The Class Feature Variant UA didn't propose any changes for spellcasters who prepare their spells. Spell Versatility seems to have morphed into something more class specific: Bardic Versatility (bard), Sorcerous Versatility (sorcerer), and Eldritch Versatility (warlock). Rangers got left out, but I can see why. That said, Cantrip Versatility did survive for clerics, druids, and wizards.
If I had to guess, Spell Versatility might have been deemed too powerful in its previous state. But it also could have been seen as too confusing, unfair to subclasses that couldn't (arcane trickster, eldritch knight), or just too long for the book's page count. But I don't have access to the survey results or internal documents, so it's just speculation. Feel free to take it with a grain of salt.
If you're attempting to make a point, I feel like you're beating around the bush. Please, don't do that. Just get to your point. I don't have the patience for mind games or people who think they're clever today.
I would still rather see players/dm start to value consumables that take advantage of spell lists over making changes to the class. most attempts at "Ranger Plastic surgery" have done more damage than good. Still Known VS prepared isn't a big deal. There are "other hills to die on" {metaphor}
Agreed. Spell scrolls are a thing, and relying more on them would lean heavily in the preparation angle so many of us are keen to see.
Spell scrolls are pretty awesome. Having an Elf caster proficient in Arcana means he can spend 4 hours a night making scrolls while his companions sleep. This malkes Arcana prbably one of the three most important skills.
I am playing an Elf Wizard in a game where we spend a lot of time crossing wilderness. She has a huge spellbook because we beat a coulple wizards who had huge spellbooks. We have tons of 1st and 2nd level scrolls we have acquired and a few 3rd level (a Third level takes over 20 days to scribe since it is only 4 hours a day she is working on it).
”Whenever you finish a long rest, you can replace one spell you learned from this Spellcasting feature with another spell from the ranger spell list. The new spell must be the same level as the one you replace.”
WotC dabbled with giving rangers (and other known casters) a form of prepared casting, I’ll be it more limited, in the UA that preceded Tasha’s. It didn’t make the cut. Not beating around the bush, by question to the group is thus…
Why didn’t rangers retain the form of prepared casting found in the UA that preceded the release of Tasha’s?
Rangers got left out, but I can see why. That said, Cantrip Versatility did survive for clerics, druids, and wizards.
It is not the same thing, but Rangers got drudic warrior fighting style which is essentially the same as Sorcerous versatility.
The Wizard's Cantrip formulas is pretty awesome and far better than the other classes (which are better than nothing).
Moreover, because of dexterity, rangers have always been the more flexible martial class. Paladins and barbarians are “stuck” with strength, or at least melee. Adding a magical option further gives rangers more viable options for fighting versatility.
I paladin has to smite multiple times and frequently to just deal damage on par with any ranger subclass using only hunter's mark.
Paladins NEED the flexibility of prepared casting as they have few slots to cast spells due to NEEDING to smite to keep up in damage.
Whenever the game gets harder, ranger pull ahead. Longer combat days? Favor rangers. Terms of engagements for great distances? Favor rangers. More than one enemy? Favor rangers. Interesting and challenging combat terrains? Favor rangers.
If your smites are only doing the same damage as hunters you're doing the math wrong I think....
Hunters Mark (which is not that great spell) does damage on every hit and it is in addition to damage riders that are already on many Ranger subclasses.
Smite does damage only when you use a spell slot.
Example 6 round combat level 6against a 15 AC foe with a 18 strength and a greatsword:
Swarmkeeper Ranger using hunters mark will average 132 damage using a single 1st level slot.
Gloomstalker Ranger will average 123 damage assuming he is not invisible at all. If he is invisible this goes up to 165 using a single 1st level slot.
Fey Wanderer Ranger will average 127 damage using a single 1st level slot
Paladin will average 140 damage and will use every one of his slots to get that. For the remainder of the day he has no smites.
So compared to the best damage Ranger that is an extra 8 damage if the Paladin uses all his spell slots in the first fight of the day. Meanwhile the Ranger has used 1 slot and that slot lasts an hour so he might still have it when the next fight starts (in fairness he might have lost concentration in the first fight too and had to cast it again). Regardless he can do that output probably for every fight of the entire day.
You could be fair and say a ranger used 1-2 slots just to be safe. but without checking the numbers that sure is interesting data. still I think power and damage is only a portion of why or why not to make rangers prepared instead of known.
It's also grossly misleading. Most combat assumptions revolve around three rounds because, as faulty as the system is, that's how CR is calculated. We don't do six round combats because 6-8 medium to hard encounters conservatively means 18-24 rounds per day. Now, those don't all need to be combats─there are other ways to challenge a party─but that's beside the point.
I would disagree with that, at least when it comes to the tougher fights in published WOTC adventurers, but this is easy to fix. Instead of one 6-round fight, call it 2 3-round fights.
Regardless, the math is still the same. After 6 turns of going nova using smites a 6-th level Paladin is about 10 points ahead of a Ranger with comparable stats and weapons using no expendable resources other than Hunter's Mark.
We also don't know the levels of these hypothetical characters.
They are 6th level with an 18 Strength as noted in my post. I bolded that above where you quoted me.
A glaive/halberd would be slightly lower at 14.42 DPR, but they could also make a bonus action attack (via Polearm Master) for an additional 4.9 damage; bringing that total to 19.32 DPR. And speaking of Polearm Master, it also works with a spear; but then it gets tricky.
Either character can have pole arm master. This is irrelevant to the discussion although I will point out since it has a bonus action attack the Ranger would add hunters Mark damage on every single PAM attack where he was not casting/moving the mark AND it would give him a 3rd opportunity to land his once-a-turn extra damage.
If you want to compare with PAM I can do that comparison, I will need to make some assumptions on HM and bonus actions, but I don't think it will favor the Paladin.
Moving on to the ranger, Two-Weapon Fighting is generally considered suboptimal so, we'll stick to Archery and Dueling.
We are comparing apples to apples. If you want Arrchery compare an Archery Paladin an Archery Ranger. The comparison I made was specifically a Ranger with an 18 strength and a greatsword against a paladin with an 18 strength and a greatsword.
I will admit I did not consider Great Weapon fighting. That adds 5 points of damage over 6 turns or slightly less than 1 point per turn for the Paladin, if he got that fighting style.
If you take different weapons, you are slanting the comparison here by nerfing the Ranger's damage. We can compare dueling Paladins vs Dueling Rangers or Archery Paladins vs Archery Rangers, let me know and I will do the math for those.
Yes, some subclasses will add new options that could help push the ranger over the paladin.
In terms of regular damage using no resources, virtually all of them will.
But this isn't as simple as saying one class needs to spend resources to keep up with the other. Power dynamics between classes and subclasses can shift from level-to-level. This isn't new information and shouldn't be some grand revelation. If anything, the argument that the ranger's subclass proportionally gives them more power than a paladin's means spells like hunter's markaren't essential to their contributions. I find that liberating; as it encourages ranger players to look at other spells and options.
I agree with this statement, but this is not what I was claiming on the particular text you quoted. The thread I posted the math was not a larger discussion on the relative power of the classes, that is a much more complicated and nuanced discussion more representative of earlier posts of mine on this thread.
In what you quoted was specifically commenting on your statement " If your smites are only doing the same damage as hunters you're doing the math wrong I think"
This is objectively untrue. A Paladin using smite is doing about the same damage as a Ranger doing Hunters Mark. He is doing more with mites if he only fights for very few turns a day and is doing less if there are a lot of fights a day ..... exactly as FRGG claimed.
Scrolls are valued by wizard class. That is the only one that has consistently appreciated Scrolls.
Other classes also should value them. For example as a ranger I would use free time to make Scrolls of spells that are less commonly used or will become less frequent (like hunters mark once better concentration spells become available) then at a level up switch out the spell I best feel I've got covered via other means than a known slot.
This is objectively untrue. A Paladin using smite is doing about the same damage as a Ranger doing Hunters Mark. He is doing more with mites if he only fights for very few turns a day and is doing less if there are a lot of fights a day ..... exactly as FRGG claimed.
I'll take what you have to say seriously when you show your work. I put up. What about you?
This is objectively untrue. A Paladin using smite is doing about the same damage as a Ranger doing Hunters Mark. He is doing more with mites if he only fights for very few turns a day and is doing less if there are a lot of fights a day ..... exactly as FRGG claimed.
I'll take what you have to say seriously when you show your work. I put up. What about you?
Level 10. No feats. No multiclassing. No magic weapons. Ranger with a longbow (70% chance to hit) and hunter’s mark. Paladin with a Greatsword (60% chance to hit) and a single 1st level divine smite. Both with a +5 ability modifier.
Ranger is 19 DPR. Paladin is 17.91.
It gets worse for the paladin if the combat last longer than 3 rounds, if there are several combats close together, or if the ranger adds their level 3 subclass damage bump (this is just the baseline ranger).
The paladin might get some opportunity attacks, so too can either beast master ranger. The ranger can always attack on round one, not so with a paladin. A ranger can fight effectively in melee, even with a build focused on ranged. A paladin is a terrible ranger combatant, even if it focused on ranged.
The point of all of the BS is a paladin is burning through a resource that fuels spellcasting while a ranger is not. Paladins need more flexibility with their casting as they have much less opportunity to cast spells if they are being a martial combatant. Additional spells known are also part of the paladin subclass.
This is objectively untrue. A Paladin using smite is doing about the same damage as a Ranger doing Hunters Mark. He is doing more with mites if he only fights for very few turns a day and is doing less if there are a lot of fights a day ..... exactly as FRGG claimed.
I'll take what you have to say seriously when you show your work. I put up. What about you?
Level 10. No feats. No multiclassing. No magic weapons. Ranger with a longbow (70% chance to hit) and hunter’s mark. Paladin with a Greatsword (60% chance to hit) and a single 1st level divine smite. Both with a +5 ability modifier.
Ranger is 19 DPR. Paladin is 17.91.
It gets worse for the paladin if the combat last longer than 3 rounds, if there are several combats close together, or if the ranger adds their level 3 subclass damage bump (this is just the baseline ranger).
Let me just double-check.
Paladin: mean 13.33 (2d6 + 5 + 1.33) per hit, expected 8 per hit, expected 16 per round without expending a spell slot for Divine Smite. DS averages to 9 (2d8), and if we factor that into the 0.6 to-hit chance, it adjusts down to 5.4. Which brings the total to 21.4 dpr
Ranger: mean 13 (1d8 + 5 + 1d6) per hit, expected 9.1 per hit, expected 18.2 dpr
So, just what numbers are you using? Because I didn't even break a sweat. We can't both be right.
I’m also factoring in a 5% critical damage for both and assuming a 84% chance to hit for the smite as they get two chances to trigger it per turn. Basically advantage on the smite damage.
I don’t know what you extra 1.33 is from for the paladin.
Okay, I ignored the odds of a critical hit. Still, that would only make my numbers go up. So what are you working with?
Also, you are only calculating the smite damage for one turn. This is a three round combat. The smite damage (a 1st level spell slot resource, the same resource a ranger is using) must be divided up over the entire battle. That is DPR. Damage per round. Not DOR. Damage in One Round.
Okay, I ignored the odds of a critical hit. Still, that would only make my numbers go up. So what are you working with?
Also, you are only calculating the smite damage for one turn. This is a three round combat. The smite damage (a 1st level spell slot resource, the same resource a ranger is using) must be divided up over the entire battle. That is DPR. Damage per round. Not DOR. Damage in One Round.
You also assume that you will be able to use your Hunters Mark with every turn as well...you could lose concentration or have to use a BA to do something else and not be able to swap targets.
Its also a bit of an apples to oranges comparison as you are looking at Nova damage with the paladin and over 3 rounds for a ranger. The paladin can nova a big bad dead and not have to drag it out 3 rounds to finish them.
Okay, I ignored the odds of a critical hit. Still, that would only make my numbers go up. So what are you working with?
Also, you are only calculating the smite damage for one turn. This is a three round combat. The smite damage (a 1st level spell slot resource, the same resource a ranger is using) must be divided up over the entire battle. That is DPR. Damage per round. Not DOR. Damage in One Round.
You also assume that you will be able to use your Hunters Mark with every turn as well...you could lose concentration or have to use a BA to do something else and not be able to swap targets.
Its also a bit of an apples to oranges comparison as you are looking at Nova damage with the paladin and over 3 rounds for a ranger. The paladin can nova a big bad dead and not have to drag it out 3 rounds to finish them.
If we’re going to get into that level of nitty-gritty, can we talk about how a melee combatant suffers from the terms of engagement? Starting a fight 35 feet away with a sword means a round of DPR 0
Yes yes. Nova is lovely. And that is certainly something that comes up sometimes. So too difficult terrain, distance, many enemies, and mobile or flying enemies. Theses are all wins for a ranger.
Okay, I ignored the odds of a critical hit. Still, that would only make my numbers go up. So what are you working with?
Also, you are only calculating the smite damage for one turn. This is a three round combat. The smite damage (a 1st level spell slot resource, the same resource a ranger is using) must be divided up over the entire battle. That is DPR. Damage per round. Not DOR. Damage in One Round.
If you really want to insist on a single spell slot, then should it be for any old hit or saved for a critical when the dice are doubled? Because that'll make a difference. If it's just any old hit, then it brings the mean to 18.779. And if you weren't giving the paladin a fighting style, and you should have, then you would only have 17.05. From where I'm sitting, your math is incorrect either way.
###
Both of your respective shticks exhaust me. Because you both contrive hypotheticals to put one class, the ranger, on the most favorable terms possible for your argument. Every one of your contributions to this exercise reeks of confirmation bias. And this isn't the first time I've accused you of being biased in favor of the ranger to an almost fanatical degree. We both like the ranger as a class, and the two of us have previously agreed on a lot, but I'm losing respect for you.
Ask yourself, and this goes for ECM03 as well, why you're doing this. What's your end goal? Because the question has always been, "should rangers be able to prepare spells?" And neither of you have a convincing reason not to. There's no slippery slope, so it won't break anything. Nor are the class' current mechanics an endorsement of its perceived strength.
The ranger is competitive. Sometimes it may pull ahead as a damage-dealer, under the right circumstances, but nobody stays on top forever. And, once again, damage isn't everything. So what's the big deal?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The Class Feature Variant UA didn't propose any changes for spellcasters who prepare their spells. Spell Versatility seems to have morphed into something more class specific: Bardic Versatility (bard), Sorcerous Versatility (sorcerer), and Eldritch Versatility (warlock). Rangers got left out, but I can see why. That said, Cantrip Versatility did survive for clerics, druids, and wizards.
If I had to guess, Spell Versatility might have been deemed too powerful in its previous state. But it also could have been seen as too confusing, unfair to subclasses that couldn't (arcane trickster, eldritch knight), or just too long for the book's page count. But I don't have access to the survey results or internal documents, so it's just speculation. Feel free to take it with a grain of salt.
If you're attempting to make a point, I feel like you're beating around the bush. Please, don't do that. Just get to your point. I don't have the patience for mind games or people who think they're clever today.
It is not the same thing, but Rangers got drudic warrior fighting style which is essentially the same as Sorcerous versatility.
The Wizard's Cantrip formulas is pretty awesome and far better than the other classes (which are better than nothing).
Spell scrolls are pretty awesome. Having an Elf caster proficient in Arcana means he can spend 4 hours a night making scrolls while his companions sleep. This malkes Arcana prbably one of the three most important skills.
I am playing an Elf Wizard in a game where we spend a lot of time crossing wilderness. She has a huge spellbook because we beat a coulple wizards who had huge spellbooks. We have tons of 1st and 2nd level scrolls we have acquired and a few 3rd level (a Third level takes over 20 days to scribe since it is only 4 hours a day she is working on it).
From the UA in the ranger section…
”Whenever you finish a long rest, you can replace one spell you learned from this Spellcasting feature with another spell from the ranger spell list. The new spell must be the same level as the one you replace.”
WotC dabbled with giving rangers (and other known casters) a form of prepared casting, I’ll be it more limited, in the UA that preceded Tasha’s. It didn’t make the cut. Not beating around the bush, by question to the group is thus…
Why didn’t rangers retain the form of prepared casting found in the UA that preceded the release of Tasha’s?
Moreover, because of dexterity, rangers have always been the more flexible martial class. Paladins and barbarians are “stuck” with strength, or at least melee. Adding a magical option further gives rangers more viable options for fighting versatility.
I would disagree with that, at least when it comes to the tougher fights in published WOTC adventurers, but this is easy to fix. Instead of one 6-round fight, call it 2 3-round fights.
Regardless, the math is still the same. After 6 turns of going nova using smites a 6-th level Paladin is about 10 points ahead of a Ranger with comparable stats and weapons using no expendable resources other than Hunter's Mark.
They are 6th level with an 18 Strength as noted in my post. I bolded that above where you quoted me.
Either character can have pole arm master. This is irrelevant to the discussion although I will point out since it has a bonus action attack the Ranger would add hunters Mark damage on every single PAM attack where he was not casting/moving the mark AND it would give him a 3rd opportunity to land his once-a-turn extra damage.
If you want to compare with PAM I can do that comparison, I will need to make some assumptions on HM and bonus actions, but I don't think it will favor the Paladin.
We are comparing apples to apples. If you want Arrchery compare an Archery Paladin an Archery Ranger. The comparison I made was specifically a Ranger with an 18 strength and a greatsword against a paladin with an 18 strength and a greatsword.
I will admit I did not consider Great Weapon fighting. That adds 5 points of damage over 6 turns or slightly less than 1 point per turn for the Paladin, if he got that fighting style.
If you take different weapons, you are slanting the comparison here by nerfing the Ranger's damage. We can compare dueling Paladins vs Dueling Rangers or Archery Paladins vs Archery Rangers, let me know and I will do the math for those.
In terms of regular damage using no resources, virtually all of them will.
I agree with this statement, but this is not what I was claiming on the particular text you quoted. The thread I posted the math was not a larger discussion on the relative power of the classes, that is a much more complicated and nuanced discussion more representative of earlier posts of mine on this thread.
In what you quoted was specifically commenting on your statement " If your smites are only doing the same damage as hunters you're doing the math wrong I think"
This is objectively untrue. A Paladin using smite is doing about the same damage as a Ranger doing Hunters Mark. He is doing more with mites if he only fights for very few turns a day and is doing less if there are a lot of fights a day ..... exactly as FRGG claimed.
Scrolls are valued by wizard class. That is the only one that has consistently appreciated Scrolls.
Other classes also should value them. For example as a ranger I would use free time to make Scrolls of spells that are less commonly used or will become less frequent (like hunters mark once better concentration spells become available) then at a level up switch out the spell I best feel I've got covered via other means than a known slot.
I'll take what you have to say seriously when you show your work. I put up. What about you?
Level 10. No feats. No multiclassing. No magic weapons. Ranger with a longbow (70% chance to hit) and hunter’s mark. Paladin with a Greatsword (60% chance to hit) and a single 1st level divine smite. Both with a +5 ability modifier.
Ranger is 19 DPR. Paladin is 17.91.
It gets worse for the paladin if the combat last longer than 3 rounds, if there are several combats close together, or if the ranger adds their level 3 subclass damage bump (this is just the baseline ranger).
The paladin might get some opportunity attacks, so too can either beast master ranger. The ranger can always attack on round one, not so with a paladin. A ranger can fight effectively in melee, even with a build focused on ranged. A paladin is a terrible ranger combatant, even if it focused on ranged.
The point of all of the BS is a paladin is burning through a resource that fuels spellcasting while a ranger is not. Paladins need more flexibility with their casting as they have much less opportunity to cast spells if they are being a martial combatant. Additional spells known are also part of the paladin subclass.
Let me just double-check.
So, just what numbers are you using? Because I didn't even break a sweat. We can't both be right.
I’m also factoring in a 5% critical damage for both and assuming a 84% chance to hit for the smite as they get two chances to trigger it per turn. Basically advantage on the smite damage.
I don’t know what you extra 1.33 is from for the paladin.
2d6+5 at 60% plus 2d6 at 5% per hit, two hits per round, three rounds. Plus 2d8 at 84% once. All added up and divided by 3.
1d8+1d6+5 at 70% plus 1d8+1d6 at 5% per hit, twice per round, three rounds. All added up and divided by 3.
Okay, I ignored the odds of a critical hit. Still, that would only make my numbers go up. So what are you working with?
2d6+5 at 60% is 7.2. How are you getting an additional 1.33?
Also, you are only calculating the smite damage for one turn. This is a three round combat. The smite damage (a 1st level spell slot resource, the same resource a ranger is using) must be divided up over the entire battle. That is DPR. Damage per round. Not DOR. Damage in One Round.
You also assume that you will be able to use your Hunters Mark with every turn as well...you could lose concentration or have to use a BA to do something else and not be able to swap targets.
Its also a bit of an apples to oranges comparison as you are looking at Nova damage with the paladin and over 3 rounds for a ranger. The paladin can nova a big bad dead and not have to drag it out 3 rounds to finish them.
If we’re going to get into that level of nitty-gritty, can we talk about how a melee combatant suffers from the terms of engagement? Starting a fight 35 feet away with a sword means a round of DPR 0
Yes yes. Nova is lovely. And that is certainly something that comes up sometimes. So too difficult terrain, distance, many enemies, and mobile or flying enemies. Theses are all wins for a ranger.
You gave the ranger the Archery style, but you wouldn't give the paladin the Great Weapon Fighting style? Come on!
If you really want to insist on a single spell slot, then should it be for any old hit or saved for a critical when the dice are doubled? Because that'll make a difference. If it's just any old hit, then it brings the mean to 18.779. And if you weren't giving the paladin a fighting style, and you should have, then you would only have 17.05. From where I'm sitting, your math is incorrect either way.
###
Both of your respective shticks exhaust me. Because you both contrive hypotheticals to put one class, the ranger, on the most favorable terms possible for your argument. Every one of your contributions to this exercise reeks of confirmation bias. And this isn't the first time I've accused you of being biased in favor of the ranger to an almost fanatical degree. We both like the ranger as a class, and the two of us have previously agreed on a lot, but I'm losing respect for you.
Ask yourself, and this goes for ECM03 as well, why you're doing this. What's your end goal? Because the question has always been, "should rangers be able to prepare spells?" And neither of you have a convincing reason not to. There's no slippery slope, so it won't break anything. Nor are the class' current mechanics an endorsement of its perceived strength.
The ranger is competitive. Sometimes it may pull ahead as a damage-dealer, under the right circumstances, but nobody stays on top forever. And, once again, damage isn't everything. So what's the big deal?