In terms of spell selection I would put it second only to wizard.
Goodberry, Pass without trace and spike growth and revivify are all among the best spells in the game at their level.
Others like Absorb Elements, Lessor Restoration, Silence, Gaurdian of Nature and Summon Fey are solid.
Hunters Mark would be a decent spell, but it is hard to waste a known spell or even a spell slot on casting that when there are so many better spells. If you get hunters mark and use hunters mark I can see you saying the Ranger's spell list is bad, but that reflects choices not options or reality.
In terms of spell selection I would put it second only to wizard.
Goodberry, Pass without trace and spike growth and revivify are all among the best spells in the game at their level.
Others like Absorb Elements, Lessor Restoration, Silence, Gaurdian of Nature and Summon Fey are solid.
Hunters Mark would be a decent spell, but it is hard to waste a known spell or even a spell slot on casting that when there are so many better spells. If you get hunters mark and use hunters mark I can see you saying the Ranger's spell list is bad, but that reflects choices not options or reality.
I couldn’t agree more. Hunters Mark is a nice spell, but because of some strange misconception, everyone thought it was the only option and for some years the community simple ignored how amazing and versatile Ranger spell list is.
In terms of spell selection I would put it second only to wizard.
Goodberry, Pass without trace and spike growth and revivify are all among the best spells in the game at their level.
Others like Absorb Elements, Lessor Restoration, Silence, Gaurdian of Nature and Summon Fey are solid.
Hunters Mark would be a decent spell, but it is hard to waste a known spell or even a spell slot on casting that when there are so many better spells. If you get hunters mark and use hunters mark I can see you saying the Ranger's spell list is bad, but that reflects choices not options or reality.
I couldn’t agree more. Hunters Mark is a nice spell, but because of some strange misconception, everyone thought it was the only option and for some years the community simple ignored how amazing and versatile Ranger spell list is.
I would put the druid and Cleric lists above ranger.
Druid is basically ranger+ and you get to the good spells faster as a full caster.
Cleric gets bless, healing word, and some really great subclass/domain spells off the bat.
Ranger struggles with a lot of concentration dependant spells and no real way to help keep that concentration up.
I think that it's a good spell list and Tashas upgraded it well though
The “struggles with maintaining concentration” and “doesn’t have a way to maintain concentration” arguments about rangers as casters don’t really hold up. Ranged rangers are seldom even put to the concentration test because they are seldom in melee combat where concentration is typically lost. Even melee rangers don’t have that much to worry about as they are some of the best armored characters in the game - if they can’t hit you they can’t disrupt your concentration.spells like zephyr strike just improve on that by eliminating opportunity attacks further limiting the chances of being hit hard enough to lose concentration.
The “struggles with maintaining concentration” and “doesn’t have a way to maintain concentration” arguments about rangers as casters don’t really hold up. Ranged rangers are seldom even put to the concentration test because they are seldom in melee combat where concentration is typically lost. Even melee rangers don’t have that much to worry about as they are some of the best armored characters in the game - if they can’t hit you they can’t disrupt your concentration.spells like zephyr strike just improve on that by eliminating opportunity attacks further limiting the chances of being hit hard enough to lose concentration.
Well not in my experience but I'm glad it works that way for you .
Their AC is not particularly high as most don't use shields and limited to light armor means the best you can ever get is 17.
Clerics can easily start at 18 (medium armor or chain+ shield) and go up from there.
As for ranged that works ok but you can still be hit.
Yes clerics have less concern for con checks because of their high AC as well. Bards often have high Dex which helps raise their AC as the best they can do is studded leather (12+Dex) so call it a starting AC of 15 (12+3). Wizards get mage armour (13+Dex- typically +2 or less) so also an AC of 15 ( I’m going to ignore shield spells as they are 1 round only and cost the last slot of a L1 mage). A ranger gets either light or medium armor, but the armor chosen typically is based on the style of combat. Archer rangers can get away with studded leather giving them a 15 AC as well. But then they don’t really need a higher AC because they outrange most other ranged combatants. Melee ranger typically take medium armor Scale at L1) giving them a starting point of AC16. If they take 2 weapon fighting they get a +1 for a 17, if they take a shield they get +2 for an 18 which is all resilient con would give you as a L1 feat. Warcaster is useful for the ranger - that advantage is better than the proficiency at all but the highest levels and you get to do somatic while holding your weapon and or shield. The third benefit of warcaster is minimally useful as rangers (without multiclasses dips) lack the damaging cantrips and touch spells wizards and sorcerors etc get. At higher levels the melee ranger typically shifts to breastplate or half plate as soon as possible raising their effective ACs to 16/17 (breastplate) or 18/19 ( half plate ) before magical extensions keeping them competitive with clerics and sometimes fighters.
A level 1 Ranger can theoretically start with half plate, a shield, and Defense Fighting style for 20 AC right off the bat. Which is higher than your average level 1 Cleric can get, while also having more HP due to their higher hit die. All this while still being able to get in and out of melee range via Zephyr Strike as early as level 2. Taking feats like Mobile and spells like Ashardalon's Stride at higher levels just increases your ability to avoid getting hits. And that's assuming you're a melee Ranger. Archers have even less to be worried about.
A level 1 Ranger can theoretically start with half plate, a shield, and Defense Fighting style for 20 AC right off the bat. Which is higher than your average level 1 Cleric can get, while also having more HP due to their higher hit die. All this while still being able to get in and out of melee range via Zephyr Strike as early as level 2. Taking feats like Mobile and spells like Ashardalon's Stride at higher levels just increases your ability to avoid getting hits. And that's assuming you're a melee Ranger. Archers have even less to be worried about.
that's assuming you get half plate off the bat which is not likely as it's 750gp. Also at level 1 you don't have a fighting style .... Also I rarely see rangers use a shield. They can of course but the overall class has more support for archery and twf but it's possible.
Clerics at level 1 (depending on domain) can get heavy armor and chain in starting equipment so I think you're actually mistaken I think.
Clerics likely have better AC for most, if not all, of T1.
You mention spells which I did agree help. But passive AC is nice for when you don't want to burn slots to just not get hit.
Fair enough on the Fighting Style. At level 2, a Ranger can get 20 AC.
"Most people" (where are you getting your data?) Not using shields is a player error and not a class-design issue. The Ranger offers you the option. If you don't take it, that's your fault; not the class'
Similar to how "most players don't pump Wisdom" isn't a valid criticism of the Ranger class and says more about the players than about the Rangers themselves.
Fair enough on the Fighting Style. At level 2, a Ranger can get 20 AC.
"Most people" (where are you getting your data?) Not using shields is a player error and not a class-design issue. The Ranger offers you the option. If you don't take it, that's your fault; not the class'
Similar to how "most players don't pump Wisdom" isn't a valid criticism of the Ranger class and says more about the players than about the Rangers themselves.
By that logic a cleric can get 21 AC at first level with plate and a shield. A forge cleric can get 22 AC. They can pick shield of faith at level 1 to get to 24 AC.
And I would gladly take any data set on ranger that suggests shield use is common. Their starting equipment doesn't have one and most of their spells favor ranged attacks or TWF over shield use is my point.....
I never said it's not possible just likely not very well supported by class features and spells as much as the others.
Also it might help if you understood the class progression yourself when making a point about people not understanding the class....
A level 1 Ranger can theoretically start with half plate, a shield, and Defense Fighting style for 20 AC right off the bat. Which is higher than your average level 1 Cleric can get, while also having more HP due to their higher hit die. All this while still being able to get in and out of melee range via Zephyr Strike as early as level 2. Taking feats like Mobile and spells like Ashardalon's Stride at higher levels just increases your ability to avoid getting hits. And that's assuming you're a melee Ranger. Archers have even less to be worried about.
The problem with shields and a caster are the somatic components. After 5th level this is going to be a problem for a Ranger as most of the 2nd level spells all require somatic components, so does absorb elements.
You can play around this, but it is not without compromises. You can drop or stow your weapon every turn, but then you don't have attacks of opportunity. You also risk the enemy picking up your weapon or being moved away from it. You can pick spells without S components but then you will be giving up some of the best Ranger spells. Add to that you will be doing less damage (another compromise) and it takes archers off the table. You can also take warcaster but that is a high price to pay for someone who is not a full caster.
As such it is rare I see a shield-using Ranger. I see more shield-using clerics, mostly because they can use the shield itself as a focus and then the only spells they really can't cast are those that have an S component but no M and there are not very many of those. Also though, even in shield-using clerics I see most of them take warcaster to alleviate this.
Every ranger I play carries a shield. I even have used actions in combat to switch it, because it was the best tactical choice at the time. even if I do 90% ranged attacks, there are times when you know you'll be doing close quarters combat in the next dungeon area or building.
I find most of the somatic "combat spells" also have materials that are already in hand{arrows or a weapon}. those that do I am actually fine stowing a weapon for. Fog cloud is usually a defensive thing and worth going unarmed. (note unarmed still allows OP attacks) cure wounds is great but not the best healing option. I find its never worth it to cast absorb elements before I could take war caster. the summon spells are usually worth Putting a weapon away for. if I make a build I am worried about hands, I take appropriate actions or build choices and it usually comes out fine.
A level 1 Ranger can theoretically start with half plate, a shield, and Defense Fighting style for 20 AC right off the bat. Which is higher than your average level 1 Cleric can get, while also having more HP due to their higher hit die. All this while still being able to get in and out of melee range via Zephyr Strike as early as level 2. Taking feats like Mobile and spells like Ashardalon's Stride at higher levels just increases your ability to avoid getting hits. And that's assuming you're a melee Ranger. Archers have even less to be worried about.
The problem with shields and a caster are the somatic components. After 5th level this is going to be a problem for a Ranger as most of the 2nd level spells all require somatic components, so does absorb elements.
You can play around this, but it is not without compromises. You can drop or stow your weapon every turn, but then you don't have attacks of opportunity. You also risk the enemy picking up your weapon or being moved away from it. You can pick spells without S components but then you will be giving up some of the best Ranger spells. Add to that you will be doing less damage (another compromise) and it takes archers off the table. You can also take warcaster but that is a high price to pay for someone who is not a full caster.
As such it is rare I see a shield-using Ranger. I see more shield-using clerics, mostly because they can use the shield itself as a focus and then the only spells they really can't cast are those that have an S component but no M and there are not very many of those. Also though, even in shield-using clerics I see most of them take warcaster to alleviate this.
This is my experience as well. Druids also as they don't need weapons most of the time.
Dueling spear & shield PAM Hunter is a common build I play. Zephyr Strike to increase mobility, enabling the possibility to always step out and make enemies trigger PAM OA. Sometimes I start this build as a Fighter and 21 AC is given.
Dueling spear & shield PAM Hunter is a common build I play. Zephyr Strike to increase mobility, enabling the possibility to always step out and make enemies trigger PAM OA. Sometimes I start this build as a Fighter and 21 AC is given.
Yeah Fighter/Ranger MC helps for sure as you can get Heavy Armor off the bat.
Went through Frostmaiden with a PAM Gloom hoplite gnome. It wasn't until after 7th that the party started catching up with my AC. Stayed with medium armor and did just fine.
TWFstops being useful fairly quickly, but the ability to draw and stow with both hands for free remains useful - including drawing and stowing a shield with the off hand. That pretty well eliminates the components/somatic spell casting problems while allowing for easy transitions from TWF to adding defensive fighting at L4 with the Fighting initiate feat. Realistically your probably not casting spells in the Middle of combat anyway. After L5 your probably better off with the shield AC than the bonus action TWF attack except in emergencies where you need that third attack desperately.
TWFstops being useful fairly quickly, but the ability to draw and stow with both hands for free remains useful - including drawing and stowing a shield with the off hand. That pretty well eliminates the components/somatic spell casting problems while allowing for easy transitions from TWF to adding defensive fighting at L4 with the Fighting initiate feat. Realistically your probably not casting spells in the Middle of combat anyway. After L5 your probably better off with the shield AC than the bonus action TWF attack except in emergencies where you need that third attack desperately.
Except that the damage feats don't effect either so really to keep up with other builds you need to be using heavy weapons or a bow.
Really only the aforementioned PAM build is probably ok and that's only as a way to get a third attack so as to not fall completely behind. But even that suffers from the BA heavy nature of ranger spells.
Overall these builds work in a very limited sense yes.
A shield requires an action to don or doff, so if you're casting spells then it stays wherever it was. That means possibly sheathing your weapon, which comes with all sorts of ramifications.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In terms of spell selection I would put it second only to wizard.
Goodberry, Pass without trace and spike growth and revivify are all among the best spells in the game at their level.
Others like Absorb Elements, Lessor Restoration, Silence, Gaurdian of Nature and Summon Fey are solid.
Hunters Mark would be a decent spell, but it is hard to waste a known spell or even a spell slot on casting that when there are so many better spells. If you get hunters mark and use hunters mark I can see you saying the Ranger's spell list is bad, but that reflects choices not options or reality.
I couldn’t agree more. Hunters Mark is a nice spell, but because of some strange misconception, everyone thought it was the only option and for some years the community simple ignored how amazing and versatile Ranger spell list is.
I would put the druid and Cleric lists above ranger.
Druid is basically ranger+ and you get to the good spells faster as a full caster.
Cleric gets bless, healing word, and some really great subclass/domain spells off the bat.
Ranger struggles with a lot of concentration dependant spells and no real way to help keep that concentration up.
I think that it's a good spell list and Tashas upgraded it well though
with the amount of complaints you introduce about ranger spells{and actively nerf }, one would think you wouldn't dare continue using that arguments.
Anyway, This opinion is not shared among a good percent of the community.
The “struggles with maintaining concentration” and “doesn’t have a way to maintain concentration” arguments about rangers as casters don’t really hold up. Ranged rangers are seldom even put to the concentration test because they are seldom in melee combat where concentration is typically lost. Even melee rangers don’t have that much to worry about as they are some of the best armored characters in the game - if they can’t hit you they can’t disrupt your concentration.spells like zephyr strike just improve on that by eliminating opportunity attacks further limiting the chances of being hit hard enough to lose concentration.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Well not in my experience but I'm glad it works that way for you .
Their AC is not particularly high as most don't use shields and limited to light armor means the best you can ever get is 17.
Clerics can easily start at 18 (medium armor or chain+ shield) and go up from there.
As for ranged that works ok but you can still be hit.
Spells do help though I agree.
Yes clerics have less concern for con checks because of their high AC as well. Bards often have high Dex which helps raise their AC as the best they can do is studded leather (12+Dex) so call it a starting AC of 15 (12+3). Wizards get mage armour (13+Dex- typically +2 or less) so also an AC of 15 ( I’m going to ignore shield spells as they are 1 round only and cost the last slot of a L1 mage). A ranger gets either light or medium armor, but the armor chosen typically is based on the style of combat. Archer rangers can get away with studded leather giving them a 15 AC as well. But then they don’t really need a higher AC because they outrange most other ranged combatants. Melee ranger typically take medium armor Scale at L1) giving them a starting point of AC16. If they take 2 weapon fighting they get a +1 for a 17, if they take a shield they get +2 for an 18 which is all resilient con would give you as a L1 feat. Warcaster is useful for the ranger - that advantage is better than the proficiency at all but the highest levels and you get to do somatic while holding your weapon and or shield. The third benefit of warcaster is minimally useful as rangers (without multiclasses dips) lack the damaging cantrips and touch spells wizards and sorcerors etc get. At higher levels the melee ranger typically shifts to breastplate or half plate as soon as possible raising their effective ACs to 16/17 (breastplate) or 18/19 ( half plate ) before magical extensions keeping them competitive with clerics and sometimes fighters.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
A level 1 Ranger can theoretically start with half plate, a shield, and Defense Fighting style for 20 AC right off the bat. Which is higher than your average level 1 Cleric can get, while also having more HP due to their higher hit die. All this while still being able to get in and out of melee range via Zephyr Strike as early as level 2. Taking feats like Mobile and spells like Ashardalon's Stride at higher levels just increases your ability to avoid getting hits. And that's assuming you're a melee Ranger. Archers have even less to be worried about.
that's assuming you get half plate off the bat which is not likely as it's 750gp. Also at level 1 you don't have a fighting style .... Also I rarely see rangers use a shield. They can of course but the overall class has more support for archery and twf but it's possible.
Clerics at level 1 (depending on domain) can get heavy armor and chain in starting equipment so I think you're actually mistaken I think.
Clerics likely have better AC for most, if not all, of T1.
You mention spells which I did agree help. But passive AC is nice for when you don't want to burn slots to just not get hit.
Fair enough on the Fighting Style. At level 2, a Ranger can get 20 AC.
"Most people" (where are you getting your data?) Not using shields is a player error and not a class-design issue. The Ranger offers you the option. If you don't take it, that's your fault; not the class'
Similar to how "most players don't pump Wisdom" isn't a valid criticism of the Ranger class and says more about the players than about the Rangers themselves.
By that logic a cleric can get 21 AC at first level with plate and a shield. A forge cleric can get 22 AC. They can pick shield of faith at level 1 to get to 24 AC.
And I would gladly take any data set on ranger that suggests shield use is common. Their starting equipment doesn't have one and most of their spells favor ranged attacks or TWF over shield use is my point.....
I never said it's not possible just likely not very well supported by class features and spells as much as the others.
Also it might help if you understood the class progression yourself when making a point about people not understanding the class....
The problem with shields and a caster are the somatic components. After 5th level this is going to be a problem for a Ranger as most of the 2nd level spells all require somatic components, so does absorb elements.
You can play around this, but it is not without compromises. You can drop or stow your weapon every turn, but then you don't have attacks of opportunity. You also risk the enemy picking up your weapon or being moved away from it. You can pick spells without S components but then you will be giving up some of the best Ranger spells. Add to that you will be doing less damage (another compromise) and it takes archers off the table. You can also take warcaster but that is a high price to pay for someone who is not a full caster.
As such it is rare I see a shield-using Ranger. I see more shield-using clerics, mostly because they can use the shield itself as a focus and then the only spells they really can't cast are those that have an S component but no M and there are not very many of those. Also though, even in shield-using clerics I see most of them take warcaster to alleviate this.
Every ranger I play carries a shield. I even have used actions in combat to switch it, because it was the best tactical choice at the time. even if I do 90% ranged attacks, there are times when you know you'll be doing close quarters combat in the next dungeon area or building.
I find most of the somatic "combat spells" also have materials that are already in hand{arrows or a weapon}. those that do I am actually fine stowing a weapon for. Fog cloud is usually a defensive thing and worth going unarmed. (note unarmed still allows OP attacks) cure wounds is great but not the best healing option. I find its never worth it to cast absorb elements before I could take war caster. the summon spells are usually worth Putting a weapon away for. if I make a build I am worried about hands, I take appropriate actions or build choices and it usually comes out fine.
This is my experience as well. Druids also as they don't need weapons most of the time.
Dueling spear & shield PAM Hunter is a common build I play. Zephyr Strike to increase mobility, enabling the possibility to always step out and make enemies trigger PAM OA. Sometimes I start this build as a Fighter and 21 AC is given.
Yeah Fighter/Ranger MC helps for sure as you can get Heavy Armor off the bat.
Went through Frostmaiden with a PAM Gloom hoplite gnome. It wasn't until after 7th that the party started catching up with my AC. Stayed with medium armor and did just fine.
TWFstops being useful fairly quickly, but the ability to draw and stow with both hands for free remains useful - including drawing and stowing a shield with the off hand. That pretty well eliminates the components/somatic spell casting problems while allowing for easy transitions from TWF to adding defensive fighting at L4 with the Fighting initiate feat. Realistically your probably not casting spells in the Middle of combat anyway. After L5 your probably better off with the shield AC than the bonus action TWF attack except in emergencies where you need that third attack desperately.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Except that the damage feats don't effect either so really to keep up with other builds you need to be using heavy weapons or a bow.
Really only the aforementioned PAM build is probably ok and that's only as a way to get a third attack so as to not fall completely behind. But even that suffers from the BA heavy nature of ranger spells.
Overall these builds work in a very limited sense yes.
A shield requires an action to don or doff, so if you're casting spells then it stays wherever it was. That means possibly sheathing your weapon, which comes with all sorts of ramifications.