1. Rangers don't get two attacks and a bit of damage. From their subclass, Rangers actually get three attacks+ and a little bit of damage by level 20 (+Swift Quiver/Steel Wind Strike.) By 11th level, all but one Ranger subclass have ways of making a third attack. This is markedly better than Improved Divine Smite and Barbarian Rage, and with feats, better than Sneak Attack at most levels. It's also on par with a Fighter lower than 20th-level, except the Ranger third attacks usually come with riders. And then we get into Swift Quiver.
2. +To attack >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +to damage. A landed attack might deal a measly five damage on a 20th level threat, but that's still five more than a missed attack, which deals a whopping zero. Accuracy isn't as sexy as damage calcs, but it's far more important. Don't underestimate it.
3. Using Tasha's, Favored Foe can deal 1d8+5 as a rider on a previously landed attack. Know what else does 1d8+5? A one-handed longsword, a longbow, and a rapier. Basically, a Fighter's final Extra Attack capstone. So at worst, Foe Slayer is comparable to Extra Attack by 20th-level. Except remember when I said Ranger third attacks come with riders? This is functionally a Ranger's fourth attack, so it's keeping up with Fighters...plus riders. And honestly, Tasha Favored Foe + Foe Slayer damage is the absolute worst way to use the capstone. Like, my example is absolutely suboptimal and it keeps up with a Fighter + it has riders.
Foe Slayer is not a great capstone by any stretch, but don't underestimate it either.
The damage output from almost any other concentration based Ranger spell will be better than Favored Foe is the point....or even a 1st level spell like Bless which is just straight up better.
Since Favored Foe/Foe Slayer deals equivalent damage to a weapon attack (the Fighter capstone,) you are saying by the transitive property that the damage output of almost any other concentration-based Ranger spell will be better than the Fighter's fourth Extra Attack. Which is fair to say. But let's keep that in perspective as we move forward.
And while I generally agree with you about Ranger spellcasting > Favored Foe/Slayer, let's keep in mind a few things: Favored Foe/Slayer doesn't mess with action economy. It doesn't take any action to proc and procs on hit, which frees up your bonus action for other things. It also procs (and adds to the damage) on the hit of spells like Ensnaring Strike, Searing Smite, or Hail of Thorns. Which means you can use these spells in conjunction with Favored Foe/Slayer and not in competition with it. Favored Foe/Slayer also doesn't cost a spell slot. It uses a completely separate resource pool, which frees up your spellcasting for other things. At this level, Absorb Elements is almost mandatory on a Ranger, for instance.
And again, as I stated above, using Favored Foe/Slayer to deal 1d8+5 damage is actually the worst possible way to use that feature. I happen to agree with Frank that using it in tandem with Favored Enemy for a free +5 to hit is far more potent (because, again, attack roll >>>>>>> damage roll.) And I also agree with Frank that you have absolutely no excuse for not having the correct Favored Enemy type for the endgame by now. If you somehow went 14 levels without realizing what enemy type the BBEG was going to be, that's on you and/or the DM; not on the Ranger.
1. Rangers don't get two attacks and a bit of damage. From their subclass, Rangers actually get three attacks+ and a little bit of damage by level 20 (+Swift Quiver/Steel Wind Strike.) By 11th level, all but one Ranger subclass have ways of making a third attack. This is markedly better than Improved Divine Smite and Barbarian Rage, and with feats, better than Sneak Attack at most levels. It's also on par with a Fighter lower than 20th-level, except the Ranger third attacks usually come with riders. And then we get into Swift Quiver.
2. +To attack >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +to damage. A landed attack might deal a measly five damage on a 20th level threat, but that's still five more than a missed attack, which deals a whopping zero. Accuracy isn't as sexy as damage calcs, but it's far more important. Don't underestimate it.
3. Using Tasha's, Favored Foe can deal 1d8+5 as a rider on a previously landed attack. Know what else does 1d8+5? A one-handed longsword, a longbow, and a rapier. Basically, a Fighter's final Extra Attack capstone. So at worst, Foe Slayer is comparable to Extra Attack by 20th-level. Except remember when I said Ranger third attacks come with riders? This is functionally a Ranger's fourth attack, so it's keeping up with Fighters...plus riders. And honestly, Tasha Favored Foe + Foe Slayer damage is the absolute worst way to use the capstone. Like, my example is absolutely suboptimal and it keeps up with a Fighter + it has riders.
Foe Slayer is not a great capstone by any stretch, but don't underestimate it either.
The damage output from almost any other concentration based Ranger spell will be better than Favored Foe is the point....or even a 1st level spell like Bless which is just straight up better.
Since Favored Foe/Foe Slayer deals equivalent damage to a weapon attack (the Fighter capstone,) you are saying by the transitive property that the damage output of almost any other concentration-based Ranger spell will be better than the Fighter's fourth Extra Attack. Which is fair to say. But let's keep that in perspective as we move forward.
And while I generally agree with you about Ranger spellcasting > Favored Foe/Slayer, let's keep in mind a few things: Favored Foe/Slayer doesn't mess with action economy. It doesn't take any action to proc and procs on hit, which frees up your bonus action for other things. It also procs (and adds to the damage) on the hit of spells like Ensnaring Strike, Searing Smite, or Hail of Thorns. Which means you can use these spells in conjunction with Favored Foe/Slayer and not in competition with it. Favored Foe/Slayer also doesn't cost a spell slot. It uses a completely separate resource pool, which frees up your spellcasting for other things. At this level, Absorb Elements is almost mandatory on a Ranger, for instance.
And again, as I stated above, using Favored Foe/Slayer to deal 1d8+5 damage is actually the worst possible way to use that feature. I happen to agree with Frank that using it in tandem with Favored Enemy for a free +5 to hit is far more potent (because, again, attack roll >>>>>>> damage roll.) And I also agree with Frank that you have absolutely no excuse for not having the correct Favored Enemy type for the endgame by now. If you somehow went 14 levels without realizing what enemy type the BBEG was going to be, that's on you and/or the DM; not on the Ranger.
It's not tho....
If you use the +5 to damage you forgo the +5 to attack.
And you are assuming the best a fighter can do with an attack is 1d8 +5?
Never would I assume that's all a fighter at that level would do even without feats...
If the fighter doesn't need to use Precision Die to hit they can spend it on another maneuver or the samurais like 20 attacks can get a +2.5 to them instead.
If you are comfortable saying that's all a fighter can get with an attack then you haven't really given it a fair amount of thought.
Bless isn’t better than favored foe. And they work together, so no matter which one is better they’re better together.
This has now all become white room theorizing. I know that favored foe is better than folks give it credit for, so I’ll suggest this again. If we want to see what level 20 silliness does or doesn’t bring to the table, let’s take the subclass comparisons we all want and look at all of them at level 19.
Both bless and favored foe use concentration. They can only work together if someone else casts it on you (Hurray for teamwork).
1. All a fighter does is damage. They HAVE to deal above par weapon damage.
2. Look at a fighter and ranger at levels 17, 18, and 19. Then at level 20. That is what we are talking about.
Yes the fighter gets their big bad subclass features that put out way more damage than 1d8+5....
Also Look at the opportunity cost for ranger alone... You could be doing way way more damage with your ranger spells like you already alluded to ... So why even bother with Foe Slayer at all and instead get versatility with the cleric dip?
Heck I would stop at ranger 17 as ranger 18 is really bad too.
Bless isn’t better than favored foe. And they work together, so no matter which one is better they’re better together.
This has now all become white room theorizing. I know that favored foe is better than folks give it credit for, so I’ll suggest this again. If we want to see what level 20 silliness does or doesn’t bring to the table, let’s take the subclass comparisons we all want and look at all of them at level 19.
Both bless and favored foe use concentration. They can only work together if someone else casts it on you (Hurray for teamwork).
Whew, A LOT of catching up to do 😳 so let me address some of what was covered in the 2.5 pages since my last post. Not all rangers are archery based - yes I know this hard for some to accept but it’s true. So when I talked about a ranger dipping into fighter and picking up the archery fighting style it was the melee rangers I was talking about. Similarly even archery rangers end up in melee sometimes and picking up the defensive fighting style can be a big help for them. Think context please - of course an archery ranger should have picked up the archery fighting skill at L2.
I love the strawman argument that foe slayer might be useless to a PHB ranger because you might not have the right favored enemy. My opinion put bluntly is Bullsh*t!! If you’ve played the ranger up to L19 in the same campaign and don’t have the right FE for the finale that’s on you and your DM. Don’t claim the ability is bad because you F***ed up. If your coming into the campaign with the (BTDT) character from outside then you should be allowed to change 1 FE to the appropriate one (which the DM should be telling you).
Cleric (especially peace cleric) vs Foe Slayer - I rate the bless slightly weaker but one of the few contenders. If you feel it is superior that’s fine. I and others disagree but I’m willing to say it’s close enough to be a matter of personal choice.
Damage vs hitting - simple- if you don’t hit your damage is 0 no matter what damage boosts you have. Minions do have lower ACs so if FS can work on them w/o needing the +to hit fine take the damage. But, L20 abilities aren’t meant to help you defeat the minions they are meant to help you defeat the final bbeg and their ACs are ( like the character’s) nearly unhitable so anything that makes you hit more often is a massive help. So then entire minions argument is really a strawman and should be ignored (I know I will henceforth).
FE vs FF - FS was designed from the get go to work seamlessly with FE so I’m not surprised that it works better. What is a little surprising to me is how well FF and FS actually work together. Given WotC’s rep that is a pleasant discovery.
FS vs a level dip - first of all I’m ignoring any comments/suggestions/arguments that try to talk about anything else. We are strictly looking at what the choice does for a L19 ranger deciding between L20 or a L1 MC. To my mind the only dip that might make since is the (peace) cleric dip for Bless, otherwise FS is the better choice. If I have already gotten Bless (Fey touched taking misty step and bless) FS is better (imnsho).
FS vs other Capstones - I’ll go out on a limb here - it’s actually the best capstone! Bard, monk, and sorceror get a few inspirations/Ki points/sorceror points back if the need them, warlock gets all his spells but not invocations etc back, the fighter gets a 4th attack in their attack action, the barbarian moves his strength up 4 (24 max), the cleric gets a”summon deity’s help, the Druid becomes an HP instead of 0 to save its life. Maxed out the melee characters each have +14 to hit so they hit AC24 only half the time and they can’t use SS/GWM for boosted damage or they hit at best 25% of the time and at that rate the extra damage isn’t worth the not hitting. The bard’s inspiration can give 1 person a big increase in to hit once so it pretty much guarantees a single hit (hope you don’t roll a 1). The monk’s Ki points let it try for something like stunning strike 4 times and since it gets so many attacks it hits so often because it has so many attacks it’s a powerful ability but it doesn’t help the monk actually hit the bbeg although the stuns are helping everyone else hit it. The sorceror, warlock and wizard aren’t hitting any better but are getting features that let them throw more spells which even at half damage from saves is a big help in wearing down the bbeg. The cleric basically gets to call deification backup which really should amount to no more than a couple of mass heals and a couple of blesses getting the party back up and finally getting folks that weren’t hitting reasonable chances to hit (and save). The rogue gets to change one failed roll to a succes - just one but that is still powerful if they can use their sneak attack. The fighter, barbarian and ranger all have 2-3 attacks at L19 but can expect to hit only about half the time so 1-1.5 hits each. The fighter gets a 4th attack giving an expected 2 hits per round. The barbarian gets a +4 strength which translates to a +2 to hit making their second hit more likely. It also improves their grappling which could be important as well. The ranger’s FS gives them a +3 to +5 on one attack every round against the bbeg pretty much guaranteeing 1 and typically 2 hits a round. Of these I can see arguments for the fighter, cleric and ranger abilities each being the strongest so it’s really a matter of opinion but I like the ranger ability best.
Whew, A LOT of catching up to do 😳 so let me address some of what was covered in the 2.5 pages since my last post. Not all rangers are archery based - yes I know this hard for some to accept but it’s true. So when I talked about a ranger dipping into fighter and picking up the archery fighting style it was the melee rangers I was talking about. Similarly even archery rangers end up in melee sometimes and picking up the defensive fighting style can be a big help for them. Think context please - of course an archery ranger should have picked up the archery fighting skill at L2.
I sincerely hope this first part wasn't directed at my comments, but I feel it is?
FS vs other Capstones - I’ll go out on a limb here - it’s actually the best capstone! Bard, monk, and sorceror get a few inspirations/Ki points/sorceror points back if the need them, warlock gets all his spells but not invocations etc back, the fighter gets a 4th attack in their attack action, the barbarian moves his strength up 4 (24 max), the cleric gets a”summon deity’s help, the Druid becomes an HP instead of 0 to save its life. Maxed out the melee characters each have +14 to hit so they hit AC24 only half the time and they can’t use SS/GWM for boosted damage or they hit at best 25% of the time and at that rate the extra damage isn’t worth the not hitting. The bard’s inspiration can give 1 person a big increase in to hit once so it pretty much guarantees a single hit (hope you don’t roll a 1). The monk’s Ki points let it try for something like stunning strike 4 times and since it gets so many attacks it hits so often because it has so many attacks it’s a powerful ability but it doesn’t help the monk actually hit the bbeg although the stuns are helping everyone else hit it. The sorceror, warlock and wizard aren’t hitting any better but are getting features that let them throw more spells which even at half damage from saves is a big help in wearing down the bbeg. The cleric basically gets to call deification backup which really should amount to no more than a couple of mass heals and a couple of blesses getting the party back up and finally getting folks that weren’t hitting reasonable chances to hit (and save). The rogue gets to change one failed roll to a succes - just one but that is still powerful if they can use their sneak attack. The fighter, barbarian and ranger all have 2-3 attacks at L19 but can expect to hit only about half the time so 1-1.5 hits each. The fighter gets a 4th attack giving an expected 2 hits per round. The barbarian gets a +4 strength which translates to a +2 to hit making their second hit more likely. It also improves their grappling which could be important as well. The ranger’s FS gives them a +3 to +5 on one attack every round against the bbeg pretty much guaranteeing 1 and typically 2 hits a round. Of these I can see arguments for the fighter, cleric and ranger abilities each being the strongest so it’s really a matter of opinion but I like the ranger ability best.
Barbarian also gets +4 constitution and unlimited rage per day, and shocking as it may be, strength checks can be used outside of combat too. Even if you just look at the combat, +2 to hit and +2 damage per attack is going to be overall more of a boon than +3-5 once per round, so I'd say the Barbarian capstone sits firmly ahead, at least, but I have not done the maths.
The capstone is giving you help with the one thing your going to have trouble with - the capstone bbeg. All the non combat usages of strength checks (and your right there are lots) are really extras the two biggies are the +2 to hit and the bonus to grappling checks. The extra con and Hp are nice but 1-2 shots from a dragon/fiend and they are probably gone. Yes you stay up a little longer (maybe) and get a few more attacks but it still boils down to the fact that if you can’t hit your damage is 0. And +3-5 even on only one attack is more likely to guarantee a hit than a +2 and guaranteed hits are what matters. no it wasn’t you that was aimed at. I was just amazed that my morning post had managed to generate that much response in about 12 hours when I couldn’t reply.
Rangers can be melee combatants just as paladins and barbarians can be ranged combatants. Actually, rangers can do that switch quite a bit easier and better. But the three classes definitely have a set survey design. They start rangers with two short swords, just as they start paladins with some javelins, but that isn’t necessarily the optimal main choice.
Rangers getting a flexible always on boost is not as sexy on paper as the barbarian’s things. But we HAVE TO look at what a barbarian is able to do with the 19 levels before level 20 and make that comparison, and then the same with a ranger. That barbarian “capstone” (I still hate that made up term) is trying to make up for a LOT.
So you're saying the barbarian is poorly designed? That it needs a helping hand at level 20 because, comparatively to the Ranger for the first 19 levels it is subpar?
I know you're not, but in the same breath I think you inadvertently are.
It might come across that way, but it isn’t what I’m trying to say.
Its more like little power jumps. Class progress isn’t linear. Look at the difference between the damage output of a ranger and rogue, once at level 4, and then again at level 5. There’s a big change there. Rogue ahead at 4, ranger ahead at 5. They aren’t equal at all of the same times at the same levels. But over any given 3 or 4 levels they even out. Saying the barbarian level 20 ability is better than the ranger is not within the design of the game. Saying the barbarian and ranger are equally doing what they’re supposed to be doing over the last 3 or 5 levels of the game is.
The capstone is giving you help with the one thing your going to have trouble with - the capstone bbeg. All the non combat usages of strength checks (and your right there are lots) are really extras the two biggies are the +2 to hit and the bonus to grappling checks. The extra con and Hp are nice but 1-2 shots from a dragon/fiend and they are probably gone. Yes you stay up a little longer (maybe) and get a few more attacks but it still boils down to the fact that if you can’t hit your damage is 0. And +3-5 even on only one attack is more likely to guarantee a hit than a +2 and guaranteed hits are what matters. no it wasn’t you that was aimed at. I was just amazed that my morning post had managed to generate that much response in about 12 hours when I couldn’t reply.
One thing I did forget, if you're using unarmoured defence the Barbarian's Level 20 Suite of Abilities™ (in deference to Frank's distaste of the use of a large stone used to complete a tomb/building/wall) also increases your AC by 2, which is not to be scoffed at.
So, I did some very basic maths and have a table! This is all based off 400 rounds of combat, two attacks each for the Barb and Ranger, and four for the fighter, all using a +3 longsword, +5 attribute bonus, and +6 proficiency. Ranger logic - if first shot hits it saves foe slayer for the hit on the second shot, if second shot hits it uses foe slayer for damage. If first shot misses, if using Foe Slayer will convert it to a hit, it uses FS, otherwise it saves it for second shot, if second shot hits it uses the damage, if it misses it tries to use it to hit. Provided your DM is boring and every combatant in every fight is a favoured enemy, you're competing at high AC with the fighter and beating the barbarian. So, unsurprisingly you're very good against favoured enemies, and comparatively rubbish against non favoured enemies. Of course this doesn't factor in extra attacks and the like, but as a terrible white room goes, it gives some insight into the effectiveness of the ability. I included different wisdom bonuses for reference. Have fun. Also, if my maths is off I apologise.
Nice table. It makes my point really. At L20 if the ranger doesn’t have the bbeg (& at least some of the stronger minions) as a favored group he has done something wrong or the DM has. Foe slayer makes him superior to the barbarian and nearly as good as the fighter which is where he should be. Note the ranger cleric with bless would typically be matching the barb which is why I put FS as slightly the better choice (at least for the ranger personally).
In this (amazing table! Thank you for all of the time and work you put into it!) table is this just 2 weapon attacks for the barbarian and ranger and 4 weapon attacks for the fighter? Rage for the barbarian and hunter’s mark foe slayer for the ranger? 4 vanilla attacks for the fighter?
“One thing I did forget, if you're using unarmoured defence the Barbarian's Level 20 Suite of Abilities™ (in deference to Frank's distaste of the use of a large stone used to complete a tomb/building/wall) also increases your AC by 2, which is not to be scoffed at.”
Again, thank you so much for putting these numbers together.
I think the barbarian level 20 suite is very solid indeed. (I appreciate the change of phrase, but I noticed you trade marked the replacement phrase. LOL! Nice.) Offense, defense, rage, hit points, all great. I’m not asking you to do it of course, but now let’s all imagine these same characters at level 19. How much is the fighter still ahead? Is the barbarian still doing comparatively “as well” as at level 20? Is the ranger?
And I will refrain from bringing up any other situational thoughts on ranger possibilities as that takes us down a rabbit hole that none of us want to go.
Personally, I think the best way to fix Ranger would be to scrap the whole class and rebuild it from the ground up as a pure martial class without innate access to magic, though they could still have abilities we would classify as supernatural. We could then make Divine Druidic casting accessible through subclasses (one or more), the way FIghters and Rogues get their Arcane casting.
I think there are three fixes that could be made to their current base class:
1. Make Rangers prepared casters like they used to be. We would get a lot more mileage out of their spell list if we didn't have to split it between damage, support and utility the way we do now, making it so that each spell we pick comes with a massive opportunity cost. I don't know why WotC decided to change Rangers from prepared to known casters for 5e, but it was a bad choice.
2. Give the Rangers a moderate buff to passive damage in T3 (not like the concentration requirement of Favored Foe). Something like rolling an extra dice on weapon attacks (a 1d6 weapon becomes a 2d6 weapon) or thereabouts to keep it roughly in line with Improved Divine Smite. Would this put the Ranger a bit ahead on damage compared to Paladins? Probably, but Paladins have amazing defensive and support features like Aura of Protection (how did this even make it into the game?) and Lay on Hands, while also using Charisma as a secondary stat, so the Rangers being a bit ahead in damage seems fair to me.
3. Some more useful high level class features in general. Doesn't need to be directly combat related. Tasha's fixed their abilities in T1&2, not so much in T3&4.
These points wouldn't just be there to push them ahead, but also to make it more appealing to stay with the Ranger class. As it stands right now, I don't see what the higher level Ranger abilities offer compared to just multiclassing after reaching Ranger level 5. R5->Rogue, R5->Fighter and R5->Druid all seem a lot more appealing than staying as a pure Ranger presicely because the higher level abilities pale in comparison to the low and mid level abilities of Rogue, Fighter and Druid. And these are just the ones with overlapping primary stats and themes.
Why would I want Nature's Veil (or, Mielekki forbid, Hide in Plain Sight. Or Vanish at level 14 for that matter) at level 10, when I can Cunning Action at level 7 (Ra5->Ro2)? Why would I care about Feral Senses at level 18, when I can have Blind Fighting at level 6 (Ra5->F1) in addition to my Ranger's original fighting style? Why would I care about Foe Slayer at level 20, when I can have 15 levels in another class?
The answers one could give to these are "Spells!" and "Archetype features!" But the problem with that is that Ranger spellcasting doesn't seem to scale that well compared to abilities like Action Surge or Sneak Attack or everything else Fighters and Rogues get, nor does it stack up to Druid casting. Furthermore, most Ranger archetypes are frontloaded, which means we're usually only giving up on incidental features in return for a massive list of class features. The only Rangers I see benefiting more from going pure than multiclassing would be Beast Master (with a Tasha's companion) and Drake Warden.
I'm not trying to say that Rangers are in a directly bad spot at the moment. A Stalker or Walker of the Gloom and Horizon varieties with Tasha's optional features will probably do fine at most levels in the game, for example. And all Rangers are powerful at level 2-5. But they are in a very awkward spot where the mid and higher level features generally doesn't justify the investment to get them, making multiclassing an improvement by default more than something to be carefully considered.
Since Favored Foe/Foe Slayer deals equivalent damage to a weapon attack (the Fighter capstone,) you are saying by the transitive property that the damage output of almost any other concentration-based Ranger spell will be better than the Fighter's fourth Extra Attack. Which is fair to say. But let's keep that in perspective as we move forward.
And while I generally agree with you about Ranger spellcasting > Favored Foe/Slayer, let's keep in mind a few things: Favored Foe/Slayer doesn't mess with action economy. It doesn't take any action to proc and procs on hit, which frees up your bonus action for other things. It also procs (and adds to the damage) on the hit of spells like Ensnaring Strike, Searing Smite, or Hail of Thorns. Which means you can use these spells in conjunction with Favored Foe/Slayer and not in competition with it. Favored Foe/Slayer also doesn't cost a spell slot. It uses a completely separate resource pool, which frees up your spellcasting for other things. At this level, Absorb Elements is almost mandatory on a Ranger, for instance.
And again, as I stated above, using Favored Foe/Slayer to deal 1d8+5 damage is actually the worst possible way to use that feature. I happen to agree with Frank that using it in tandem with Favored Enemy for a free +5 to hit is far more potent (because, again, attack roll >>>>>>> damage roll.) And I also agree with Frank that you have absolutely no excuse for not having the correct Favored Enemy type for the endgame by now. If you somehow went 14 levels without realizing what enemy type the BBEG was going to be, that's on you and/or the DM; not on the Ranger.
It's not tho....
If you use the +5 to damage you forgo the +5 to attack.
And you are assuming the best a fighter can do with an attack is 1d8 +5?
Never would I assume that's all a fighter at that level would do even without feats...
If the fighter doesn't need to use Precision Die to hit they can spend it on another maneuver or the samurais like 20 attacks can get a +2.5 to them instead.
If you are comfortable saying that's all a fighter can get with an attack then you haven't really given it a fair amount of thought.
Both bless and favored foe use concentration. They can only work together if someone else casts it on you (Hurray for teamwork).
Again,
1. All a fighter does is damage. They HAVE to deal above par weapon damage.
2. Look at a fighter and ranger at levels 17, 18, and 19. Then at level 20. That is what we are talking about.
Yes the fighter gets their big bad subclass features that put out way more damage than 1d8+5....
Also Look at the opportunity cost for ranger alone... You could be doing way way more damage with your ranger spells like you already alluded to ... So why even bother with Foe Slayer at all and instead get versatility with the cleric dip?
Heck I would stop at ranger 17 as ranger 18 is really bad too.
I meant foe slayer.
Optimus, if was up to you, this would be ranger 5/rogue or cleric 15.
Nah more like Ranger 9/Rogue 3/cleric 8.
Whew, A LOT of catching up to do 😳 so let me address some of what was covered in the 2.5 pages since my last post.
Not all rangers are archery based - yes I know this hard for some to accept but it’s true. So when I talked about a ranger dipping into fighter and picking up the archery fighting style it was the melee rangers I was talking about. Similarly even archery rangers end up in melee sometimes and picking up the defensive fighting style can be a big help for them. Think context please - of course an archery ranger should have picked up the archery fighting skill at L2.
I love the strawman argument that foe slayer might be useless to a PHB ranger because you might not have the right favored enemy. My opinion put bluntly is Bullsh*t!! If you’ve played the ranger up to L19 in the same campaign and don’t have the right FE for the finale that’s on you and your DM. Don’t claim the ability is bad because you F***ed up. If your coming into the campaign with the (BTDT) character from outside then you should be allowed to change 1 FE to the appropriate one (which the DM should be telling you).
Cleric (especially peace cleric) vs Foe Slayer - I rate the bless slightly weaker but one of the few contenders. If you feel it is superior that’s fine. I and others disagree but I’m willing to say it’s close enough to be a matter of personal choice.
Damage vs hitting - simple- if you don’t hit your damage is 0 no matter what damage boosts you have. Minions do have lower ACs so if FS can work on them w/o needing the +to hit fine take the damage. But, L20 abilities aren’t meant to help you defeat the minions they are meant to help you defeat the final bbeg and their ACs are ( like the character’s) nearly unhitable so anything that makes you hit more often is a massive help. So then entire minions argument is really a strawman and should be ignored (I know I will henceforth).
FE vs FF - FS was designed from the get go to work seamlessly with FE so I’m not surprised that it works better. What is a little surprising to me is how well FF and FS actually work together. Given WotC’s rep that is a pleasant discovery.
FS vs a level dip - first of all I’m ignoring any comments/suggestions/arguments that try to talk about anything else. We are strictly looking at what the choice does for a L19 ranger deciding between L20 or a L1 MC. To my mind the only dip that might make since is the (peace) cleric dip for Bless, otherwise FS is the better choice. If I have already gotten Bless (Fey touched taking misty step and bless) FS is better (imnsho).
FS vs other Capstones - I’ll go out on a limb here - it’s actually the best capstone! Bard, monk, and sorceror get a few inspirations/Ki points/sorceror points back if the need them, warlock gets all his spells but not invocations etc back, the fighter gets a 4th attack in their attack action, the barbarian moves his strength up 4 (24 max), the cleric gets a”summon deity’s help, the Druid becomes an HP instead of 0 to save its life. Maxed out the melee characters each have +14 to hit so they hit AC24 only half the time and they can’t use SS/GWM for boosted damage or they hit at best 25% of the time and at that rate the extra damage isn’t worth the not hitting. The bard’s inspiration can give 1 person a big increase in to hit once so it pretty much guarantees a single hit (hope you don’t roll a 1). The monk’s Ki points let it try for something like stunning strike 4 times and since it gets so many attacks it hits so often because it has so many attacks it’s a powerful ability but it doesn’t help the monk actually hit the bbeg although the stuns are helping everyone else hit it. The sorceror, warlock and wizard aren’t hitting any better but are getting features that let them throw more spells which even at half damage from saves is a big help in wearing down the bbeg. The cleric basically gets to call deification backup which really should amount to no more than a couple of mass heals and a couple of blesses getting the party back up and finally getting folks that weren’t hitting reasonable chances to hit (and save). The rogue gets to change one failed roll to a succes - just one but that is still powerful if they can use their sneak attack. The fighter, barbarian and ranger all have 2-3 attacks at L19 but can expect to hit only about half the time so 1-1.5 hits each. The fighter gets a 4th attack giving an expected 2 hits per round. The barbarian gets a +4 strength which translates to a +2 to hit making their second hit more likely. It also improves their grappling which could be important as well. The ranger’s FS gives them a +3 to +5 on one attack every round against the bbeg pretty much guaranteeing 1 and typically 2 hits a round. Of these I can see arguments for the fighter, cleric and ranger abilities each being the strongest so it’s really a matter of opinion but I like the ranger ability best.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I sincerely hope this first part wasn't directed at my comments, but I feel it is?
Barbarian also gets +4 constitution and unlimited rage per day, and shocking as it may be, strength checks can be used outside of combat too. Even if you just look at the combat, +2 to hit and +2 damage per attack is going to be overall more of a boon than +3-5 once per round, so I'd say the Barbarian capstone sits firmly ahead, at least, but I have not done the maths.
The capstone is giving you help with the one thing your going to have trouble with - the capstone bbeg. All the non combat usages of strength checks (and your right there are lots) are really extras the two biggies are the +2 to hit and the bonus to grappling checks. The extra con and Hp are nice but 1-2 shots from a dragon/fiend and they are probably gone. Yes you stay up a little longer (maybe) and get a few more attacks but it still boils down to the fact that if you can’t hit your damage is 0. And +3-5 even on only one attack is more likely to guarantee a hit than a +2 and guaranteed hits are what matters.
no it wasn’t you that was aimed at. I was just amazed that my morning post had managed to generate that much response in about 12 hours when I couldn’t reply.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Rangers can be melee combatants just as paladins and barbarians can be ranged combatants. Actually, rangers can do that switch quite a bit easier and better. But the three classes definitely have a set survey design. They start rangers with two short swords, just as they start paladins with some javelins, but that isn’t necessarily the optimal main choice.
Rangers getting a flexible always on boost is not as sexy on paper as the barbarian’s things. But we HAVE TO look at what a barbarian is able to do with the 19 levels before level 20 and make that comparison, and then the same with a ranger. That barbarian “capstone” (I still hate that made up term) is trying to make up for a LOT.
So you're saying the barbarian is poorly designed? That it needs a helping hand at level 20 because, comparatively to the Ranger for the first 19 levels it is subpar?
I know you're not, but in the same breath I think you inadvertently are.
It might come across that way, but it isn’t what I’m trying to say.
Its more like little power jumps. Class progress isn’t linear. Look at the difference between the damage output of a ranger and rogue, once at level 4, and then again at level 5. There’s a big change there. Rogue ahead at 4, ranger ahead at 5. They aren’t equal at all of the same times at the same levels. But over any given 3 or 4 levels they even out. Saying the barbarian level 20 ability is better than the ranger is not within the design of the game. Saying the barbarian and ranger are equally doing what they’re supposed to be doing over the last 3 or 5 levels of the game is.
One thing I did forget, if you're using unarmoured defence the Barbarian's Level 20 Suite of Abilities™ (in deference to Frank's distaste of the use of a large stone used to complete a tomb/building/wall) also increases your AC by 2, which is not to be scoffed at.
So, I did some very basic maths and have a table! This is all based off 400 rounds of combat, two attacks each for the Barb and Ranger, and four for the fighter, all using a +3 longsword, +5 attribute bonus, and +6 proficiency. Ranger logic - if first shot hits it saves foe slayer for the hit on the second shot, if second shot hits it uses foe slayer for damage. If first shot misses, if using Foe Slayer will convert it to a hit, it uses FS, otherwise it saves it for second shot, if second shot hits it uses the damage, if it misses it tries to use it to hit. Provided your DM is boring and every combatant in every fight is a favoured enemy, you're competing at high AC with the fighter and beating the barbarian. So, unsurprisingly you're very good against favoured enemies, and comparatively rubbish against non favoured enemies. Of course this doesn't factor in extra attacks and the like, but as a terrible white room goes, it gives some insight into the effectiveness of the ability. I included different wisdom bonuses for reference. Have fun. Also, if my maths is off I apologise.
Nice table. It makes my point really. At L20 if the ranger doesn’t have the bbeg (& at least some of the stronger minions) as a favored group he has done something wrong or the DM has. Foe slayer makes him superior to the barbarian and nearly as good as the fighter which is where he should be. Note the ranger cleric with bless would typically be matching the barb which is why I put FS as slightly the better choice (at least for the ranger personally).
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
In this (amazing table! Thank you for all of the time and work you put into it!) table is this just 2 weapon attacks for the barbarian and ranger and 4 weapon attacks for the fighter? Rage for the barbarian and hunter’s mark foe slayer for the ranger? 4 vanilla attacks for the fighter?
“One thing I did forget, if you're using unarmoured defence the Barbarian's Level 20 Suite of Abilities™ (in deference to Frank's distaste of the use of a large stone used to complete a tomb/building/wall) also increases your AC by 2, which is not to be scoffed at.”
Again, thank you so much for putting these numbers together.
I think the barbarian level 20 suite is very solid indeed. (I appreciate the change of phrase, but I noticed you trade marked the replacement phrase. LOL! Nice.) Offense, defense, rage, hit points, all great. I’m not asking you to do it of course, but now let’s all imagine these same characters at level 19. How much is the fighter still ahead? Is the barbarian still doing comparatively “as well” as at level 20? Is the ranger?
And I will refrain from bringing up any other situational thoughts on ranger possibilities as that takes us down a rabbit hole that none of us want to go.
Personally, I think the best way to fix Ranger would be to scrap the whole class and rebuild it from the ground up as a pure martial class without innate access to magic, though they could still have abilities we would classify as supernatural. We could then make Divine Druidic casting accessible through subclasses (one or more), the way FIghters and Rogues get their Arcane casting.
I think there are three fixes that could be made to their current base class:
1. Make Rangers prepared casters like they used to be. We would get a lot more mileage out of their spell list if we didn't have to split it between damage, support and utility the way we do now, making it so that each spell we pick comes with a massive opportunity cost. I don't know why WotC decided to change Rangers from prepared to known casters for 5e, but it was a bad choice.
2. Give the Rangers a moderate buff to passive damage in T3 (not like the concentration requirement of Favored Foe). Something like rolling an extra dice on weapon attacks (a 1d6 weapon becomes a 2d6 weapon) or thereabouts to keep it roughly in line with Improved Divine Smite. Would this put the Ranger a bit ahead on damage compared to Paladins? Probably, but Paladins have amazing defensive and support features like Aura of Protection (how did this even make it into the game?) and Lay on Hands, while also using Charisma as a secondary stat, so the Rangers being a bit ahead in damage seems fair to me.
3. Some more useful high level class features in general. Doesn't need to be directly combat related. Tasha's fixed their abilities in T1&2, not so much in T3&4.
These points wouldn't just be there to push them ahead, but also to make it more appealing to stay with the Ranger class. As it stands right now, I don't see what the higher level Ranger abilities offer compared to just multiclassing after reaching Ranger level 5. R5->Rogue, R5->Fighter and R5->Druid all seem a lot more appealing than staying as a pure Ranger presicely because the higher level abilities pale in comparison to the low and mid level abilities of Rogue, Fighter and Druid. And these are just the ones with overlapping primary stats and themes.
Why would I want Nature's Veil (or, Mielekki forbid, Hide in Plain Sight. Or Vanish at level 14 for that matter) at level 10, when I can Cunning Action at level 7 (Ra5->Ro2)?
Why would I care about Feral Senses at level 18, when I can have Blind Fighting at level 6 (Ra5->F1) in addition to my Ranger's original fighting style?
Why would I care about Foe Slayer at level 20, when I can have 15 levels in another class?
The answers one could give to these are "Spells!" and "Archetype features!" But the problem with that is that Ranger spellcasting doesn't seem to scale that well compared to abilities like Action Surge or Sneak Attack or everything else Fighters and Rogues get, nor does it stack up to Druid casting. Furthermore, most Ranger archetypes are frontloaded, which means we're usually only giving up on incidental features in return for a massive list of class features. The only Rangers I see benefiting more from going pure than multiclassing would be Beast Master (with a Tasha's companion) and Drake Warden.
I'm not trying to say that Rangers are in a directly bad spot at the moment. A Stalker or Walker of the Gloom and Horizon varieties with Tasha's optional features will probably do fine at most levels in the game, for example. And all Rangers are powerful at level 2-5. But they are in a very awkward spot where the mid and higher level features generally doesn't justify the investment to get them, making multiclassing an improvement by default more than something to be carefully considered.