Overall thats the unfortunate nature of the ranger section of the forums.
No one wants to admit any weaknesses of ranger and only wants to overexaggerate its positives. With Tashas its a good class now with worthwhile features.
It gets really good damage throughout most of its life cycle although it relies heavily on Conjure Animals past level 11 to keep up.
There’s a thousand ways to calculate DPR, and a thousand more variables. Call them what you will. So be it. Ranger 19. Paladin 19.21. Over 3 rounds.
Lets let rangers prepare spells. They must need it. Let’s give them divine smite too. And action surge while we’re at it. Let’s build the ranger to be something it isn’t because a few want it to play like something it’s not.
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?
12 attacks, 0.65% chance to hit, .8775 chance to hit at least once, 0.8775 chance hit for gloom stalker, 11 base damage on a hit, 3.5 HM per attack, 3.5 damage per turn on swarmkeeper with at least one hit, 19 damage on first turn for gloom stalker with a third hit. 2.5 fey wanderer damage once a turn, 48 points of smite damage amortized on 5 hits over 6 turns.
That gives you all you need for the numbers I posted.
As I stated above, I DID NOT include great weapon fighting for the Paladin. I agree that should have been included and it is a mistake. GWF adds 5 total damage over 6 turns (0.67 damage per hit).
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.
Says the person who wanted to compare a Ranger using archery with a Paladin using a polearm.
Why don't you give me what you want to compare and I will go with the terms YOU choose. As long as you stay within the bounds of the discussion - Same stats, same weapons, a Paladin using smite versus a Ranger using no limited use abilities over a reasonable timeframe.
A new thread about damage would be A great thing. That way interested parties could choose to participate. I might even add some input to damage but this thread is prepared vs Known. I suggest all of us review our posts and see if some trimming could be done to help make the conversation flow better. I think i have at least one comment that is more of a side issue rather than a helpful input. I will remove it.
ECMO3:
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 makes Arcana probably 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 couple 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).
An item of note on scrolls. Zanathar's rules say you must do consecutive work for crafting so there is some slight danger to Only taking advantage of an Elfs 4 hour rest. Some dm's also don't treat copying as light activity. so talk to various dms because this is not 100% consistent.
So overall most people have stated Power level is Kind of low on the priority, so instead what spells would actually be affected by known VS Prepared.
I for one would probably swap Huntersmark and Zephyr strike occasionally Because in different scenarios one works better than the other. still I usually pick one or the other to build tactics around so its not that big of a deal.
The trap/ambush spells are almost never used And that is kind of sad but... Most of the time onboarding the whole group is the problem that needs to be addressed not "if" its prepared.
I tend to avoid Absorb elements at low levels because damage saved isn't usually worth the slot unless its a "situational enemy" but again I just tend to get it later in the game anyway.
2nd level spells are probably where most people would get uses of switching because of the General strength of pass without a trace. but it might be nice to swap out some of the time and this is kind of where I feel it might upset the balance the worst.
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
HM is a bonus action to cast and to move. Unless you are using your bonus action for something else you will be able to use it every turn.
There is a corner case where you might not be able to use it for both attacks - that case is if you cast it and kill the enemy with the first attack so you don't have a bonus left to move it between attacks. If that is the case though then the whole discussion breaks down because the smite would have killed the enemy too and the extra damage you would have done on the smite is irrelevant, it is essentially capped at his hps, which are low enough to 1-shot with Hunter's Mark.
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.
Says the person who wanted to compare a Ranger using archery with a Paladin using a polearm.
Why don't you give me what you want to compare and I will go with the terms YOU choose. As long as you stay within the bounds of the discussion - Same stats, same weapons, a Paladin using smite versus a Ranger using no limited use abilities over a reasonable timeframe.
I proposed scenarios which played to the respective strengths of each class. Paladins are generally better off emphasizing Strength over Dexterity, and vice versa for rangers. If you would like a Dueling ranger who wields a finesse weapon, I can do that. But like I said two pages ago, it wouldn't meaningfully change things. At least, not for the positive. They could use a rapier, which has a slightly larger damage die than a spear, but they would lose out on the bonus action attack afforded by the Polearm Master feat. I did previously write off Two-Weapon Fighting, as it's generally not effective once the character has Extra Attack, but hunter's mark helps to close that gap. Still, it takes a round to get moving. And it means the ranger is in melee, which makes them more likely to be hit and lose concentration on the spell. As with many things in D&D, it's balancing risk against reward.
If I do any more comparisons on damage, it will not be in this thread.
And, please, fix your formatting. You needlessly stretch out posts by adding carriage returns which do not need to be there. [REDACTED]
The original idea was to show how conservative rangers are with spell slots to deal damage compared to others. Obviously I ruffled some feathers by claiming that they deal more damage than a paladin using the same resource expenditure. OTHER than single target moderate to low AC situations, I still maintain that to be true.
Damage comparisons are flawed by their nature and all of our biases.
So to get back on this thread topic, does a ranger NEED to prepare spells, obviously not. Should they? Sure. Why not. Bring it on.
Rangers can be conservative in their spellcasting, and probably should be when considering their spellcasting progression. Twenty-two of their class spells in the PHB require concentration. And the paladin, the other "half-caster" in the PHB, has 27 such spells in the same book. Plus, they gain additional spell, via their Sacred Oaths, which may add to that list. Oath of Devotion adds just one, but Oath of the Ancients adds one at each spell level and Oath of Vengeance adds eight out of its ten. And yes, a ranger with hunter's mark can be a potent damage dealer. But it isn't a must-have spell for them, and a paladin with the Oath of Vengeance has access to it as well. This is why I so dislike theorcrafting; especially when it assumes hyper-specific conditions. Yes, it's inefficient for a paladin to be using Divine Smite every single turn. I don't think anyone has ever argued otherwise.
Briefly touching on the previous example given by ECM03─two 6th-level characters with STR 18 and a greatsword─I find it ludicrous to assume the paladin in that scenario would expend all their spell slots on Divine Smite. It's grossly, arguably negligibly, inefficient when they could just cast magic weapon once; assuming it's prepared. It may be a 2nd-level spell slot instead of a 1st-level one, but it makes sense to play to the strengths of the class. That's why I would not ask a ranger to wield a greatsword. It's also why I think of paladins not as having "smite slots" but as spellcasters with spell slots. Work smarter, not harder.
And magic weapon does a pretty good job of closing the gap, increasing the paladin's DPR from 16.862 to 19.495, with hunter's mark and the ranger's DPR of 19.9. Several ranger archetypes may increase damage output, yes, but that just brings me back to my earlier point that spells like hunter's markare not essential.
Overall thats the unfortunate nature of the ranger section of the forums.
No one wants to admit any weaknesses of ranger and only wants to overexaggerate its positives. With Tashas its a good class now with worthwhile features.
It gets really good damage throughout most of its life cycle although it relies heavily on Conjure Animals past level 11 to keep up.
This is just another unfortunate example of this.
There’s a thousand ways to calculate DPR, and a thousand more variables. Call them what you will. So be it. Ranger 19. Paladin 19.21. Over 3 rounds.
Lets let rangers prepare spells. They must need it. Let’s give them divine smite too. And action surge while we’re at it. Let’s build the ranger to be something it isn’t because a few want it to play like something it’s not.
Hardly. This is not world of Warcraft. Rangers have what they have, and are very well off. Tasha’s is a pacifier for combat focused optimizers.
12 attacks, 0.65% chance to hit, .8775 chance to hit at least once, 0.8775 chance hit for gloom stalker, 11 base damage on a hit, 3.5 HM per attack, 3.5 damage per turn on swarmkeeper with at least one hit, 19 damage on first turn for gloom stalker with a third hit. 2.5 fey wanderer damage once a turn, 48 points of smite damage amortized on 5 hits over 6 turns.
That gives you all you need for the numbers I posted.
As I stated above, I DID NOT include great weapon fighting for the Paladin. I agree that should have been included and it is a mistake. GWF adds 5 total damage over 6 turns (0.67 damage per hit).
Says the person who wanted to compare a Ranger using archery with a Paladin using a polearm.
Why don't you give me what you want to compare and I will go with the terms YOU choose. As long as you stay within the bounds of the discussion - Same stats, same weapons, a Paladin using smite versus a Ranger using no limited use abilities over a reasonable timeframe.
A new thread about damage would be A great thing. That way interested parties could choose to participate. I might even add some input to damage but this thread is prepared vs Known. I suggest all of us review our posts and see if some trimming could be done to help make the conversation flow better. I think i have at least one comment that is more of a side issue rather than a helpful input. I will remove it.
An item of note on scrolls. Zanathar's rules say you must do consecutive work for crafting so there is some slight danger to Only taking advantage of an Elfs 4 hour rest. Some dm's also don't treat copying as light activity. so talk to various dms because this is not 100% consistent.
So overall most people have stated Power level is Kind of low on the priority, so instead what spells would actually be affected by known VS Prepared.
I for one would probably swap Huntersmark and Zephyr strike occasionally Because in different scenarios one works better than the other. still I usually pick one or the other to build tactics around so its not that big of a deal.
The trap/ambush spells are almost never used And that is kind of sad but... Most of the time onboarding the whole group is the problem that needs to be addressed not "if" its prepared.
I tend to avoid Absorb elements at low levels because damage saved isn't usually worth the slot unless its a "situational enemy" but again I just tend to get it later in the game anyway.
2nd level spells are probably where most people would get uses of switching because of the General strength of pass without a trace. but it might be nice to swap out some of the time and this is kind of where I feel it might upset the balance the worst.
HM is a bonus action to cast and to move. Unless you are using your bonus action for something else you will be able to use it every turn.
There is a corner case where you might not be able to use it for both attacks - that case is if you cast it and kill the enemy with the first attack so you don't have a bonus left to move it between attacks. If that is the case though then the whole discussion breaks down because the smite would have killed the enemy too and the extra damage you would have done on the smite is irrelevant, it is essentially capped at his hps, which are low enough to 1-shot with Hunter's Mark.
I proposed scenarios which played to the respective strengths of each class. Paladins are generally better off emphasizing Strength over Dexterity, and vice versa for rangers. If you would like a Dueling ranger who wields a finesse weapon, I can do that. But like I said two pages ago, it wouldn't meaningfully change things. At least, not for the positive. They could use a rapier, which has a slightly larger damage die than a spear, but they would lose out on the bonus action attack afforded by the Polearm Master feat. I did previously write off Two-Weapon Fighting, as it's generally not effective once the character has Extra Attack, but hunter's mark helps to close that gap. Still, it takes a round to get moving. And it means the ranger is in melee, which makes them more likely to be hit and lose concentration on the spell. As with many things in D&D, it's balancing risk against reward.
If I do any more comparisons on damage, it will not be in this thread.
And, please, fix your formatting. You needlessly stretch out posts by adding carriage returns which do not need to be there. [REDACTED]
The original idea was to show how conservative rangers are with spell slots to deal damage compared to others. Obviously I ruffled some feathers by claiming that they deal more damage than a paladin using the same resource expenditure. OTHER than single target moderate to low AC situations, I still maintain that to be true.
Damage comparisons are flawed by their nature and all of our biases.
So to get back on this thread topic, does a ranger NEED to prepare spells, obviously not. Should they? Sure. Why not. Bring it on.
Rangers can be conservative in their spellcasting, and probably should be when considering their spellcasting progression. Twenty-two of their class spells in the PHB require concentration. And the paladin, the other "half-caster" in the PHB, has 27 such spells in the same book. Plus, they gain additional spell, via their Sacred Oaths, which may add to that list. Oath of Devotion adds just one, but Oath of the Ancients adds one at each spell level and Oath of Vengeance adds eight out of its ten. And yes, a ranger with hunter's mark can be a potent damage dealer. But it isn't a must-have spell for them, and a paladin with the Oath of Vengeance has access to it as well. This is why I so dislike theorcrafting; especially when it assumes hyper-specific conditions. Yes, it's inefficient for a paladin to be using Divine Smite every single turn. I don't think anyone has ever argued otherwise.
Briefly touching on the previous example given by ECM03─two 6th-level characters with STR 18 and a greatsword─I find it ludicrous to assume the paladin in that scenario would expend all their spell slots on Divine Smite. It's grossly, arguably negligibly, inefficient when they could just cast magic weapon once; assuming it's prepared. It may be a 2nd-level spell slot instead of a 1st-level one, but it makes sense to play to the strengths of the class. That's why I would not ask a ranger to wield a greatsword. It's also why I think of paladins not as having "smite slots" but as spellcasters with spell slots. Work smarter, not harder.
And magic weapon does a pretty good job of closing the gap, increasing the paladin's DPR from 16.862 to 19.495, with hunter's mark and the ranger's DPR of 19.9. Several ranger archetypes may increase damage output, yes, but that just brings me back to my earlier point that spells like hunter's mark are not essential.
this thread is present for anyone wanting to discuss Damage further. Thank Envoy for his efforts. https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/class-forums/ranger/106847-20th-level-ranger-dpr?page=3#c48