the summoned Fey, the Fey Wanderer will average out 2(1d8 + 5) + 1d6 Dreadful Strikes + 1d6 + 3 + 3 + 1d6 Fey Summon. The overall damage averages out to 35.5. Please note that the Summoned Fey can Fey Step every round, and either gain advantage on the attack roll, charm the target (or proc Beguiling Twist), or create an area of Magical Darkness in addition to the damage. Furthermore, the Summoned Fey is also a defensive and tactical option by virtue of being another body on the battlefield.
Swarmkeeper: Swarmkeeper is probably the one dealing the least amount of damage, but this is also a subclass that's more concerned with moving creatures around like a chess board than with dealing damage. In fact, dealing damage is probably the worst of its options. Note that at 11th, Gathered Swarm scaled from a 1d6 to a 1d8. The Swarmkeeper's average damage comes out to 2(1d8 + 5) + 1d8 Gathered Swarm, for a total of 23.5 damage. Again, they can forego this damage (going down to 19 avg dmg) to push, pull, or knock prone every round, so this is what they probably want to focus on anyway.
Drakewarden: Like the Beast Master(s), Drakewarden gets its 'third attack' early in the form of the Drake. The Ranger will be making two attacks while the drake will be making one, which at 15th-level will math out to 2(1d8 + 5) Ranger + 3d6 + 5 Drake + 1d6 Infused Strikes. The total ends up being an average of 38 points of damage. Note that, like with the Beast Master and Summon Fey, the Drake is also a defensive and tactical option as it is another body on the battlefield. In addition, the Drake at 15th-level can be used as a mount.
Note that the Ranger subclass damage doesn't scale nearly to the same heights as Fighter or Paladin once they get access to their feats, spell slots, and Action Surge. But they almost all make up for the difference in damage by providing additional defensive and tactical benefits as well as higher consistent damage.
Also note: I haven't even touched the Ranger's power and versatility outside of combat yet. Or even outside of a damaging role.
that all said: I will 100% concede. Hide in plain sight. Still and always will need work. The time it takes is too long. Even if the fix is something stupidly simple like X uses, your wis mod, as a bonus action, until your next turn, you basically have the effect of a cloak of displacement. So, picture the camouflage of the “predator” from “predator” and “aliens” movies. Kinda like the firbolg invisibility, but for disadvantage against the ranger.
You're so close to getting it.
What you basically described is the optional Nature's Veil feature from Tasha's. But what you've missed is Hide in Plain Sight makes you into Dutch.
Yes. Standing still. Great for ambushes. Great for leading people into traps.
how many campaigns have you had party members willing to go along with that? Most people are Leroys.
hence why it just takes too much time to prepare. perhaps, you missed what I was saying in plain sight, because I prepared an adequate amount of time to say it? (Hide in plain sight joke)
In my experiences, the only times hide in plain sight has ever come up. Is during my watches, where I use it.
when my party actually agreed to a lure a dragon out of its lair and ambush plan.
or when you break away from your group and split the party.
The 1 minute prep time is just too long. It makes sense. And it’s very quick when you think about it. But with how you are forced to do it based on your party members actions usually. It’s too much prep time.
again, most useful for while take your turn at watch. And by most useful, I mean most actually comes up and is useful.
Let's face it; it's no secret that the vanilla ranger (but especially beast-master holy crap) in 5th edition eh... isn't great. THere's been two different UA "revised" versions of it, and a bunch of optional rules to try and fix what went wrong at the start; so it's "better" now... still not great.
Let's run down the list of what a Ranger SHOULD do, but this version is failing at by in large:
1) Ranged damage-dealer - For fun a bit ago a friend challenged us to make 1-shot level 10 characters for a one-and-done fight everything sort of affair. I decided to make a gunslinger-style character... I used: ZERO levels of Ranger. This is because: no matter how you divide it up: Rogue, Fighter, or blaster caster just do this job better. They have more tools, and higher output. So there's one archetype of the ranger down.
2) Skill monkey/Jack of all trades - Bard and Rogue are just objectively superior at this job too. Bard literally has the "jack of all trades" feature, and Rogues have expertise; whether you need specific skills, or all of them, there are better choices than the Ranger.
3) Wilderness tracking/survival - And here's the "big" one that is down to your DM by in large... but the simple fact is: 5E doesn't put much emphasis rules-wise on this style of gameplay; so even if your DM DOES want to do some heavy survival elements; there aren't many resources for them to use... And you could always just take a Druid instead and have all that nature magic on your side. The ranger's rules as written are so region-specific that it doesn't so much scream "master of the outdoors" as it does "guy who has never left his backyard"; and if your campaign happens to go anywhere besides your preferred terrain or doesn't feature your chosen enemies well: then once again, you're up Styx without a paddle.
4) Stealth - Just take a level or two of Rogue; you're better off AND you get sneak-attack.
To sum up: the Ranger WANTS to be a "jack of all trades": but there are better jacks of all trades, and for each thing it's good at, there's someone else who is better. And for the ONE thing where that isn't necessarily the case; the game doesn't really have rules or focus on it.
Ranger desperately needs "a new thing" to be about; a new niche to fill as it were.
Edit: I don't mean to come off as attacking rangers: I LOVE the archetype; my first ever D&D character back in 3rd edition was a Ranger... But dear friends; 5E Ranger isn't looking that good; even after all the UA and optional rules.
This is a new and fresh take.
yeah. new and fresh... like using leeches to treat illness. Or drilling a hole in ones head to relieve pressure to make one sane.
I have never once in my life heard anyone suggest that the Ranger has the above-mentioned problems. This is absolutely shocking.
I partially agree with your points. I’m playing a Goblin Ranger Gloomstalker using entire TCoE optional variant rules and I must say that my character is actually outshining the entire group in all the pillars you mentioned (Bard, Paladin, Monk).
My DM likes Gritty Realism rules, so full casters and classes who rely in long-rest are suffering a little bit. We are at level 5 right now, traditional point-buy and our DM allowed custom origin from Tasha’s, so I customized my Goblin with +2 DEX, +1 WIS instead of CON.
1) Ranged damage-dealer: between Dread Ambusher, Favored Foe for easy combats and Hunters Mark for hard encounters, my average DPR have been around 25~30 using a Shortbow +1 and Bracers of Archery. Archery FS makes consistency the name of the game. Often attacking with advantage thanks to Umbral Sight, +10 to hit and never missing... I did some calculations and an equivalent Rogue 5 can not match the numbers. Fighters can have a better nova round with Action Surge, but Dread Ambusher + HM is actually better. At least from levels 1 to 8, Rangers have a superior DPR without considering Sharpshooter/Crossbow Expert shenanigans.
2) Skill-monkey: High DEX and WIS, Urchin background and the new feat Skill Expert brought a lot of versatility to my Ranger. DEX 18 makes my Sleight of Hands and Thieves’ Tool rolls quite good, Gloomstalker gives me Disguise Self spell and alongside Disguise Kit, I can try to blend myself and pass unnoticed whenever needed; as long as I don’t need to roll Deception, hehe. Expertise in Perception with WIS 16 gives me a +9 modifier, I’m a terrific scout and not only I can disarm traps very well, but I can actually locate them effectively; WIS is not a common stat for Rogues and they can be competent with Perception expertise as well, but Rangers are better.
3) Wilderness & Survival: We are exploring a dungeon full of snakes in order to fight against a crazy Yuan-Ti cult. I’m using Speak with Animal (from Primal Awareness) a lot to gather information and support my party with intel. A Druid could do it, for sure, but Rogues and Fighters no. Goodberry is trivializing a lot things like forage and hunting.
4) Stealth: Deft Explorer gave me Stealth expertise, Gloomstalker’s Umbral Sight turns us invisible in darkness even against Darkvision and Goblin’s Nimble Escape is a mini-Cunning Action. Honestly... Rogues are dying in jealous right now.
And I didn’t even mention my versatile spell selection with protection (Absorb Elements), cure (Cure Wounds or Goodberry) and great battlefield control (Ensnaring Strike or Entangle). At level 6 I’ll finally be able to invest more in party buffs like Aid or Pass Without a Trace.
I have never played post level 9-10, and I do agree Rangers could fall off at higher levels. But from levels 1-8, IMHO they are far superior to Rogues and Fighters.
Speak with Animals is a popular target of DM buffing, in my experience, and it sounds like your DM is no different. When a DM plays it straight, getting a snake's take on a dungeon is... well...
"Hey, snake, where are the cultists?"
"I like eating!"
"Ok, can you tell me where you were earlier?"
"I chased something small and warm down the way that smells like rot, and I caught it, and I ate it!"
"Left or right?"
"What are those? Can I eat them?"
And so on. And I'm being overly generous myself, here. Snakes aren't as smart as I just portrayed, but I can't bring myself to whip out a derpy accent on the forum just to prove a point. In reality you're casting a spell to talk to something dumber than a toddler. The ideal way to handle Speak with Animals is if a player has an actual child on hand to show up and voice-act the snake.
"The queen needs food, the babies need food, the queen makes babies." - ant
(sigh) Everyone wants the ranger to be something else.
You're the same person who suggested that blinking breaks Hide in Plain Sight, so this tracks for you.
At least you're consistent.
Yes. 100%, Envoyofwater. This...interpretation...feels like they are purposely trying to paint a picture against the spell, just like they did for the the other ranger abilities. In a world where a wizard can cast power word kill, where a cleric can raise the dead, and a druid can literally turn into a living creature made up of nothing but fire, don't tell me a character can't cast speak with animals and get a little bit of information from a delightful conversation with a cute little rabbit or overly polite spider. If someone is playing a game based that much "on reality" they had better be playing with gritty realism, variant encumbrance, and tracking EVERYTHING from ammunition to food and water. And if they are, the ranger is going to shine even more because every time the game is made harder through optional rules, house rules, or style of play at the table, the ranger gets better and better.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/class-forums/ranger/59728-why-does-ranger-suck?comment=575
I totally agree with this post. Besides the whole identity and concept issues discussion since 2e, as I posted above, mechanically speaking Rangers are really good at Tiers 1 and 2, but their play style is not obvious. You need to have some experience in the game and a some knack for tactics. Fighters, Barbarians, Rogues and Paladins are pretty straightforward... Action Surge, Rage, Sneak Attack, Smite. Rangers are not that obvious. They were legging behind a little with PHB only, but after XGE and specially Tasha’s, a well played Gloomstalker can be a force multiplier to any party.
Iron soul: I mean absolute zero disrespect.
there’s no polite way for me to say this:
the need for experience in the game and knack for tactics is accurate. Rangers are not a newbie friendly class, as much as people want it to be. The ranger class is one of the harder, if not hardest classes, because it requires not just mechanical knowledge of 5e, but actual playing experience to know how and when and where to incorporate in the rangers skills and abilities. Even at higher tiers they are good, but you have to be a skilled enough person to, as your ranger, gather things like seeds, acorns, vines, etc. that way you can use plant growth to “grow” your favored terrain on the spot if needed in a pinch. But a lot of people wouldn’t/don’t/can’t think up to do that. And as such you get things like: “yeah but you have to be in your favored terrain...”
rangers can literally grow and create their favored terrain as they get higher in levels. This is only an issue if your DM is anti-ranger to begin with... which does happen, sadly.
They were lagging behind, from a purely, once combat gas started standpoint. But if your campaign had any prep work or anything like that for pre combat, they shine brightest there too.
that all said: I will 100% concede. Hide in plain sight. Still and always will need work. The time it takes is too long. Even if the fix is something stupidly simple like X uses, your wis mod, as a bonus action, until your next turn, you basically have the effect of a cloak of displacement. So, picture the camouflage of the “predator” from “predator” and “aliens” movies. Kinda like the firbolg invisibility, but for disadvantage against the ranger.
Watch me on twitch
Rangers are still awesome at tiers 3 and 4. Their spells alone...
Hide in plain sight is either underwhelming (with the seemingly common (and incorrect) interpretation of the ability) or crazy good (with the correct interpretation of the ability).
I agree with both opinions above. Hide in Plain Sight is confuse and Nature’s Veil from TCoE doesn’t sound any better, but let’s be fair that from level 10+ you already have other useful abilities and spells.
I saw a great post in the other thread with the poll comparing Favored Enemy vs. Favored Foe & Favored Terrain vs. Deft Explorer, and it actually changed my opinion that TCoE options are widely superior. I believe they are overall more easy to deploy, but its usefulness really depends on DM and campaign style. Favored Terrain is god-tier in Tomb of Annihilation, for instance.
Rangers were never terrible, their abilities were more situational and unfortunately the 2016 UA Revision was more harmful in the end of the day.
Might be an unpopular opinion, but maybe less people actually know about higher tiered rangers because they always seem to be the ones multi-classing out of the class. xD
Also, if Ranger takes expertise in Stealth, they still get pass without trace, and the passives of not being able to be tracked by non-magical means. In my opinion, that actually does make them the best stealth class in the game. Ranger only gets the "Vanish" feature a bit late.
Either way, there are 13 total classes and I think it's unrealistic to expect every single class to be the 'best' at something, especially when subclasses need to be taken into account as well.
You're so close to getting it.
What you basically described is the optional Nature's Veil feature from Tasha's. But what you've missed is Hide in Plain Sight makes you into Dutch.
Rangers dropping off in power in Tiers 3 & 4 is actually a misnomer, at least when it comes to the martial and half-caster brackets. It comes from people comparing the Ranger base class to the Paladin, Fighter, etc base classes and the Ranger seemingly coming up short. The issue with this is that the Ranger is built contrary to most other DnD classes in that they get most of their power from their subclasses. Action Surge, Divine Smite, Sneak Attack, Rage...these all come from the base classes, but the Ranger works differently. Worth noting is that, for example, the Paladin doesn't get any benefits from their subclasses (aside from spellcasting) at all from levels 7 - 15.
At 11th-level, the Fighter gets a 3rd Attack, and the Paladin gets Improved Divine Smite (which averages out to 2d8.) The Ranger on the surface gets nothing, but that ignores that by 11th, nearly all Ranger subclasses are providing a 3rd Attack as well. What this looks like changes between subclasses, but it ultimately amounts to 3 attacks. The exceptions to this are the Monster Slayer (who gets their 'third attack' at 15th instead,) the Swarmkeeper (who is a battlefield control subclass and doesn't care nearly as much about dpr), and the Hunter (who might actually get more than three attacks in the right circumstances.)
Furthermore, the Ranger also to gets a small, resource-free damage bump at 3rd-level when they get their subclasses. This die can range from a d4 to a d8, but the smaller ones scale at 11th, so by Tier 3, it ends up being between a d6 and a d8.
So if we look at consistent damage, the Ranger actually tends to pull ahead of the Fighter and the Paladin at 11th-level without expending any resources. Let's do some math. First, lets assume that the Fighter, the Paladin, and the Ranger are all using a d8 weapon (the actual die doesn't matter, so long as all three are using the same die.) For now, I'm also going to assume they will always hit all of their attacks (note: this is not going to be the case, but for now, let's assume it is.) Finally, I'm going to assume for simplicity's sake that all three classes have maxed out their DPR stat (Str or Dex, doesn't matter at the moment.) Lastly, I'm going to leave feats out of this for now because the amount of feats the classes get is variable and limited and what they want to do with those varies from person to person.
Note: Because of the nature of the Ranger's 3rd-Attack, the actual damage will vary somewhat from subclass to subclass. I will be making a separate post breaking down the average damage by subclass. This version is just my attempt at trying to hash out an average damage for 11th-level Rangers as a whole. I'm also going to be assuming their 3rd-level damage die is a d6, to maintain a conservative number. Please see subclass breakdown below for actual average damage of each subclass.
Without expending any resources whatsoever:
The Fighter will be doing three attacks, so that means 3(1d8+5)= 28.5 avg dmg
The Paladin will be making two attacks but adding Improved Divine Smite, so the damage calcs become 2(1d8 + 1d8 +5)= 28 avg dmg
Meanwhile, the Ranger is going to be making 3 attacks and adding their 3rd-level subclass damage, so we get 3(1d8 + 5) + 1d6= 32 avg dmg
As you can see, without expending any resources whatsoever, the average Ranger is putting out higher consistent damage than the average Fighter or Paladin at 11th-level. Now, Paladins and Fighters can easily overtake the Ranger's damage, but they do so by expending their limited resources. If a Fighter blows its Action Surge, it races right past the Ranger...for one turn. And then what? If a Paladin uses Divine Smite consistently to out-perform the Ranger...what's it going to do in the following encounter? I mean, congratulations on their massive damage output. Sincerely. It would suck if they expended such valuable resources for not much payoff. Meanwhile, the Ranger's own resources tend to play it safer, providing less damage but having it last longer. So even if the Paladin and Fighter outshine the Ranger for a few rounds, whenever they're spent (or conserving resources) the Ranger will consistently out-perform them.
If we assume, for a moment, that the Fighter has decided to pick up Crossbow Expert with its extra feat, then it begins to out-perform the Ranger's average damage...barely.
Fighter with Crossbow Expert: 4(1d6 + 5)= 34 avg dmg
If we assume the Paladin is taking a 2d6 weapon instead of a 1d8, then it also begins to outperform the Ranger...barely
Paladin with 2d6 weapon: 2(2d6 + 1d8 + 5)= 33 avg dmg
All this assumes that the Ranger is sticking with its d8 weapon and not picking up any extra feats. Even when the Ranger is the least-damaging of the three, it still absolutely keeps up.
Of course, these numbers begin to get more complicated once you throw in spells, spell slots, feats, different weapons, and class features into the mix for all three of them. But even with all of those resources added for good measure, the Ranger still manages to keep up, if not overtake, the Paladin and the Fighter.
The other major point in average (consistent) damage is actually at 20th-level, where a Fighter with no resources and a d8 weapon will be doing an average of about 38 damage, a Paladin with the same build will be doing 28 damage, and a Ranger will be doing 32 + 5 (Foe Slayer.) Again, this assumes all attacks connect and no other resources are spent. Ranger keeps up just fine.
Now, let's actually do a subclass breakdown of the Ranger at 11th-level.
Let's make the same assumptions as above: all attacks hit, d8 weapon, no resources spent (other than whatever the specific subclass needs to get its 3rd-attack,) no feats, maxed out damage stats.
Let's take the average damage of the Paladin (28) and the Fighter (28.5) under these circumstances and pit them against each individual Ranger subclass. Note that Swarmkeeper doesn't care about DPR and Monster Slayer gets its damage boost at 15th, so for the sake of the Monster Slayer, let's go ahead and bump everyone to 15th-level (Paladins and Fighters don't get a consistent damage boost between 11-15 that would need to be taken into account, so their average damage remains the same.)
Hunter: At 15th-level, the Hunter has potentially the most attacks in a given round out of any martial or half-caster in the game thanks to Multiattack. For the sake of using this feature, let's assume they get to spread damage around three different targets (else they'd just use their regular attack action.) Assuming the combination is Colossus Slayer/Multiattack, you are making three attacks against three creatures and adding a d8 to the damage. This adds up to around 33 cumulative dmg. Assuming Horde Breaker/Multiattack, you can make four attacks against three different targets, so the cumulative damage becomes 38. If they only get to land their attacks against two targets, then the cumulative damage of both variants goes down to 28.5. But if single-targeting, the Horde Breaker Variant goes down further to 19. So really, you run the gamut here, but I think it's pretty safe to put the average somewhere between 28.5 and 33 damage. Either they match the Fighter or they exceed it.
Beast Master: Regular Beast Master gets three attacks at 11th-level (one from you; two from your beast.) Let's assume the beast is a regular wolf. At this point, they'll be doing 2d4 + 2 + PB damage twice. Meanwhile, you're doing 1d8 + 5 damage. We add it all together and we get an average damage of about 37.5. Note that Wolf isn't even the best Animal Companion you can have. In addition, the Ranger's Companion is also a defensive and tactical option by virtue of having another body on the battlefield.
Tasha Beast Master: Let's assume for the sake of argument that the Primal Beast gets two attacks while you also get two attacks. Attacking alongside the Beast of the Land (1d8 + 2 +PB per attack) will average out to about 42 points of damage or 45.5 if charging. Beast of the Sea (1d6 + 2 + PB per attack) will do 40 points of damage. Meanwhile, Beast of the Sky (1d4 + 3 + PB per attack) will average out to 40. If we assume that the T-Beast Master only gets three attacks, the combined damage of you and Beast of the Land becomes 32.5 or 36 if charging, Beast of the Sea becomes 30.5, and Beast of the Sky becomes 30.5. Note as well that Beast of the Land can Knock Prone, Beast of the Sea instantly grapples, and Beast of the Sky has Flyby. So in every case, you're doing more consistent damage than Paladin and Fighter while also exerting battlefield control. Moreover, the Primal Companions are also defensive and tactical options by virtue of having another body on the battlefield.
Gloomstalker: Gloomstalker is often considered the best Ranger because it gets its 3rd attack at level 3, along with an additional d8. The catch is that it's only in round one. So the Gloomstalker in round one will do an average of 33 damage, which goes down to 19 on subsequent turns. Note that this is a resource-free third attack that procs at the start of every combat. Make of these numbers what you will.
Horizon Walker: Horizon Walker is a class that gets both a Planar Warrior boost at 11th, and a third attack (provided it multi-targets.) Horizon Walker will do either 2(1d8 + 5) + 2d8 Planar Warrior against a single target (avg dmg 28) or 3(1d8 + 5) + 2d8 Planar Warrior when mulit-targeting (cumulative dmg 37.5) Note that doing this also lets them teleport 20-30 ft for free. So they're doing as much average damage as a Paladin or more, while also exerting greater mobility.
Monster Slayer: Monster Slayer is the reason we're at 15th-level, since they get their third attack here. The way it works is they can make a reaction attack against their Slayer's Prey whenever said Prey forces them to make a Saving Throw. Sounds pretty conditional, until you remember that most major enemies in this tier of play will be forcing saving throws on you. Also --and this was confirmed in Sage Advice-- when a creature attacks you and makes you save for a concentration effect, that triggers Slayer's Counter as well. So you'll be making this attack actually pretty regularly in practice (as opposed to in theory.) Anyway, assuming the conditions are met to proc the attack, you're doing 2(1d8+5) + 1d6 Slayer's Prey on your turn and then an additional 1d8 + 5 + 1d6 as a reaction, so your damage per round averages out to 35.5. If you do not proc Slayer's Counter, your average damage becomes 22.5. Please note that Slayer's Counter also works defensively as it counts as an auto-success on the saving throw if you hit, and is also the only way I can think of to make Reaction attacks with a ranged weapon.
Fey Wanderer: Fey Wanderers don't make a third attack themselves. Rather, they get to summon a Fey creature (no spell slot; no concentration) that makes the third attack for them. At 11th, Dreadful Strikes scaled from 1d4 to 1d6 (per target per turn.) Assuming you're not expending a spell slot, you're not upcasting, and you're choosing to concentrate on the summoned Fey, the Fey Wanderer will average out 2(1d8 + 5) + 1d6 Dreadful Strikes + 1d6 + 3 + 3 + 1d6 Fey Summon. The overall damage averages out to 35.5. Please note that the Summoned Fey can Fey Step every round, and either gain advantage on the attack roll, charm the target (or proc Beguiling Twist), or create an area of Magical Darkness in addition to the damage. Furthermore, the Summoned Fey is also a defensive and tactical option by virtue of being another body on the battlefield.
Swarmkeeper: Swarmkeeper is probably the one dealing the least amount of damage, but this is also a subclass that's more concerned with moving creatures around like a chess board than with dealing damage. In fact, dealing damage is probably the worst of its options. Note that at 11th, Gathered Swarm scaled from a 1d6 to a 1d8. The Swarmkeeper's average damage comes out to 2(1d8 + 5) + 1d8 Gathered Swarm, for a total of 23.5 damage. Again, they can forego this damage (going down to 19 avg dmg) to push, pull, or knock prone every round, so this is what they probably want to focus on anyway.
Drakewarden: Like the Beast Master(s), Drakewarden gets its 'third attack' early in the form of the Drake. The Ranger will be making two attacks while the drake will be making one, which at 15th-level will math out to 2(1d8 + 5) Ranger + 3d6 + 5 Drake + 1d6 Infused Strikes. The total ends up being an average of 38 points of damage. Note that, like with the Beast Master and Summon Fey, the Drake is also a defensive and tactical option as it is another body on the battlefield. In addition, the Drake at 15th-level can be used as a mount.
Note that the Ranger subclass damage doesn't scale nearly to the same heights as Fighter or Paladin once they get access to their feats, spell slots, and Action Surge. But they almost all make up for the difference in damage by providing additional defensive and tactical benefits as well as higher consistent damage.
Also note: I haven't even touched the Ranger's power and versatility outside of combat yet. Or even outside of a damaging role.
Yes. Standing still. Great for ambushes. Great for leading people into traps.
how many campaigns have you had party members willing to go along with that? Most people are Leroys.
hence why it just takes too much time to prepare.
perhaps, you missed what I was saying in plain sight, because I prepared an adequate amount of time to say it? (Hide in plain sight joke)
In my experiences, the only times hide in plain sight has ever come up. Is during my watches, where I use it.
when my party actually agreed to a lure a dragon out of its lair and ambush plan.
or when you break away from your group and split the party.
The 1 minute prep time is just too long. It makes sense. And it’s very quick when you think about it. But with how you are forced to do it based on your party members actions usually. It’s too much prep time.
again, most useful for while take your turn at watch. And by most useful, I mean most actually comes up and is useful.
Watch me on twitch