Lacking heavy armor proficiency is honestly made such a much bigger deal by the community than it is. A Ranger in Half-Plate with a +2 Dex, a shield, and Defense Fighting Style will have an AC of 20 at level 1. A Paladin using heavy armor with otherwise the exact same setup will have an AC of...21. One point higher.
Now, don't get me wrong, the one point isn't insignificant or anything, but it doesn't suddenly make the Rangers bad at melee or anything of the sort. They can still more than hold their own with the other martial classes.
Assuming Standard Array, a Ranger can have a Str of 15, a Dex of 14, and a Wis of 13, which after racial modifiers can go up to a Str of 16, a Dex of 14, and a Wis of 15 (or Str 17, Dex 14, and Wis 14,) which is absolutely fine as starting stats.
Lacking heavy armor proficiency is honestly made such a much bigger deal by the community than it is. A Ranger in Half-Plate with a +2 Dex, a shield, and Defense Fighting Style will have an AC of 20 at level 1. A Paladin using heavy armor with otherwise the exact same setup will have an AC of...21. One point higher.
Now, don't get me wrong, the one point isn't insignificant or anything, but it doesn't suddenly make the Rangers bad at melee or anything of the sort. They can still more than hold their own with the other martial classes.
Assuming Standard Array, a Ranger can have a Str of 15, a Dex of 14, and a Wis of 13, which after racial modifiers can go up to a Str of 16, a Dex of 14, and a Wis of 15 (or Str 17, Dex 14, and Wis 14,) which is absolutely fine as starting stats.
Rangers don't get their Fighting Style until level 2....also if you take defense at level 2 you forgo a offensive option dropping your damage. This is also assuming you can afford or are gifting a 750gp armor at level 1
That also means you are only getting a 12 CON which is not a good deal for a melee martial at all...
which also means your CON saves for spells is worse which is also bad for a melee caster.
However you get your armor, and when, a ranger will have an AC of usually about one less than a paladin can. If I’m going any ranger, wisdom is not my first priority UNLESS I am specifically a few wanderer, Tasha’s variant beast master, or whichever HAVE to have wisdom. Many ranger subclasses DON’T need a high wisdom at all. Most of their best spells don’t care about a casting stat, and the threshold for ability check success in wilderness travel and exploration is actually fairly easy to medium in difficulty. Wisdom is more important later on, of course. Pump your constitution! Make a character, not a character sheet
However anyone weighs it, a paladin is NOT much of a ranged combatant at all. They lose so much when they do that. Rangers are, not as good as fighters (by design), really capable of choosing which and when type of martial fighting they want or need to do. Not so with paladins, monks, barbarians, or rogues.
Either version of beast master ranger makes great use of a pole arm fighting ranger. Hunters make great heavy weapon users, putting out level 11 level damage at levels 5-10 thanks two their choice of a level 3 subclass abilities.
Strength rangers are fun because they really lean into that wilderness type, like with an axe. Hand axes hit harder than a dagger and can be thrown to trigger some of their great AoE spells. Long spears are common weapons for hunting things like boar.
One of my favorite strength builds for a hunter or beast master (handbook) ranger is strength, shield, and quarterstaff/spear. Especially now with the spear, as either can be used with the dueling fighting style, PAM feat, and the spear can be thrown, again triggering those great ranger spells like.
Two weapon fighting is actually more of a backup option for rangers in my head. Like, they give starting equipment, rangers get 2 shortswords, paladins get some javelins.
However you get your armor, and when, a ranger will have an AC of usually about one less than a paladin can. If I’m going any ranger, wisdom is not my first priority UNLESS I am specifically a few wanderer, Tasha’s variant beast master, or whichever HAVE to have wisdom. Many ranger subclasses DON’T need a high wisdom at all. Most of their best spells don’t care about a casting stat, and the threshold for ability check success in wilderness travel and exploration is actually fairly easy to medium in difficulty. Wisdom is more important later on, of course. Pump your constitution! Make a character, not a character sheet
However anyone weighs it, a paladin is NOT much of a ranged combatant at all. They lose so much when they do that. Rangers are, not as good as fighters (by design), really capable of choosing which and when type of martial fighting they want or need to do. Not so with paladins, monks, barbarians, or rogues.
Yeah that is fair as the best they will do is a javalien...but at least they can get a higher CON an CHA stat to compensate.
I also agree that its possible to make a STR ranger they just usually suffer from either: Low CON or Low WIS
Unless you dip fighter (not a bad option) or pick v.human and get heavy armor which is also not a terrible option.
My opinion is that Hunter, Gloomstalker, and Swarmkeeper subclasses should give you Heavy Armor as an extra prof. when you pick the subclass as I think they are the three most suited for heavy armor/STR ranger.
However you get your armor, and when, a ranger will have an AC of usually about one less than a paladin can. If I’m going any ranger, wisdom is not my first priority UNLESS I am specifically a few wanderer, Tasha’s variant beast master, or whichever HAVE to have wisdom. Many ranger subclasses DON’T need a high wisdom at all. Most of their best spells don’t care about a casting stat, and the threshold for ability check success in wilderness travel and exploration is actually fairly easy to medium in difficulty. Wisdom is more important later on, of course. Pump your constitution! Make a character, not a character sheet
However anyone weighs it, a paladin is NOT much of a ranged combatant at all. They lose so much when they do that. Rangers are, not as good as fighters (by design), really capable of choosing which and when type of martial fighting they want or need to do. Not so with paladins, monks, barbarians, or rogues.
Yeah that is fair as the best they will do is a javalien...but at least they can get a higher CON an CHA stat to compensate.
I also agree that its possible to make a STR ranger they just usually suffer from either: Low CON or Low WIS
Unless you dip fighter (not a bad option) or pick v.human and get heavy armor which is also not a terrible option.
My opinion is that Hunter, Gloomstalker, and Swarmkeeper subclasses should give you Heavy Armor as an extra prof. when you pick the subclass as I think they are the three most suited for heavy armor/STR ranger.
Yes. Like some clerics, heavy armor would be a nice option.
Other than a ranger needing a bit of dexterity for many reasons, I’m failing to understand two points you keep making. 1. Rangers lose more going strength. 2. Rangers need wisdom pumped like a paladins need charisma pumped. Wisdom to a ranger is WAY less imperative than charisma to a paladin.
Oddly enough one of the features that replace the more ribbon like favored enemy in Baldur's Gate 3 is call ranger knight that gives them heavy armor (though they haven't added in very many heavy armors to the game yet)
on starting equipment I do think they got a little tunnel vision with ranger as they forgot that small races get disadvantage with longbow which is part of the starting kit.
Oddly enough one of the features that replace the more ribbon like favored enemy in Baldur's Gate 3 is call ranger knight that gives them heavy armor (though they haven't added in very many heavy armors to the game yet)
on starting equipment I do think they got a little tunnel vision with ranger as they forgot that small races get disadvantage with longbow which is part of the starting kit.
100%! I ran into this personally with a gnome beast master ranger I was playing earlier this year. The dungeon master was hell-bent that a Longbow is starting equipment and that is how it shall remain.
However you get your armor, and when, a ranger will have an AC of usually about one less than a paladin can. If I’m going any ranger, wisdom is not my first priority UNLESS I am specifically a few wanderer, Tasha’s variant beast master, or whichever HAVE to have wisdom. Many ranger subclasses DON’T need a high wisdom at all. Most of their best spells don’t care about a casting stat, and the threshold for ability check success in wilderness travel and exploration is actually fairly easy to medium in difficulty. Wisdom is more important later on, of course. Pump your constitution! Make a character, not a character sheet
However anyone weighs it, a paladin is NOT much of a ranged combatant at all. They lose so much when they do that. Rangers are, not as good as fighters (by design), really capable of choosing which and when type of martial fighting they want or need to do. Not so with paladins, monks, barbarians, or rogues.
Yeah that is fair as the best they will do is a javalien...but at least they can get a higher CON an CHA stat to compensate.
I also agree that its possible to make a STR ranger they just usually suffer from either: Low CON or Low WIS
Unless you dip fighter (not a bad option) or pick v.human and get heavy armor which is also not a terrible option.
My opinion is that Hunter, Gloomstalker, and Swarmkeeper subclasses should give you Heavy Armor as an extra prof. when you pick the subclass as I think they are the three most suited for heavy armor/STR ranger.
Yes. Like some clerics, heavy armor would be a nice option.
Other than a ranger needing a bit of dexterity for many reasons, I’m failing to understand two points you keep making. 1. Rangers lose more going strength. 2. Rangers need wisdom pumped like a paladins need charisma pumped. Wisdom to a ranger is WAY less imperative than charisma to a paladin.
I say it depends to be honest...a paladin won't notice the loss of CHA until level 6 with the addition of the aura but before could mostly just use smites, smite spells, and bless with little notice of CHA.
But I do agree they would for sure notice it more than a ranger at 6th and later.
Ranger does have some options at lower levels that forgo WIS (Spike growth, hunters, etc...) so that is fair as well for them. However they seem to have more WIS based lower level features and DCs associated with WIS than paladin but its highly dependant on subclass.
However its less likely a paladin would need to dump CHA as well as they at least get the option for dumping DEX with heavy armor so its less likely to see a paladin NEED to do it.
Question for the martial DPR/PAM/GWM/CBX/SS/multiclass optimizers. (I’m asking here because it seems to be the least dormant ranger thread currently.) Where do other classes/subclasses fall on the spectrum (rangers = bad to PAM+GWM barbarians/paladins/fighters = good) of consistent and high combat damage output? Artificers, bards, clerics, monks, sorcerers, wizards, druids, non-hexblade warlocks.
Question for the martial DPR/PAM/GWM/CBX/SS/multiclass optimizers. (I’m asking here because it seems to be the least dormant ranger thread currently.) Where do other classes/subclasses fall on the spectrum (rangers = bad to PAM+GWM barbarians/paladins/fighters = good) of consistent and high combat damage output? Artificers, bards, clerics, monks, sorcerers, wizards, druids, non-hexblade warlocks.
Rangers actually do really well in T1 Damage and T3 damge IMO....in terms of power they can outperform a fighter in the fights they can get Conjure Animals up and keep it up but its directly correlated to the amount of rounds they can squeeze out of that and other spells. The major issue is that past level 9 their damage is highly tied to spells which if their concentration is targeted (a 14 CON ranger has only a 27% chance of succeeding all concentration saves on a single casting of Magic Missile) that they could get dipped hard by losing a slot for the day. The fact their resource only recovers on a long rest means they have to be exceedingly careful not to blow the slots at the wrong time...which to me feels a bit too cloister for a martial IMO.
For me damage is less of an issue with the damage and more how they get it....its generally through spell casting/use of a BA or concentration which is more prone to not working at all times comparatively to the ones you mention that get a lot of ways to make their damage kick no matter the circumstances.
Ranger spellcasting and the newer exciting subclasses is why I play rangers.
What about my question? Artificers, bards, clerics, druids, monks, sorcerers, wizards, and non-hex lad warlocks, and optimized high single target DpR?
You are correct I meant until about level 10...thanks for catching that.
Artificers have some damage builds (CBE+SS Builds mostly) but really shine on mitigating damage more than anything.
Bards are horrible at damage IMO...but they make up for it with huge buffs to the damage dealing classes and debuffing the enemy. The one they do get that is just straight up crazy damage is Animate Objects (Read more here)
Clerics have some OK builds for damage but mostly have really amazing buff subclasses (Peace cleric will destroy bounded accuracy in T1)
Druids have some damage builds (Moon in T1, Star Druid with concentration damage spells)
Monks are only good at damage before level 4....after they drop like a rock and never really catch up. Monks are decent at alot of things though....they have a really high floor but a low ceiling.
Sorcerers and the other blaster casters (Wizard, Warlock) have crazy damage options in spells and just straight up ways to remove something from the fight completely. Once they get the high level spells there is hardly any martials builds that come even relatively close in power.
Just a thought, is it possible that base class suffer from the need of the subclass to balance the pet class aspects of Ranger (which I would guess will only increase in subclasses as they are happy with the stat block in the feature design)?
I could be wrong and they may go back to terrain specialist focus subclasses or slayers of X (but hunter and monster slayer may have taken all the narrative for that concept).
I think we have the beasts, hunters and planes walkers pretty well covered at this point. What I would actually like to see are some elemental/environmental focused rangers. (Sadly I doubt it will happen as 5e seems to have limited interest in the travel/exploration leg of the game anymore, but a sourcebook on that topic would certainly be a great place for a few new subclasses.)
Just a thought, is it possible that base class suffer from the need of the subclass to balance the pet class aspects of Ranger (which I would guess will only increase in subclasses as they are happy with the stat block in the feature design)?
I could be wrong and they may go back to terrain specialist focus subclasses or slayers of X (but hunter and monster slayer may have taken all the narrative for that G).
again terain focused subclasses are too far from the standard. wotc wont make big changes like that.
if you look at the tashas options as a whole and phb as a whole the abilities are really just trade offs. (movement while traveling gives smaller scale movement) (skills to avoid exhaustion give Temp HP and exhaustion removal.) (situational expertise gives Focused expertise) (Large detetcion spellslot use Gives instead local detection spells.) and so on.
By terrain specialist I was grouping the gloomstalker (underdark), horizon walker (planes as a whole), and fey wanderer (feywild plane specific) style subclasses as that seemed good category for distinction. As opposed to the pet based or slayer based subclasses.
Think environment rather than terrain, yes the gloom stalker represents the underdark, but how about an ocean based ranger ( think sea elves or mermen - what would change if it were focused on underwater activity with water breathing characters), or an air based? What about being focused around a specific energy type?
Lacking heavy armor proficiency is honestly made such a much bigger deal by the community than it is. A Ranger in Half-Plate with a +2 Dex, a shield, and Defense Fighting Style will have an AC of 20 at level 1. A Paladin using heavy armor with otherwise the exact same setup will have an AC of...21. One point higher.
Now, don't get me wrong, the one point isn't insignificant or anything, but it doesn't suddenly make the Rangers bad at melee or anything of the sort. They can still more than hold their own with the other martial classes.
Assuming Standard Array, a Ranger can have a Str of 15, a Dex of 14, and a Wis of 13, which after racial modifiers can go up to a Str of 16, a Dex of 14, and a Wis of 15 (or Str 17, Dex 14, and Wis 14,) which is absolutely fine as starting stats.
Rangers don't get their Fighting Style until level 2....also if you take defense at level 2 you forgo a offensive option dropping your damage. This is also assuming you can afford or are gifting a 750gp armor at level 1
That also means you are only getting a 12 CON which is not a good deal for a melee martial at all...
which also means your CON saves for spells is worse which is also bad for a melee caster.
Sounds like a bad deal to me....
However you get your armor, and when, a ranger will have an AC of usually about one less than a paladin can. If I’m going any ranger, wisdom is not my first priority UNLESS I am specifically a few wanderer, Tasha’s variant beast master, or whichever HAVE to have wisdom. Many ranger subclasses DON’T need a high wisdom at all. Most of their best spells don’t care about a casting stat, and the threshold for ability check success in wilderness travel and exploration is actually fairly easy to medium in difficulty. Wisdom is more important later on, of course. Pump your constitution! Make a character, not a character sheet
However anyone weighs it, a paladin is NOT much of a ranged combatant at all. They lose so much when they do that. Rangers are, not as good as fighters (by design), really capable of choosing which and when type of martial fighting they want or need to do. Not so with paladins, monks, barbarians, or rogues.
Either version of beast master ranger makes great use of a pole arm fighting ranger. Hunters make great heavy weapon users, putting out level 11 level damage at levels 5-10 thanks two their choice of a level 3 subclass abilities.
Strength rangers are fun because they really lean into that wilderness type, like with an axe. Hand axes hit harder than a dagger and can be thrown to trigger some of their great AoE spells. Long spears are common weapons for hunting things like boar.
One of my favorite strength builds for a hunter or beast master (handbook) ranger is strength, shield, and quarterstaff/spear. Especially now with the spear, as either can be used with the dueling fighting style, PAM feat, and the spear can be thrown, again triggering those great ranger spells like.
Two weapon fighting is actually more of a backup option for rangers in my head. Like, they give starting equipment, rangers get 2 shortswords, paladins get some javelins.
Yeah that is fair as the best they will do is a javalien...but at least they can get a higher CON an CHA stat to compensate.
I also agree that its possible to make a STR ranger they just usually suffer from either: Low CON or Low WIS
Unless you dip fighter (not a bad option) or pick v.human and get heavy armor which is also not a terrible option.
My opinion is that Hunter, Gloomstalker, and Swarmkeeper subclasses should give you Heavy Armor as an extra prof. when you pick the subclass as I think they are the three most suited for heavy armor/STR ranger.
Yes. Like some clerics, heavy armor would be a nice option.
Other than a ranger needing a bit of dexterity for many reasons, I’m failing to understand two points you keep making. 1. Rangers lose more going strength. 2. Rangers need wisdom pumped like a paladins need charisma pumped. Wisdom to a ranger is WAY less imperative than charisma to a paladin.
Oddly enough one of the features that replace the more ribbon like favored enemy in Baldur's Gate 3 is call ranger knight that gives them heavy armor (though they haven't added in very many heavy armors to the game yet)
on starting equipment I do think they got a little tunnel vision with ranger as they forgot that small races get disadvantage with longbow which is part of the starting kit.
100%! I ran into this personally with a gnome beast master ranger I was playing earlier this year. The dungeon master was hell-bent that a Longbow is starting equipment and that is how it shall remain.
I say it depends to be honest...a paladin won't notice the loss of CHA until level 6 with the addition of the aura but before could mostly just use smites, smite spells, and bless with little notice of CHA.
But I do agree they would for sure notice it more than a ranger at 6th and later.
Ranger does have some options at lower levels that forgo WIS (Spike growth, hunters, etc...) so that is fair as well for them. However they seem to have more WIS based lower level features and DCs associated with WIS than paladin but its highly dependant on subclass.
However its less likely a paladin would need to dump CHA as well as they at least get the option for dumping DEX with heavy armor so its less likely to see a paladin NEED to do it.
Question for the martial DPR/PAM/GWM/CBX/SS/multiclass optimizers. (I’m asking here because it seems to be the least dormant ranger thread currently.) Where do other classes/subclasses fall on the spectrum (rangers = bad to PAM+GWM barbarians/paladins/fighters = good) of consistent and high combat damage output? Artificers, bards, clerics, monks, sorcerers, wizards, druids, non-hexblade warlocks.
Thank you, Quindraco for that update to my list.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Rangers actually do really well in T1 Damage and T3 damge IMO....in terms of power they can outperform a fighter in the fights they can get Conjure Animals up and keep it up but its directly correlated to the amount of rounds they can squeeze out of that and other spells. The major issue is that past level 9 their damage is highly tied to spells which if their concentration is targeted (a 14 CON ranger has only a 27% chance of succeeding all concentration saves on a single casting of Magic Missile) that they could get dipped hard by losing a slot for the day. The fact their resource only recovers on a long rest means they have to be exceedingly careful not to blow the slots at the wrong time...which to me feels a bit too cloister for a martial IMO.
For me damage is less of an issue with the damage and more how they get it....its generally through spell casting/use of a BA or concentration which is more prone to not working at all times comparatively to the ones you mention that get a lot of ways to make their damage kick no matter the circumstances.
Ranger spellcasting and the newer exciting subclasses is why I play rangers.
I assume you meant T1 and T2.
What about my question? Artificers, bards, clerics, druids, monks, sorcerers, wizards, and non-hex lad warlocks, and optimized high single target DpR?
You are correct I meant until about level 10...thanks for catching that.
Artificers have some damage builds (CBE+SS Builds mostly) but really shine on mitigating damage more than anything.
Bards are horrible at damage IMO...but they make up for it with huge buffs to the damage dealing classes and debuffing the enemy. The one they do get that is just straight up crazy damage is Animate Objects (Read more here)
Clerics have some OK builds for damage but mostly have really amazing buff subclasses (Peace cleric will destroy bounded accuracy in T1)
Druids have some damage builds (Moon in T1, Star Druid with concentration damage spells)
Monks are only good at damage before level 4....after they drop like a rock and never really catch up. Monks are decent at alot of things though....they have a really high floor but a low ceiling.
Sorcerers and the other blaster casters (Wizard, Warlock) have crazy damage options in spells and just straight up ways to remove something from the fight completely. Once they get the high level spells there is hardly any martials builds that come even relatively close in power.
Just a thought, is it possible that base class suffer from the need of the subclass to balance the pet class aspects of Ranger (which I would guess will only increase in subclasses as they are happy with the stat block in the feature design)?
I could be wrong and they may go back to terrain specialist focus subclasses or slayers of X (but hunter and monster slayer may have taken all the narrative for that concept).
I think we have the beasts, hunters and planes walkers pretty well covered at this point. What I would actually like to see are some elemental/environmental focused rangers. (Sadly I doubt it will happen as 5e seems to have limited interest in the travel/exploration leg of the game anymore, but a sourcebook on that topic would certainly be a great place for a few new subclasses.)
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
again terain focused subclasses are too far from the standard. wotc wont make big changes like that.
if you look at the tashas options as a whole and phb as a whole the abilities are really just trade offs. (movement while traveling gives smaller scale movement) (skills to avoid exhaustion give Temp HP and exhaustion removal.) (situational expertise gives Focused expertise) (Large detetcion spellslot use Gives instead local detection spells.) and so on.
By terrain specialist I was grouping the gloomstalker (underdark), horizon walker (planes as a whole), and fey wanderer (feywild plane specific) style subclasses as that seemed good category for distinction. As opposed to the pet based or slayer based subclasses.
Think environment rather than terrain, yes the gloom stalker represents the underdark, but how about an ocean based ranger ( think sea elves or mermen - what would change if it were focused on underwater activity with water breathing characters), or an air based? What about being focused around a specific energy type?
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
The Gloomstalker is not exclusively for the Underdark, and I wish more people understood that.