I think we need to compare a level 6-8, 9-10, and 11+ ranger to other classes/subclasses to get an idea of what we are talking about. ANY multiclass is going to get a nice little bump from dipping into 1-3 levels of another class, so that is a given that should be ignored, IMO. Just about any multiclass will do "better" than any single class in given circumstances. Almost in any combination, with some choices being better than others for certain classes.
So level 3 spells (2 of them levels 9 and 10) of a baseline ranger (thinking of them as long rest reset baseline class abilities) compared to what a baseline fighter, rogue, or barbarian gets. It's pretty good! A fighter gets a long rest reset use of indomitable. A rogue gets an extra ASI. A barbarian gets a brutal critical die. A ranger gets to choose from conjure animals, lightning arrow, plant growth, and water breathing (some of the better choices). Those are really nice and powerful. Game changing. A baseline ranger would ALSO get another natural explorer/deft explorer feature AND hide in plain sight/nature's veil! The other classes would get a subclass feature around levels 9 and 10 as well. But the ranger gets a subclass feature at 11.
So I'll restate my opinion that multiclassing a ranger after level 5 is great if you are looking for dealing damage via a weapon by yourself. But the spells and other ranger features are why you keep going in ranger. All rangers also get another bump in damage at level 11. Some more than others. Level 11+ is where the beast master subclasses actually take the lead on a regular basis.
It really depends as the spells and versatility of preparing spells with cleric levels is very very good in the right circumstances and with the right party dynamic.
I think we need to compare a level 6-8, 9-10, and 11+ ranger to other classes/subclasses to get an idea of what we are talking about. ANY multiclass is going to get a nice little bump from dipping into 1-3 levels of another class, so that is a given that should be ignored, IMO. Just about any multiclass will do "better" than any single class in given circumstances. Almost in any combination, with some choices being better than others for certain classes.
So level 3 spells (2 of them levels 9 and 10) of a baseline ranger (thinking of them as long rest reset baseline class abilities) compared to what a baseline fighter, rogue, or barbarian gets. It's pretty good! A fighter gets a long rest reset use of indomitable. A rogue gets an extra ASI. A barbarian gets a brutal critical die. A ranger gets to choose from conjure animals, lightning arrow, plant growth, and water breathing (some of the better choices). Those are really nice and powerful. Game changing. A baseline ranger would ALSO get another natural explorer/deft explorer feature AND hide in plain sight/nature's veil! The other classes would get a subclass feature around levels 9 and 10 as well. But the ranger gets a subclass feature at 11.
So I'll restate my opinion that multiclassing a ranger after level 5 is great if you are looking for dealing damage via a weapon by yourself. But the spells and other ranger features are why you keep going in ranger. All rangers also get another bump in damage at level 11. Some more than others. Level 11+ is where the beast master subclasses actually take the lead on a regular basis.
It really depends as the spells and versatility of preparing spells with cleric levels is very very good in the right circumstances and with the right party dynamic.
Right. But again, we are now talking about multiclassing. ALL multiclassing is going to be more diverse than any single class at a given level. You know this, Optimus. Take a "powerful" build for a given class. Then compare that same build to a dip with some other class. More options. 5E is frontloaded. So it is comparing what you loose against what you gain. It's just going to push back the peak power point for your main class by 1-3 levels. Meaning a dip in cleric gets some level 1/2 spell diversity at the expense of level 3 ranger spells and level 11 ranger damage boost.
I think we need to compare a level 6-8, 9-10, and 11+ ranger to other classes/subclasses to get an idea of what we are talking about. ANY multiclass is going to get a nice little bump from dipping into 1-3 levels of another class, so that is a given that should be ignored, IMO. Just about any multiclass will do "better" than any single class in given circumstances. Almost in any combination, with some choices being better than others for certain classes.
So level 3 spells (2 of them levels 9 and 10) of a baseline ranger (thinking of them as long rest reset baseline class abilities) compared to what a baseline fighter, rogue, or barbarian gets. It's pretty good! A fighter gets a long rest reset use of indomitable. A rogue gets an extra ASI. A barbarian gets a brutal critical die. A ranger gets to choose from conjure animals, lightning arrow, plant growth, and water breathing (some of the better choices). Those are really nice and powerful. Game changing. A baseline ranger would ALSO get another natural explorer/deft explorer feature AND hide in plain sight/nature's veil! The other classes would get a subclass feature around levels 9 and 10 as well. But the ranger gets a subclass feature at 11.
So I'll restate my opinion that multiclassing a ranger after level 5 is great if you are looking for dealing damage via a weapon by yourself. But the spells and other ranger features are why you keep going in ranger. All rangers also get another bump in damage at level 11. Some more than others. Level 11+ is where the beast master subclasses actually take the lead on a regular basis.
It really depends as the spells and versatility of preparing spells with cleric levels is very very good in the right circumstances and with the right party dynamic.
Right. But again, we are now talking about multiclassing. ALL multiclassing is going to be more diverse than any single class at a given level. You know this, Optimus. Take a "powerful" build for a given class. Then compare that same build to a dip with some other class. More options. 5E is frontloaded. So it is comparing what you loose against what you gain. It's just going to push back the peak power point for your main class by 1-3 levels. Meaning a dip in cleric gets some level 1/2 spell diversity at the expense of level 3 ranger spells and level 11 ranger damage boost.
Fair but that may be more worth it if you already have 2-3 builds in the party built soley for damage.
The original post mentioned doing what a ranger does. And we all know that what a ranger does is debatable. Sneaky? Arrow damage? Skill use? Fighting? Conjuring animals? What the poster thinks a ranger does in fact will effect the desire with the character. Personally, a ranger conjuring animals seems awesome and thematically appropriate, and I love it. Some want that sneaky shadow arrow assassin ranger. Some want the versatile spellcaster ranger that has a lot of spells and, healing, and utility. Chances are good there will be other party members that can deal single target damage or use healing spells. But only 2.5 possible character types can conjure animas.
I think we need to compare a level 6-8, 9-10, and 11+ ranger to other classes/subclasses to get an idea of what we are talking about. ANY multiclass is going to get a nice little bump from dipping into 1-3 levels of another class, so that is a given that should be ignored, IMO. Just about any multiclass will do "better" than any single class in given circumstances. Almost in any combination, with some choices being better than others for certain classes.
So level 3 spells (2 of them levels 9 and 10) of a baseline ranger (thinking of them as long rest reset baseline class abilities) compared to what a baseline fighter, rogue, or barbarian gets. It's pretty good! A fighter gets a long rest reset use of indomitable. A rogue gets an extra ASI. A barbarian gets a brutal critical die. A ranger gets to choose from conjure animals, lightning arrow, plant growth, and water breathing (some of the better choices). Those are really nice and powerful. Game changing. A baseline ranger would ALSO get another natural explorer/deft explorer feature AND hide in plain sight/nature's veil! The other classes would get a subclass feature around levels 9 and 10 as well. But the ranger gets a subclass feature at 11.
So I'll restate my opinion that multiclassing a ranger after level 5 is great if you are looking for dealing damage via a weapon by yourself. But the spells and other ranger features are why you keep going in ranger. All rangers also get another bump in damage at level 11. Some more than others. Level 11+ is where the beast master subclasses actually take the lead on a regular basis.
It really depends as the spells and versatility of preparing spells with cleric levels is very very good in the right circumstances and with the right party dynamic.
Right. But again, we are now talking about multiclassing. ALL multiclassing is going to be more diverse than any single class at a given level. You know this, Optimus. Take a "powerful" build for a given class. Then compare that same build to a dip with some other class. More options. 5E is frontloaded. So it is comparing what you loose against what you gain. It's just going to push back the peak power point for your main class by 1-3 levels. Meaning a dip in cleric gets some level 1/2 spell diversity at the expense of level 3 ranger spells and level 11 ranger damage boost.
Fair but that may be more worth it if you already have 2-3 builds in the party built soley for damage.
You're right. The party makeup may be a better deciding factor for this player than any of our thoughts and suggestions.
The original post mentioned doing what a ranger does. And we all know that what a ranger does is debatable. Sneaky? Arrow damage? Skill use? Fighting? Conjuring animals? What the poster thinks a ranger does in fact will effect the desire with the character. Personally, a ranger conjuring animals seems awesome and thematically appropriate, and I love it. Some want that sneaky shadow arrow assassin ranger. Some want the versatile spellcaster ranger that has a lot of spells and, healing, and utility. Chances are good there will be other party members that can deal single target damage or use healing spells. But only 2.5 possible character types can conjure animas.
I think the general consensus is that a Ranger does some mix of Dexterity things (so Rogue things or Dex Fighter things - I don't think I've ever met anyone who thought Rangers ought to be doing Monk things) and Wisdom things (generally Druid things - mechanically they can do Cleric things, but as with Monks, I don't in practice ever meet people arguing Rangers should be trying to overlap with Cleric).
In fact, there's plenty of room in the design space to re-imagine Rangers as subclasses - you could homebrew an Eldritch Knight or an Arcane Trickster based on Druid spells, and you could homebrew a more martial subclass for Druids in a similar vein to Bladesingers. That would step all over Ranger toes, which is really my point.
The original post mentioned doing what a ranger does. And we all know that what a ranger does is debatable. Sneaky? Arrow damage? Skill use? Fighting? Conjuring animals? What the poster thinks a ranger does in fact will effect the desire with the character. Personally, a ranger conjuring animals seems awesome and thematically appropriate, and I love it. Some want that sneaky shadow arrow assassin ranger. Some want the versatile spellcaster ranger that has a lot of spells and, healing, and utility. Chances are good there will be other party members that can deal single target damage or use healing spells. But only 2.5 possible character types can conjure animas.
I think the general consensus is that a Ranger does some mix of Dexterity things (so Rogue things or Dex Fighter things - I don't think I've ever met anyone who thought Rangers ought to be doing Monk things) and Wisdom things (generally Druid things - mechanically they can do Cleric things, but as with Monks, I don't in practice ever meet people arguing Rangers should be trying to overlap with Cleric).
In fact, there's plenty of room in the design space to re-imagine Rangers as subclasses - you could homebrew an Eldritch Knight or an Arcane Trickster based on Druid spells, and you could homebrew a more martial subclass for Druids in a similar vein to Bladesingers. That would step all over Ranger toes, which is really my point.
Yes. Rangers are generally dexterity focused martials that supplement with spells.
Monks and druids only work ok with rangers because of unarmored defense and metal armor restrictions. I could (and have seen) those as ranger multiclasses, it just needs to accommodate the other two classes restrictions.
I see a lot of folks take 1-3 levels of cleric with a ranger. It works really well. Heavy armor, memorized wisdom spells, combat focused, etc.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It really depends as the spells and versatility of preparing spells with cleric levels is very very good in the right circumstances and with the right party dynamic.
Right. But again, we are now talking about multiclassing. ALL multiclassing is going to be more diverse than any single class at a given level. You know this, Optimus. Take a "powerful" build for a given class. Then compare that same build to a dip with some other class. More options. 5E is frontloaded. So it is comparing what you loose against what you gain. It's just going to push back the peak power point for your main class by 1-3 levels. Meaning a dip in cleric gets some level 1/2 spell diversity at the expense of level 3 ranger spells and level 11 ranger damage boost.
Fair but that may be more worth it if you already have 2-3 builds in the party built soley for damage.
The original post mentioned doing what a ranger does. And we all know that what a ranger does is debatable. Sneaky? Arrow damage? Skill use? Fighting? Conjuring animals? What the poster thinks a ranger does in fact will effect the desire with the character. Personally, a ranger conjuring animals seems awesome and thematically appropriate, and I love it. Some want that sneaky shadow arrow assassin ranger. Some want the versatile spellcaster ranger that has a lot of spells and, healing, and utility. Chances are good there will be other party members that can deal single target damage or use healing spells. But only 2.5 possible character types can conjure animas.
You're right. The party makeup may be a better deciding factor for this player than any of our thoughts and suggestions.
I think the general consensus is that a Ranger does some mix of Dexterity things (so Rogue things or Dex Fighter things - I don't think I've ever met anyone who thought Rangers ought to be doing Monk things) and Wisdom things (generally Druid things - mechanically they can do Cleric things, but as with Monks, I don't in practice ever meet people arguing Rangers should be trying to overlap with Cleric).
In fact, there's plenty of room in the design space to re-imagine Rangers as subclasses - you could homebrew an Eldritch Knight or an Arcane Trickster based on Druid spells, and you could homebrew a more martial subclass for Druids in a similar vein to Bladesingers. That would step all over Ranger toes, which is really my point.
Yes. Rangers are generally dexterity focused martials that supplement with spells.
Monks and druids only work ok with rangers because of unarmored defense and metal armor restrictions. I could (and have seen) those as ranger multiclasses, it just needs to accommodate the other two classes restrictions.
I see a lot of folks take 1-3 levels of cleric with a ranger. It works really well. Heavy armor, memorized wisdom spells, combat focused, etc.