i want to play an Giant Killer Ranger, created all my backstory for a Lvl 1 Ranger. So in comparison for a Ranger with a Greatsword, there are some options i could take. For the Monster Slayer Subclass, i get 1d6 bonus damage, but i have to use one Bonus Action, that i want to use for Hunters Mark. As a Colossus Slayer, the enemy has just to be injured, so i do additional 1d8 damage. And for Horde Breaker i "only" need one enemy, that is adjustant to the one i'm attacking.
Now, for my giant killer to trigger, i need my reaction, while standing in 5 feet to an enemy that must be large oder larger than that...., which has to attacking me. And then i can use my reaction to attack it back afterwards. This could be huge, because Hunters Mark is triggering, which isn't the case for Horde Breaker, but it is rather situational. What is your opinion about this and may have you a homebrew solution or something. In the end i think i will take the Giant Killer anyway, just because it's fitting the best for my character.
A feature that grants 1d8 extra damage most turns is better than a feature that grants an extra attack under very specific circumstances unless you go out of the way to make those circumstances occur. If you are able to make those circumstances occur regularly enough, then an extra attack will eventually surpass the extra damage once per turn. But still, given the choice, many players would choose guaranteed damage over damage that relies on the DM’s choices. The big killer is the size requirement. You will often be facing medium creatures, and that feature will be completely unavailable to you.
Slayer’s prey works with Hunter’s Mark, it just takes two turns to set up. On the first turn, you might only get slayer’s prey extra damage; but from the 2nd turn on, you can get both d6s.
i want to play an Giant Killer Ranger, created all my backstory for a Lvl 1 Ranger. So in comparison for a Ranger with a Greatsword, there are some options i could take. For the Monster Slayer Subclass, i get 1d6 bonus damage, but i have to use one Bonus Action, that i want to use for Hunters Mark. As a Colossus Slayer, the enemy has just to be injured, so i do additional 1d8 damage. And for Horde Breaker i "only" need one enemy, that is adjustant to the one i'm attacking.
Now, for my giant killer to trigger, i need my reaction, while standing in 5 feet to an enemy that must be large oder larger than that...., which has to attacking me. And then i can use my reaction to attack it back afterwards. This could be huge, because Hunters Mark is triggering, which isn't the case for Horde Breaker, but it is rather situational. What is your opinion about this and may have you a homebrew solution or something. In the end i think i will take the Giant Killer anyway, just because it's fitting the best for my character.
Personally I am one to take things like attacks of opportunity into consideration when looking at average expected damage. I know a lot of folks don't , see WolfOfTheBees above for "guaranteed damage", but I think that is a flaw in all of the white room, perfect scenario, theory crafting DPR that we all do. Great Weapon Master and Polearm Master specifically and positively effect the frequency of AoO, and thereby additional damage, while any ranged build (Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert) completely remove the occurrence of AoO (and your hit point pool to the party resources). Abilities like sneak attack, some battle master maneuvers, and colossus slayer, and spells like hunter's mark (as you already pointed out) also have great impact on damage from and for AoO. Beast master rangers from levels 3-10 add the bulk of their ranger subclass damage bump from additional AoO, in my tactical opinion.
Are you you planning on taking any feats? Great weapon master will occasionally eat your bonus action along with hunter's mark, so the monster slayer subclass added damage ability might be rough. The monster slayer gets a lot more from their level 3 ability than just a d6. Their later abilities proc off of that 1d6 "mark". Another thing to take into consideration is the type of enemies you'll be facing/focusing on. Hunter are very easily geared to take out groups of enemies (see their level 11 ability choice), while the monster slayer is almost exclusively designed to fight a single terrifying BBEG. Using a great sword with no feat and hunter's mark with a +3 ability modifier you'll be hitting for about 13.5 damage on a single attack. That number divided by the 4.5 from colossus slayer is 3. Meaning you need to hit and trigger colossus slayer 3 times to equal the damage from just one attack of opportunity. The giant killer ability will net you more AoO than the same build without it (I'll be it situationally), when fighting big (literally) bad enemies. If you gave the -5/+10 feat then the amount of times you need colossus slayer to hit goes up a bit, maybe 1-2 times more is needed. In straight combat abilities, numbers, and tactics I would say the hunter, with either option, is a "better choice" than those from the monster slayer, until later levels, for fighting a single target. But this is why the monster slayer, and the other two XGtE ranger subclasses) get additional spells.
Certainly white-room theorycrafting has difficulty in accounting for unpredictable events; by their nature they are unpredictable. But placing some of your damage potential in the tactics of the DM means that the DM can avoid a lot of that damage by playing different tactics. The DM could choose to all but ignore you as long as you aren’t the only one in melee with the monster. Or, the DM might go the other way and throw all 3 of the creatures’s multi-attacks at you instead of spreading them around the party since you can only use your reaction once. You get your 1 hit off, but the monster absolutely pummels you. Or it hits you once, uses up your reaction, then walks away (without fear of being stuck from your sentinel feat). In particular, I think giant killer opens up the possibility for the DM to play tactically against you, rather than providing you something that you can really count on or use to play tactically against monsters.
Then, as I pointed out above, there is always the possibility that you won’t be fighting against large creatures, depending on the campaign and the creatures around.
Also, it isn’t exactly fair to call these attacks AoO, as they’re not. You wouldn’t make these with Sentinel or anything like, that, and they actually reduce the number of AoOs that you can take, since your reaction will have been consumed on any round that you make a Giant Killer attack. Because of that, there is not only the opportunity cost of AoO, but if have Colossus Slayer instead, you have the opportunity cost of the d8 on the AoO.
In the combats that you can use it, you might get the extra Giant Killer attack most rounds (Depending on who is in melee with you), but in those same combats, you probably would be getting your Colossus Slayer damage every round too, and you could use it in combats where Giant Killer just doesn’t come up. So again, as FRGG put it, you have to count on fighting large creatures and them taking attacks specifically against you more than a third of rounds in combat averaged over your campaign to make Giant Killer come out comparable or better.
There just seem to be a lot of if’s with Giant Killer that just don’t exist with the other ranger options.
Tactics are just that. And using what you do have control over to set an AoO, or setup any kind of thing, is the very point, and source of fun and interest for me regarding combats. To only count the things that a character can do "all of the time" against a grey blob that does nothing is more boring than the grey blob. I'll give another example. People do math for DPR on paladin/fighter/barbarian build with heavy armor using smite and dice and rage, but never factor in how much is lost in the DPR department if the battle starts 31'+ feet away from the enemy or their are flying creatures, or levels of terrain and buildings. That was my only point. It is not only worth considering, it MUST be considered. Otherwise everyone would just play the same things, because they look "good" on paper.
Mathematically, if you want to value DPR more than anything, just play a fighter.
Also, I don't know if you know how high a level this campaign you are playing with this character will go, but all ranger subclasses put out top tier sustained damage per round using just hunter's mark and their level 3 subclass damage bump. Rangers don't have much for single target peak/nova damage output. But in the damage over time and damage to multiple enemies categories they are at or near the top.
I would like to point out giant killer seems "better" suited towards high Level play rather than lower level. as the levels go up the chance of having encounters with larger creatures also goes up.
Another thing Is, I think when the phb was the only material we had Giant killer wasn't quite as bad sounding. It was niche but still seemed comparable and you were choosing theme over consistency. It dosen't seem especially if your dm doesn't use optional rules, Like multiclassing or feats . early 5e seemed to have a lot more control on Bonus action and reactions and it was more likely for a class to be heavy on one and easy on the other. Now that is not the case.
I would like to point out giant killer seems "better" suited towards high Level play rather than lower level. as the levels go up the chance of having encounters with larger creatures also goes up.
Another thing Is, I think when the phb was the only material we had Giant killer wasn't quite as bad sounding. It was niche but still seemed comparable and you were choosing theme over consistency. It dosen't seem especially if your dm doesn't use optional rules, Like multiclassing or feats . early 5e seemed to have a lot more control on Bonus action and reactions and it was more likely for a class to be heavy on one and easy on the other. Now that is not the case.
I guess.
Everyone makes a big deal about the level 3 gloomstalker ability that gives you one...one...per battle extra attack. Not an attack action. Just one extra attack. Per battle! Two of the hunter level 3 subclass abilities give an extra attack that, although conditional, could proc multiple times in every battles. It just depends on what you are "focusing on". A single big monster or lots smaller nasties.
One extra attack per battle probably on average still occurs more frequently than every round that you’ve been attacked by a large or larger creature that is within 5 feet of you while you had your reaction available.
Many 5e combats last around 3 rounds. That means on 1/3 to maybe 1/5 of your turns you get to use this feature.
One extra attack per battle probably on average still occurs more frequently than every round that you’ve been attacked by a large or larger creature that is within 5 feet of you while you had your reaction available.
Many 5e combats last around 3 rounds. That means on 1/3 to maybe 1/5 of your turns you get to use this feature.
I guess that depends on your game or campaign. If a player is focusing on that ability (giant killer) then it will come up as often as it does but when it does getting into that position will happen more for that character than another that doesn't give a crap about that.
It does depend on the campaign, yep. So without some knowledge about that, it is tough to choose the option that you don’t know that you’ll get to use. That is the entire reason why features like Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy are so singularly despised by the community.
It does depend on the campaign, yep. So without some knowledge about that, it is tough to choose the option that you don’t know that you’ll get to use. That is the entire reason why features like Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy are so singularly despised by the community.
Well, with all of the talk about building characters that live and care about the world and adventure, and session zero, and party character creation, I think rangers, and those abilities you just mentioned, will show their true colors. The hate they get is 100% undeserved. Them being despised are symptoms of specific DMs and tables of play, not because of what they are.
on the concept of one extra attack(from giant killer or otherwise) not being a big deal.........
..... lets think about this.......
one extra attack can actually Effect things things. Because HM(or FF) and sharp shooter can be involved. Yes other builds can get them also but the ranger is the best class at taking advantage of them and are also more likely to be dependent on them for a damage build. compared it to other classes which are limited to once per round The extra attack is adding.
rogues get sneak once per turn and sharp shooter is harder for them to apply on a bonus action attack.(requires more investment Trade offs)
monks and fighters get a lot of attacks but generally don't get any per attack enhancers unless a magic item or spell enhancement from another class. and in the case of a monk using a magic weapon they usually wont get it on their "two unarmed ones" which are still tied to a class resource.
...............Now giant killer in particular is weird because of the 5' restriction. . A ranged attack would be at disadvantage within 5' (Unless you also have crossbow expert which isn't that uncommon for ranged rangers) So sharp shooter is harder to pull off but not impossible. Ranged rangers almost always get the boost from archery fighting style. you are also in melee range so more likely to loose concentration But "its trigger is on a miss" and Rangers usually have their bonus action for spells not attacks. its also off turn so things like sneak could amplify it.
So with a specific investment giant killer really could really take down giants quickly You just have to plan for it. It would be a feat heavy or a multiclass build though. so it would come on line later than one would think but As I postulated, I think Bigger enemies are more common later down the line(at higher levels) so the late Activations aren't that big and I think you would still have a functional character the whole time. It would be a rogue and ranger multiclass which is one multiclass build that some people absolute adore (almost to the Point of creepiness.)
I didn’t want to get into feats, but these conversations usually do, and this is very appropriate. Feats are what makes fighters so incredible at levels 11+. Most people assume they are used, they are an optional rule technically. I’ve always seen giant killer as a great grab for the strength based heavy weapon user. This ability screams for great sword. With a great sword and giant killer you’d be next to your enemies as much as possible. Procing either this ability or an AoO way more frequently than a build that isn’t focused on this kind of thing. And then combine this with great weapon master’s other perk where a crit or bring an enemy to zero hp gives you another attack, and that covers fighting smaller (medium) enemies. So all and all, this combination makes for a ranger making 3 attacks per round very frequently in tier 3. Then they get a bump to fighting groups of enemies at level 11, which further covers their combat tactics with another way to get a third attack. That’s three avenues to make a third attack by level 11.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hey guys,
i want to play an Giant Killer Ranger, created all my backstory for a Lvl 1 Ranger. So in comparison for a Ranger with a Greatsword, there are some options i could take. For the Monster Slayer Subclass, i get 1d6 bonus damage, but i have to use one Bonus Action, that i want to use for Hunters Mark. As a Colossus Slayer, the enemy has just to be injured, so i do additional 1d8 damage. And for Horde Breaker i "only" need one enemy, that is adjustant to the one i'm attacking.
Now, for my giant killer to trigger, i need my reaction, while standing in 5 feet to an enemy that must be large oder larger than that...., which has to attacking me. And then i can use my reaction to attack it back afterwards. This could be huge, because Hunters Mark is triggering, which isn't the case for Horde Breaker, but it is rather situational. What is your opinion about this and may have you a homebrew solution or something. In the end i think i will take the Giant Killer anyway, just because it's fitting the best for my character.
A feature that grants 1d8 extra damage most turns is better than a feature that grants an extra attack under very specific circumstances unless you go out of the way to make those circumstances occur. If you are able to make those circumstances occur regularly enough, then an extra attack will eventually surpass the extra damage once per turn. But still, given the choice, many players would choose guaranteed damage over damage that relies on the DM’s choices. The big killer is the size requirement. You will often be facing medium creatures, and that feature will be completely unavailable to you.
Slayer’s prey works with Hunter’s Mark, it just takes two turns to set up. On the first turn, you might only get slayer’s prey extra damage; but from the 2nd turn on, you can get both d6s.
Personally I am one to take things like attacks of opportunity into consideration when looking at average expected damage. I know a lot of folks don't , see WolfOfTheBees above for "guaranteed damage", but I think that is a flaw in all of the white room, perfect scenario, theory crafting DPR that we all do. Great Weapon Master and Polearm Master specifically and positively effect the frequency of AoO, and thereby additional damage, while any ranged build (Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert) completely remove the occurrence of AoO (and your hit point pool to the party resources). Abilities like sneak attack, some battle master maneuvers, and colossus slayer, and spells like hunter's mark (as you already pointed out) also have great impact on damage from and for AoO. Beast master rangers from levels 3-10 add the bulk of their ranger subclass damage bump from additional AoO, in my tactical opinion.
Are you you planning on taking any feats? Great weapon master will occasionally eat your bonus action along with hunter's mark, so the monster slayer subclass added damage ability might be rough. The monster slayer gets a lot more from their level 3 ability than just a d6. Their later abilities proc off of that 1d6 "mark". Another thing to take into consideration is the type of enemies you'll be facing/focusing on. Hunter are very easily geared to take out groups of enemies (see their level 11 ability choice), while the monster slayer is almost exclusively designed to fight a single terrifying BBEG. Using a great sword with no feat and hunter's mark with a +3 ability modifier you'll be hitting for about 13.5 damage on a single attack. That number divided by the 4.5 from colossus slayer is 3. Meaning you need to hit and trigger colossus slayer 3 times to equal the damage from just one attack of opportunity. The giant killer ability will net you more AoO than the same build without it (I'll be it situationally), when fighting big (literally) bad enemies. If you gave the -5/+10 feat then the amount of times you need colossus slayer to hit goes up a bit, maybe 1-2 times more is needed. In straight combat abilities, numbers, and tactics I would say the hunter, with either option, is a "better choice" than those from the monster slayer, until later levels, for fighting a single target. But this is why the monster slayer, and the other two XGtE ranger subclasses) get additional spells.
Certainly white-room theorycrafting has difficulty in accounting for unpredictable events; by their nature they are unpredictable. But placing some of your damage potential in the tactics of the DM means that the DM can avoid a lot of that damage by playing different tactics. The DM could choose to all but ignore you as long as you aren’t the only one in melee with the monster. Or, the DM might go the other way and throw all 3 of the creatures’s multi-attacks at you instead of spreading them around the party since you can only use your reaction once. You get your 1 hit off, but the monster absolutely pummels you. Or it hits you once, uses up your reaction, then walks away (without fear of being stuck from your sentinel feat). In particular, I think giant killer opens up the possibility for the DM to play tactically against you, rather than providing you something that you can really count on or use to play tactically against monsters.
Then, as I pointed out above, there is always the possibility that you won’t be fighting against large creatures, depending on the campaign and the creatures around.
Also, it isn’t exactly fair to call these attacks AoO, as they’re not. You wouldn’t make these with Sentinel or anything like, that, and they actually reduce the number of AoOs that you can take, since your reaction will have been consumed on any round that you make a Giant Killer attack. Because of that, there is not only the opportunity cost of AoO, but if have Colossus Slayer instead, you have the opportunity cost of the d8 on the AoO.
In the combats that you can use it, you might get the extra Giant Killer attack most rounds (Depending on who is in melee with you), but in those same combats, you probably would be getting your Colossus Slayer damage every round too, and you could use it in combats where Giant Killer just doesn’t come up. So again, as FRGG put it, you have to count on fighting large creatures and them taking attacks specifically against you more than a third of rounds in combat averaged over your campaign to make Giant Killer come out comparable or better.
There just seem to be a lot of if’s with Giant Killer that just don’t exist with the other ranger options.
Tactics are just that. And using what you do have control over to set an AoO, or setup any kind of thing, is the very point, and source of fun and interest for me regarding combats. To only count the things that a character can do "all of the time" against a grey blob that does nothing is more boring than the grey blob. I'll give another example. People do math for DPR on paladin/fighter/barbarian build with heavy armor using smite and dice and rage, but never factor in how much is lost in the DPR department if the battle starts 31'+ feet away from the enemy or their are flying creatures, or levels of terrain and buildings. That was my only point. It is not only worth considering, it MUST be considered. Otherwise everyone would just play the same things, because they look "good" on paper.
Mathematically, if you want to value DPR more than anything, just play a fighter.
Also, I don't know if you know how high a level this campaign you are playing with this character will go, but all ranger subclasses put out top tier sustained damage per round using just hunter's mark and their level 3 subclass damage bump. Rangers don't have much for single target peak/nova damage output. But in the damage over time and damage to multiple enemies categories they are at or near the top.
I would like to point out giant killer seems "better" suited towards high Level play rather than lower level. as the levels go up the chance of having encounters with larger creatures also goes up.
Another thing Is, I think when the phb was the only material we had Giant killer wasn't quite as bad sounding. It was niche but still seemed comparable and you were choosing theme over consistency. It dosen't seem especially if your dm doesn't use optional rules, Like multiclassing or feats . early 5e seemed to have a lot more control on Bonus action and reactions and it was more likely for a class to be heavy on one and easy on the other. Now that is not the case.
I guess.
Everyone makes a big deal about the level 3 gloomstalker ability that gives you one...one...per battle extra attack. Not an attack action. Just one extra attack. Per battle! Two of the hunter level 3 subclass abilities give an extra attack that, although conditional, could proc multiple times in every battles. It just depends on what you are "focusing on". A single big monster or lots smaller nasties.
One extra attack per battle probably on average still occurs more frequently than every round that you’ve been attacked by a large or larger creature that is within 5 feet of you while you had your reaction available.
Many 5e combats last around 3 rounds. That means on 1/3 to maybe 1/5 of your turns you get to use this feature.
I guess that depends on your game or campaign. If a player is focusing on that ability (giant killer) then it will come up as often as it does but when it does getting into that position will happen more for that character than another that doesn't give a crap about that.
It does depend on the campaign, yep. So without some knowledge about that, it is tough to choose the option that you don’t know that you’ll get to use. That is the entire reason why features like Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy are so singularly despised by the community.
Well, with all of the talk about building characters that live and care about the world and adventure, and session zero, and party character creation, I think rangers, and those abilities you just mentioned, will show their true colors. The hate they get is 100% undeserved. Them being despised are symptoms of specific DMs and tables of play, not because of what they are.
on the concept of one extra attack(from giant killer or otherwise) not being a big deal.........
..... lets think about this.......
one extra attack can actually Effect things things. Because HM(or FF) and sharp shooter can be involved. Yes other builds can get them also but the ranger is the best class at taking advantage of them and are also more likely to be dependent on them for a damage build. compared it to other classes which are limited to once per round The extra attack is adding.
rogues get sneak once per turn and sharp shooter is harder for them to apply on a bonus action attack.(requires more investment Trade offs)
monks and fighters get a lot of attacks but generally don't get any per attack enhancers unless a magic item or spell enhancement from another class. and in the case of a monk using a magic weapon they usually wont get it on their "two unarmed ones" which are still tied to a class resource.
...............Now giant killer in particular is weird because of the 5' restriction. . A ranged attack would be at disadvantage within 5' (Unless you also have crossbow expert which isn't that uncommon for ranged rangers) So sharp shooter is harder to pull off but not impossible. Ranged rangers almost always get the boost from archery fighting style. you are also in melee range so more likely to loose concentration But "its trigger is on a miss" and Rangers usually have their bonus action for spells not attacks. its also off turn so things like sneak could amplify it.
So with a specific investment giant killer really could really take down giants quickly You just have to plan for it. It would be a feat heavy or a multiclass build though. so it would come on line later than one would think but As I postulated, I think Bigger enemies are more common later down the line(at higher levels) so the late Activations aren't that big and I think you would still have a functional character the whole time. It would be a rogue and ranger multiclass which is one multiclass build that some people absolute adore (almost to the Point of creepiness.)
I didn’t want to get into feats, but these conversations usually do, and this is very appropriate. Feats are what makes fighters so incredible at levels 11+. Most people assume they are used, they are an optional rule technically. I’ve always seen giant killer as a great grab for the strength based heavy weapon user. This ability screams for great sword. With a great sword and giant killer you’d be next to your enemies as much as possible. Procing either this ability or an AoO way more frequently than a build that isn’t focused on this kind of thing. And then combine this with great weapon master’s other perk where a crit or bring an enemy to zero hp gives you another attack, and that covers fighting smaller (medium) enemies. So all and all, this combination makes for a ranger making 3 attacks per round very frequently in tier 3. Then they get a bump to fighting groups of enemies at level 11, which further covers their combat tactics with another way to get a third attack. That’s three avenues to make a third attack by level 11.