I would like to create a melee fey wanderer ranger what do you think is the best way to: TWF for obvious flavor reasons, dueling with sword/board, dueling with just a sword or other options i am forgetting
The duel wielder feat, plus a sharpened candy cane in one hand (rapier), and a Twizzlers in the other hand (whip). You'd have to ranges for enemies provoking opportunity attacks, more than decent damage output, and when the opportunity presents itself, three chances to get dreadful strikes to happen.
What dreadful strikes giveth in extra damage dice it taketh away with melee damage spread around to multiple targets. From a pure damage output perspective I personally really like dueling on a ranger with either dexterity or strength, but especially with dexterity. You can still shoot a bow, but your offense and defense will be higher and consistent with a sword and shied.
I would like to create a melee fey wanderer ranger what do you think is the best way to: TWF for obvious flavor reasons, dueling with sword/board, dueling with just a sword or other options i am forgetting
If you mean what you should be holding in your hands, 100% a loadout that will let you legally attack as a bonus action, because Dreadful Strikes directly rewards you for hitting many different opponents - i.e. it's intrinsically much better at range than in melee, but regardless, you care more about number of attacks than quality per attack, because Dreadful Strikes will raise the quality of each attack you make.
In terms of fighting styles and options you may be forgetting, a 1-dip into Monk will give you bonus action kicking people, but much more importantly, TWF is a garbage fighting style and almost everything else is better. In the particular care of a Fey Wanderer, who has more reason than some other subclasses to invest in Wisdom, you have a strong incentive to select Druidic Warrior for Shillelagh. Like some other spells, like Guidance (which with extremely high probability you will take with Druidic Warrior), you should consult with your DM as to their thoughts on spamming this spell while out of combat w.r.t. figuring out if the spell is already up when combat starts, but if your DM is comfortable with you spamming it all day so it's just assumed to be up (and expiring in probably 5 rounds) every combat, you can dual-wield clubs rather than scimitars. The damage die size is less, but being able to focus on Wisdom will make it more than worth it.
Thanks for the advice I know TWF is garbage but its just so flavorful and I know Shillelagh builds are powerful but I kinda resent the idea of beating people up with a dumb quarterstaff I should probably to dueling with a rapier Thanks again
TWF is actually fairly decent at lower levels so taking it and Frank’s silly idea is actually very good. You will want to switch it out at either L4 or 8 however and go with either defensive fighting or dueling. Druidic warrior is also a good choice - I typically take shillelagh and primal savagery as cantrips. Shillelagh is great at low levels but doesn’t scale while primal savagery scales, taken with the dip into monk it could be very effective.
I think TWF is just fine. Is it as optimal as archery with sharpshooter and archery style and... Well no. It competes with your bonus action but Fey gives you a way to get extra damage without monopolizing your bonus action. You can even stack Favored Foe since you aren't burning your concentration.
When you go this route I like to think of spells like Entangle or Spike Growth or Plant Growth that don't interfere with your bonus action but allow you to put the enemy in terrible positions. Summon Fey eventually requires no action to give it commands so there you go as well. Use your first action to tilt the battlefield and then your subsequent turns to go hard on damage with TWF. You will be doing plenty of damage.
I ran with a str based PAM spear and shield. The bonus action clogging never bothered me and I got extra attacks on reactions every 3 rounds or so.
I don't think TWF is garbage. It can't keep up in a world with all -5/+10 combat focused games, but not all games are like that.Tier 1 TWF is awesome. Ranger do TWF better than most because of many reasons. Fighting style is one of them, but rangers all get some kind of 3rd level damage bump. Take a hunter ranger. They can get a passive zero resource 1d8 every turn added, and on opportunity attacks! If you have a big bag of hit points boss, you can use hunter's mark with TWF as switching targets is not likely to be a thing (yes you might drop concentration, but live a little! Risk and reward, baby!) The first turn casting HM you get about the same damage as just TWF. The second turn and on you are doing very big damage as 3 hits are getting the HM, plus the damage bump. Small PC races, many of which are great for rangers, can't take the -5/+10 melee feat, so TWF is great for them.
If you take TWF, and you take the duel wielder feat, TAKE A WHIP! Yes its a 1d4. Whatever. The thing here is 2 ranges for enemies provoking opportunity attacks, 5' and 10'. Again with the hunter ranger, colossus slayer triggers on an opportunity attack. Leverage that.
Another thing with melee TWF rangers would be the classic rapier and dagger fighting style. Why? You loose 1d8 to 1d4. Yes you do, but a thrown weapon works with almost all of the rangers nifty spells that do things like hail of thorns, conjure barrage, and ensnaring strike. All great options for a melee ranger.
I have been pondering if sticking with short swords and dagger and the fighting style are all you need. +2 to Dex, with shortsword and dagger does more damage than rapier and short sword and dual wielding. The AC is even the same with both builds.
Note: You obviously can't pull the whip and rapier game you were working on above without dual wield.
I have been pondering if sticking with short swords and dagger and the fighting style are all you need. +2 to Dex, with shortsword and dagger does more damage than rapier and short sword and dual wielding. The AC is even the same with both builds.
Note: You obviously can't pull the whip and rapier game you were working on above without dual wield.
I'm not receiving what you are sending. Would you break it down for me?
I’m starting to think that warcaster may be the main feat a ranger ( and several other classes) needs to invest in. I can see taking dual wielding first as a variant human melee ranger at L1 but by level 8 you should have warcaster.
To a very large degree, I see a ranger with blades in their hands in the same way I see a paladin with javelins on their back. Plan B. Both can do the other, but both thematically and mechanically my mind’s eye puts a blade and shield in a paladin’s hands and a bow and arrow in a ranger’s hands.
That being said, especially if you are focused on melee, buffinh a ranger’s concentration checks is a wise choice.
Yeah, if your archery based it can be a different story but for any sort of melee based caster warcaster is a must. At tiers 1&2 a ranger can get away with being a combat animal with TWF and dual weapon fighting but by tier 3 they are well into being casting centric and need warcaster.
Yeah, if your archery based it can be a different story but for any sort of melee based caster warcaster is a must. At tiers 1&2 a ranger can get away with being a combat animal with TWF and dual weapon fighting but by tier 3 they are well into being casting centric and need warcaster.
Ah HA! You just mentioned one of the most important (I think) things about rangers in 5E that most everyone doesn’t get or doesn’t care about.
Rangers change their approach to the game as the party levels up. Most every other class can pick a thing to do at level 1 and continue to do that think for their entire career. Spells, feats, fighting styles, etc. Class and subclass choice, even spell lists, all fold in on the “thing that you do”. Rogues sneak attack, and that gets better each level. Wizards cast spells, and that gets better each level. Fighters fight, and that gets better each level. But not rangers!
I agree with you that rangers can shoot a bow or swing swords from about level 1 through level 7 just fine, but from then on, more so and more so, their non martial skills kick in. By level 10 rangers have all of their ranger exploration stuff. At level 11 they get their other main combat bump. But starting at levels 8/9 their spellcasting, spell selection, and “slippery” abilities start to overshadow their skill in hitting enemies with a stick.
I don’t think any other class in the game has this kind of shift in focus.
To a very large degree, I see a ranger with blades in their hands in the same way I see a paladin with javelins on their back. Plan B. Both can do the other, but both thematically and mechanically my mind’s eye puts a blade and shield in a paladin’s hands and a bow and arrow in a ranger’s hands.
That being said, especially if you are focused on melee, buffinh a ranger’s concentration checks is a wise choice.
I have stated before i dont care about ranger concentration near as much (most long duration concentration spells are better at range from a safe distance). My big reason for warcaster is performing the somatic components while dual wielding. you could get a ruby of the warmage of the war mage instead but I try not to lean on magic items because they are dm/campain specific selection.
I've played several melee Rangers. I'm actually playing a TWF Fey Wanderer right now, and I have before. The issue I have with them is, well, the BA bloat everyone mentions. But for me, the biggest competition Fey Wanderers have for their BA is actually Misty Step once they reach level 5.
That being said, I've played a dual shortsword-wielding Fey Wanderer to around level 12 and been fine. It's not optimal, but you won't be a liability either.
I've also used a whip-wielding Monster Slayer and that's been a ton of fun. I went whip/shield for that one and he's honestly been very consistent. Level 10 with him now and he's not showing any signs of slowing down.
I've also played a more traditional Sword & Board Drake Warden with a rapier/shield combo. The damage she did was just okay, but the utility from her drake and her spellcasting made her more than valuable to the party.
Then there's of course the Shillelagh Beast Master I used in a oneshot. That was fun for however long it lasted. Would like to go back and use it more, but being able to be SAD and have access to Guidance was really useful.
Worth noting is that all my melee Rangers have trended towards Dex rather than Str (except the Wis-based one.) And I think that's for a reason. STRangers can work, but they're pretty MAD. Best to stick with Dex, even if that soft-locks you out of certain weapon types.
I have been pondering if sticking with short swords and dagger and the fighting style are all you need. +2 to Dex, with shortsword and dagger does more damage than rapier and short sword and dual wielding. The AC is even the same with both builds.
Note: You obviously can't pull the whip and rapier game you were working on above without dual wield.
I'm not receiving what you are sending. Would you break it down for me?
OK. Assuming 16 Dex Two weapons: Short Sword (1d6+3), Dagger (1d4) = (3.5+3)+2.5 = 9 At Prof Bonus +3 to hit Two weapons and fighting style: Short Sword (1d6+3), Dagger (1d4+3) = (3.5+3)+(2.5+3) = 12 At Prof Bonus +3 to hit When you hit level 4 you have a choice of +2 Dex or Dual wield Feat 2Weapons, fighting style, +2 Dex: Short Sword (1d6+4), Dagger (1d4+4) = (3.5+4)+(2.5+4) = 14 At Prof Bonus +4 to hit 2Weapons, fighting style, DW feat: Rapier (1d8+3), Short sword (1d6+3) = (4.5+3)+(3.5+3) = 14 At Prof Bonus +3 to hit
So both approaches do the same amount of damage but just adding to dex increases the to hit as well. You can come out 1 damage ahead with two rapiers, but the eventual math is going to carve that down to almost no difference in damage. And you could just go with two short swords and match the damage and still have a better to hit. With +2 Dex you also add +1 to dex saves, initiative, stealth, etc. As for the AC Studded leather, 16 dex and DW feat = 16 Studded leather, 18 dex = 16
So my conclusion here is that dual wielder is only a good feat after you have maxed your dex (which with point buy not counting var human/custom lineage is level 12). I guess the stowing/drawing two weapons maybe is worth it if you play with a default no weapons drawn, but I usually have 1 drawn while adventuring so it doesn't come up.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I would like to create a melee fey wanderer ranger what do you think is the best way to: TWF for obvious flavor reasons, dueling with sword/board, dueling with just a sword or other options i am forgetting
Here is my silly answer.
The duel wielder feat, plus a sharpened candy cane in one hand (rapier), and a Twizzlers in the other hand (whip). You'd have to ranges for enemies provoking opportunity attacks, more than decent damage output, and when the opportunity presents itself, three chances to get dreadful strikes to happen.
Thanks thats a great idea!
Serious answer.
Dexterity focus? Or wisdom or strength focus?
What dreadful strikes giveth in extra damage dice it taketh away with melee damage spread around to multiple targets. From a pure damage output perspective I personally really like dueling on a ranger with either dexterity or strength, but especially with dexterity. You can still shoot a bow, but your offense and defense will be higher and consistent with a sword and shied.
If you mean what you should be holding in your hands, 100% a loadout that will let you legally attack as a bonus action, because Dreadful Strikes directly rewards you for hitting many different opponents - i.e. it's intrinsically much better at range than in melee, but regardless, you care more about number of attacks than quality per attack, because Dreadful Strikes will raise the quality of each attack you make.
In terms of fighting styles and options you may be forgetting, a 1-dip into Monk will give you bonus action kicking people, but much more importantly, TWF is a garbage fighting style and almost everything else is better. In the particular care of a Fey Wanderer, who has more reason than some other subclasses to invest in Wisdom, you have a strong incentive to select Druidic Warrior for Shillelagh. Like some other spells, like Guidance (which with extremely high probability you will take with Druidic Warrior), you should consult with your DM as to their thoughts on spamming this spell while out of combat w.r.t. figuring out if the spell is already up when combat starts, but if your DM is comfortable with you spamming it all day so it's just assumed to be up (and expiring in probably 5 rounds) every combat, you can dual-wield clubs rather than scimitars. The damage die size is less, but being able to focus on Wisdom will make it more than worth it.
Thanks for the advice I know TWF is garbage but its just so flavorful and I know Shillelagh builds are powerful but I kinda resent the idea of beating people up with a dumb quarterstaff I should probably to dueling with a rapier Thanks again
TWF is actually fairly decent at lower levels so taking it and Frank’s silly idea is actually very good. You will want to switch it out at either L4 or 8 however and go with either defensive fighting or dueling. Druidic warrior is also a good choice - I typically take shillelagh and primal savagery as cantrips. Shillelagh is great at low levels but doesn’t scale while primal savagery scales, taken with the dip into monk it could be very effective.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I think TWF is just fine. Is it as optimal as archery with sharpshooter and archery style and... Well no. It competes with your bonus action but Fey gives you a way to get extra damage without monopolizing your bonus action. You can even stack Favored Foe since you aren't burning your concentration.
When you go this route I like to think of spells like Entangle or Spike Growth or Plant Growth that don't interfere with your bonus action but allow you to put the enemy in terrible positions. Summon Fey eventually requires no action to give it commands so there you go as well. Use your first action to tilt the battlefield and then your subsequent turns to go hard on damage with TWF. You will be doing plenty of damage.
I ran with a str based PAM spear and shield. The bonus action clogging never bothered me and I got extra attacks on reactions every 3 rounds or so.
I don't think TWF is garbage. It can't keep up in a world with all -5/+10 combat focused games, but not all games are like that.Tier 1 TWF is awesome. Ranger do TWF better than most because of many reasons. Fighting style is one of them, but rangers all get some kind of 3rd level damage bump. Take a hunter ranger. They can get a passive zero resource 1d8 every turn added, and on opportunity attacks! If you have a big bag of hit points boss, you can use hunter's mark with TWF as switching targets is not likely to be a thing (yes you might drop concentration, but live a little! Risk and reward, baby!) The first turn casting HM you get about the same damage as just TWF. The second turn and on you are doing very big damage as 3 hits are getting the HM, plus the damage bump. Small PC races, many of which are great for rangers, can't take the -5/+10 melee feat, so TWF is great for them.
If you take TWF, and you take the duel wielder feat, TAKE A WHIP! Yes its a 1d4. Whatever. The thing here is 2 ranges for enemies provoking opportunity attacks, 5' and 10'. Again with the hunter ranger, colossus slayer triggers on an opportunity attack. Leverage that.
Another thing with melee TWF rangers would be the classic rapier and dagger fighting style. Why? You loose 1d8 to 1d4. Yes you do, but a thrown weapon works with almost all of the rangers nifty spells that do things like hail of thorns, conjure barrage, and ensnaring strike. All great options for a melee ranger.
I have been pondering if sticking with short swords and dagger and the fighting style are all you need. +2 to Dex, with shortsword and dagger does more damage than rapier and short sword and dual wielding. The AC is even the same with both builds.
Note: You obviously can't pull the whip and rapier game you were working on above without dual wield.
I'm not receiving what you are sending. Would you break it down for me?
I feel like you would want warcaster on This ranger build possibly even before dual wielder.
I’m starting to think that warcaster may be the main feat a ranger ( and several other classes) needs to invest in. I can see taking dual wielding first as a variant human melee ranger at L1 but by level 8 you should have warcaster.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
To a very large degree, I see a ranger with blades in their hands in the same way I see a paladin with javelins on their back. Plan B. Both can do the other, but both thematically and mechanically my mind’s eye puts a blade and shield in a paladin’s hands and a bow and arrow in a ranger’s hands.
That being said, especially if you are focused on melee, buffinh a ranger’s concentration checks is a wise choice.
Yeah, if your archery based it can be a different story but for any sort of melee based caster warcaster is a must. At tiers 1&2 a ranger can get away with being a combat animal with TWF and dual weapon fighting but by tier 3 they are well into being casting centric and need warcaster.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Ah HA! You just mentioned one of the most important (I think) things about rangers in 5E that most everyone doesn’t get or doesn’t care about.
Rangers change their approach to the game as the party levels up. Most every other class can pick a thing to do at level 1 and continue to do that think for their entire career. Spells, feats, fighting styles, etc. Class and subclass choice, even spell lists, all fold in on the “thing that you do”. Rogues sneak attack, and that gets better each level. Wizards cast spells, and that gets better each level. Fighters fight, and that gets better each level. But not rangers!
I agree with you that rangers can shoot a bow or swing swords from about level 1 through level 7 just fine, but from then on, more so and more so, their non martial skills kick in. By level 10 rangers have all of their ranger exploration stuff. At level 11 they get their other main combat bump. But starting at levels 8/9 their spellcasting, spell selection, and “slippery” abilities start to overshadow their skill in hitting enemies with a stick.
I don’t think any other class in the game has this kind of shift in focus.
I like STR Ranger Polearm Master , with either a reach weapon or spear & board.
I have stated before i dont care about ranger concentration near as much (most long duration concentration spells are better at range from a safe distance). My big reason for warcaster is performing the somatic components while dual wielding. you could get a ruby of the warmage of the war mage instead but I try not to lean on magic items because they are dm/campain specific selection.
I've played several melee Rangers. I'm actually playing a TWF Fey Wanderer right now, and I have before. The issue I have with them is, well, the BA bloat everyone mentions. But for me, the biggest competition Fey Wanderers have for their BA is actually Misty Step once they reach level 5.
That being said, I've played a dual shortsword-wielding Fey Wanderer to around level 12 and been fine. It's not optimal, but you won't be a liability either.
I've also used a whip-wielding Monster Slayer and that's been a ton of fun. I went whip/shield for that one and he's honestly been very consistent. Level 10 with him now and he's not showing any signs of slowing down.
I've also played a more traditional Sword & Board Drake Warden with a rapier/shield combo. The damage she did was just okay, but the utility from her drake and her spellcasting made her more than valuable to the party.
Then there's of course the Shillelagh Beast Master I used in a oneshot. That was fun for however long it lasted. Would like to go back and use it more, but being able to be SAD and have access to Guidance was really useful.
Worth noting is that all my melee Rangers have trended towards Dex rather than Str (except the Wis-based one.) And I think that's for a reason. STRangers can work, but they're pretty MAD. Best to stick with Dex, even if that soft-locks you out of certain weapon types.
OK. Assuming 16 Dex
Two weapons: Short Sword (1d6+3), Dagger (1d4) = (3.5+3)+2.5 = 9 At Prof Bonus +3 to hit
Two weapons and fighting style: Short Sword (1d6+3), Dagger (1d4+3) = (3.5+3)+(2.5+3) = 12 At Prof Bonus +3 to hit
When you hit level 4 you have a choice of +2 Dex or Dual wield Feat
2Weapons, fighting style, +2 Dex: Short Sword (1d6+4), Dagger (1d4+4) = (3.5+4)+(2.5+4) = 14 At Prof Bonus +4 to hit
2Weapons, fighting style, DW feat: Rapier (1d8+3), Short sword (1d6+3) = (4.5+3)+(3.5+3) = 14 At Prof Bonus +3 to hit
So both approaches do the same amount of damage but just adding to dex increases the to hit as well. You can come out 1 damage ahead with two rapiers, but the eventual math is going to carve that down to almost no difference in damage. And you could just go with two short swords and match the damage and still have a better to hit. With +2 Dex you also add +1 to dex saves, initiative, stealth, etc.
As for the AC
Studded leather, 16 dex and DW feat = 16
Studded leather, 18 dex = 16
So my conclusion here is that dual wielder is only a good feat after you have maxed your dex (which with point buy not counting var human/custom lineage is level 12). I guess the stowing/drawing two weapons maybe is worth it if you play with a default no weapons drawn, but I usually have 1 drawn while adventuring so it doesn't come up.