Sure it will. We use goodberry all the time to bring back people in a fight.
DMs often let people do this, but it is not RAW. It will work sometimes, but not in every campaign.
It is certainly the among the best druid and ranger spells if the dm allows this, more hp per slot than l1 cure wounds, though upcasting Isn’t a thing for it
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Royalty among the charge kingdom. All will fall before our glorious assault!
Man, this is becoming quite a heated discussion. Here are a few more thought I'd like to add:
For one thing, it's been pointed out that the ranger is a "skill" class. however, the only skill bonus it gets is an extra skill. Bards and rouges both get extra skills, but both also have expertise, the rouge has an extra ASI (and, eventually, Reliable Talent), and the Bard has Jack of All Trades. Yet, the ranger gets just a single extra skill. How is it a "skill class?"
Second of all, I've seen references to previous editions. I know next to nothing about what those editions did, and whether or not 5e is "like" the previous editions is not all that important to me. I feel like it shouldn't be important to anyone except for very experienced veteran players who have been playing for ages.
One last note, in the campaign I DM, I just decided to temporarily change the Ranger class so that, along with a couple other modifications, it can prepare spells. This is only my own house rule, and not necessarily a permanent one, but after reading your arguments, I've decided to make the change just to see what happens. I'll be back soon after a play session or two to report whether this update caused any significant changes in our gameflow.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Panda-wat (I hate my username) is somehow convinced that he is objectively right about everything D&D related even though he obviously is not. Considering that, he'd probably make a great D&D youtuber.
"If I die, I can live with that." ~Luke Hart, the DM lair
I think "skill expert" is more of a role term than a mechanical one in this instance. i realize its highly confusing . most people conform to the idea that a ranger is suppose to Take care of certain skills. and the game kind of goes out of its way to ensure You have at least one tracking/survival related boon.(via spell or feature or beneficial stat choices).
Also, The ranger class gets 3 skills which is bigger than the 2 most classes get as a start.
PHB rangers have boons to skills that Relate to their choices. Favored enemy and favored terrain. Tashas rangers get basically expertise in one set skill all the time.
Hunters mark and several other spells assist or actually solve problems that would be gated behind a skill check. Harvesting, tracking, watch etc.
rangers also are set up to be able to use any equipment Except the heavy armor. so they usually can swap out equipment for right match for any given situation. ranged or melee. ac boosts via shield or switch to damage focus.
Versatility doesn't mean they can pass any skill check, it means they can find "A" solution path for almost any adventuring situation. Sometimes skills, sometimes equipment changes and sometimes spells or features but there's always an option. { a contrary example is most barbarians cannot fight a creature 50' away or a wizard is almost disabled in an antimanic field{or drained of intelligence})
so, by giving rangers prepared you have made them more versatile. Whether that's good or bad or about the same is "debatable" :)
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 6 against 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.
the dpr data is interesting but kind of off topic. still I think power and damage is only a portion of why or why not to make rangers prepared instead of known.
Tasha’s ranger abilities stepped away from the skill focus thing by trading in for more combat oriented things, which was good because most, if not all, of the people that had complaints about the ranger are in the group. Handbook rangers have more advantage and expertise than rogues, clerics, and bards, when it counts. Also with multiple methods to achieve all of it.
Rangers are simply going to cast less spells than paladins, artificers, and what have you. All of the most fun and potent ranger spells are concentration, many of which last for an hour or more. Their spell list is very efficient. The example above of sustained damage is a great example. Note: The numbers get worse for the paladin when to-hit numbers are used as well. This is full out for the paladin with minimal effort from the ranger. Note: All ranger subclasses get extra damage. Even the handbook beast master. Until level 11, baseline rangers deal more damage than paladins, and at level 11+ it is again their they’ll list and subclass that does the heavy lifting in the combat department.
Should ranger be prepared casters? They could have done that in Tasha’s along with the other variants. They play tested it. It didn’t make it. I wonder why…
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 6 against 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.
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 6 against 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.
We also don't know the levels of these hypothetical characters, so we don't know whether Extra Attack kicks in. Presumably, they're 9th or 10th-level, ECM03 has used both before, but I won't assume that. And I don't particularly care about the Strength 18 and greatsword because that doesn't tell us anything we need to know. Only the AC 15 is relevant for calculating to-hit chance, but to do that we first need an attack modifier. And they haven't even done the bare minimum in "showing us their work." Theirs is the kind of pontificating that would get them an F in math class.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, two 9th-level characters with a +4 ability modifier to attack and damage. That means they have a +8 with their proficiency bonus, +10 if the ranger is using the Archery Fighting Style, and we assume no magical weapons. The paladin is probably using Strength, and can have an AC at least as high without even wielding a shield. Still, I'll try and cover the gamut. Two attacks with a greatsword/maul means an average of 11 (2d6 + 4) per swing. That gets elevated to 12.33 if they use Great Weapon Fighting Style. But against an AC of 15, their miss chance is 30% since a 6 or lower on the D20 means they fail. So, their effective damage per swing is 8.631, or 17.262 damage per round, before factoring in any magical enhancements.
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. Dueling Fighting Style adds a flat +2 damage to each swing, so that's 9.5 (1d6 + 6) per swing and 8.5 (1d4 + 6) with the bonus action for 19.25 DPR after the to-hit chance reduces the odds by 30%. So what they lose in 0.07 DPR and only 5-foot reach they make up for with +2 AC because of their shield. That said, these build are routinely giving up their bonus actions for damage, which I don't think is optimal. A significant number of paladin spells rely on their bonus actions. Not just the many "smite" spells, but others like shield of faith and Sacred Oath spells like ensnaring strike, hunter's mark, and misty step. And I know I said we're trying not to factor in magic, because that's a variable too large to reasonably account for, we can still acknowledge how different builds are going to hinder or promote various styles of play.
Moving on to the ranger, Two-Weapon Fighting is generally considered suboptimal so, we'll stick to Archery and Dueling. And Dueling doesn't meaningfully change things, except that a ranger is more likely to emphasize Dexterity over Strength and so wouldn't be able to make use of that bonus action attack. Which really just leaves us with Archery. That's going to be 8.5 (1d8 + 4) per shot for a total of 17; reduced to 13.6 DPR because of the 20% reduction in their to-hit chance. If they were to add hunter's mark, they would increase their DPR to 19.2. But that spell requires Concentration, which means they cannot concentrate on something else which might contribute even more. Or just the idea that this one spell is not a hammer to solve every problem with.
Now, 10th-level would see the ranger potentially gaining Nature's Veil, which they can use on rounds two and three of a typical three-round combat. So a round one of 19.2 DPR gives way to 23.04 DPR for rounds two through three. Which gives us a three-round mean of 21.76 DPR. But that costs two limited resources: a spell slot and three of their four uses of Nature's Veil for the day. And as soon as 11th-level kicks in, the paladin gets Improved Divine Smite to add +1d8 radiant damage to every single attack with a melee weapon. That's an extra 6.3 DPR for the greatsword/maul user, bringing their DPR to 23.562. And for the polearm wielders, that an extra 9.45 DPR; bringing them to 28.77 (glaive/halberd) and 28.7 (spear) respectively. And that's all without spending limited resources.
###
Yes, some subclasses will add new options that could help push the ranger over the paladin. 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 don’t want to get into an optimization conversation here, but I do want to mention that, yes, CR is built around 3-round combats, but 6-8 combats is incorrect. It is an amount of CR that, divided up in just one way, yields 6-8 medium to hard combats. And, yes, that is all combat. The section for building combats is in the combat encounter section.
I have no desire to dive headlong into a discussion on optimization, either. That said, any discussion on damage dealing will invariably lead to a discussion on optimization. I just wanted to be thorough, since ECM03 was leaving information on the table by omitting their work. Paladins and rangers are competitive without either needing to spend additional resources. Rangers are good, I like rangers, but they're not as strong as the two of you are pretending they are.
The numbers any character is able to put up honestly comes down to a combination of two key factors: the unique circumstances of each battle and how those characters are developed. But numbers aren't everything, and this obsession over them is detracting from the original topic.
The numbers any character is able to put up honestly comes down to a combination of two key factors: the unique circumstances of each battle and how those characters are developed. But numbers aren't everything, and this obsession over them is detracting from the original topic.
I remember when this topic used to be about whether Rangers should be prepared casters like everyone else. 😝
Nobody arguing that Rangers are the strongest half caster has yet said whether they think that means that Rangers should or should not be prepared casters; it doesn't seem like it matters to me either way. Ranger could be the single most powerful class in the game without contest, and it wouldn't change that being a non-prepared caster doesn't make a difference except to make it more annoying to tweak your spell list if you follow strict RAW.
Conversely nobody arguing that Paladins are stupid weak little babies compared to Rangers has justified why them being a prepared caster makes any difference, because it really doesn't. The only argument I can think would be that Paladins are so pathetically weak that they need the small consolation of having less of a chore to manage their spells, but nobody seems to actually be saying that either so it's all 100% off-topic. 😂
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
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}
I definitely think rangers have enough going for them that it isn’t needed, and WotC agrees.
Per Sage Advice, it's not a power thing. It's purely thematic. The type of fantasy they were aiming for.
When was that first published? The bit you’re referring to? How many times has JC hand waved things away? The answers are 1. A long time ago. and 2. Many times.
Poeple have played rangers (very successfully) as known casters for years now. Still do.
I definitely think rangers have enough going for them that it isn’t needed, and WotC agrees.
Per Sage Advice, it's not a power thing. It's purely thematic. The type of fantasy they were aiming for.
When was that first published? The bit you’re referring to? How many times has JC hand waved things away? The answers are 1. A long time ago. and 2. Many times.
Poeple have played rangers (very successfully) as known casters for years now. Still do.
It's one thing to change one's interpretation of a ruling, or to disregard the RAW because you know what's fun for your players.
It's another thing entirely for you to question their expressed reasoning for why something was designed a certain way. You don't need to put words in anyone's mouths.
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.
I definitely think rangers have enough going for them that it isn’t needed, and WotC agrees.
Per Sage Advice, it's not a power thing. It's purely thematic. The type of fantasy they were aiming for.
When was that first published? The bit you’re referring to? How many times has JC hand waved things away? The answers are 1. A long time ago. and 2. Many times.
Poeple have played rangers (very successfully) as known casters for years now. Still do.
It's one thing to change one's interpretation of a ruling, or to disregard the RAW because you know what's fun for your players.
It's another thing entirely for you to question their expressed reasoning for why something was designed a certain way. You don't need to put words in anyone's mouths.
Very well. Cheerfully withdrawn.
Did WotC not publish a Tasha’s UA where all of the prepared casters could “prepare” spells on a long rest instead of on a level up? And did that not make it into the book? What do you and others make of that exploration and abandonment?
to be clear I think scrolls as rewards is more interesting than Permanent magic items. Or having to make choices between buying a scroll or a potion or the next armor. Just like I kind of had to with old RPGs if i wanted to continue without farming.
MY prefered play/dming style is "permanent magic items should never Be for sale in a world if they are above common or uncommon." I like worlds where every magic item is Too desirable to have a price. they would be major quest items directly integrated into the adventure .Gated behind high risk High reward scenarios.
I definitely think rangers have enough going for them that it isn’t needed, and WotC agrees.
Per Sage Advice, it's not a power thing. It's purely thematic. The type of fantasy they were aiming for.
When was that first published? The bit you’re referring to? How many times has JC hand waved things away? The answers are 1. A long time ago. and 2. Many times.
Poeple have played rangers (very successfully) as known casters for years now. Still do.
It's one thing to change one's interpretation of a ruling, or to disregard the RAW because you know what's fun for your players.
It's another thing entirely for you to question their expressed reasoning for why something was designed a certain way. You don't need to put words in anyone's mouths.
Very well. Cheerfully withdrawn.
Did WotC not publish a Tasha’s UA where all of the prepared casters could “prepare” spells on a long rest instead of on a level up? And did that not make it into the book? What do you and others make of that exploration and abandonment?
DMs often let people do this, but it is not RAW. It will work sometimes, but not in every campaign.
It is certainly the among the best druid and ranger spells if the dm allows this, more hp per slot than l1 cure wounds, though upcasting Isn’t a thing for it
Royalty among the charge kingdom. All will fall before our glorious assault!
Quest offer! Enter the deep dungeon here
Ctg’s blood is on the spam filter’s hands
Man, this is becoming quite a heated discussion. Here are a few more thought I'd like to add:
For one thing, it's been pointed out that the ranger is a "skill" class. however, the only skill bonus it gets is an extra skill. Bards and rouges both get extra skills, but both also have expertise, the rouge has an extra ASI (and, eventually, Reliable Talent), and the Bard has Jack of All Trades. Yet, the ranger gets just a single extra skill. How is it a "skill class?"
Second of all, I've seen references to previous editions. I know next to nothing about what those editions did, and whether or not 5e is "like" the previous editions is not all that important to me. I feel like it shouldn't be important to anyone except for very experienced veteran players who have been playing for ages.
One last note, in the campaign I DM, I just decided to temporarily change the Ranger class so that, along with a couple other modifications, it can prepare spells. This is only my own house rule, and not necessarily a permanent one, but after reading your arguments, I've decided to make the change just to see what happens. I'll be back soon after a play session or two to report whether this update caused any significant changes in our gameflow.
Panda-wat (I hate my username) is somehow convinced that he is objectively right about everything D&D related even though he obviously is not. Considering that, he'd probably make a great D&D youtuber.
"If I die, I can live with that." ~Luke Hart, the DM lair
I think "skill expert" is more of a role term than a mechanical one in this instance. i realize its highly confusing . most people conform to the idea that a ranger is suppose to Take care of certain skills. and the game kind of goes out of its way to ensure You have at least one tracking/survival related boon.(via spell or feature or beneficial stat choices).
Also, The ranger class gets 3 skills which is bigger than the 2 most classes get as a start.
PHB rangers have boons to skills that Relate to their choices. Favored enemy and favored terrain. Tashas rangers get basically expertise in one set skill all the time.
Hunters mark and several other spells assist or actually solve problems that would be gated behind a skill check. Harvesting, tracking, watch etc.
rangers also are set up to be able to use any equipment Except the heavy armor. so they usually can swap out equipment for right match for any given situation. ranged or melee. ac boosts via shield or switch to damage focus.
Versatility doesn't mean they can pass any skill check, it means they can find "A" solution path for almost any adventuring situation. Sometimes skills, sometimes equipment changes and sometimes spells or features but there's always an option. { a contrary example is most barbarians cannot fight a creature 50' away or a wizard is almost disabled in an antimanic field{or drained of intelligence})
so, by giving rangers prepared you have made them more versatile. Whether that's good or bad or about the same is "debatable" :)
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 6 against 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.
Tasha’s ranger abilities stepped away from the skill focus thing by trading in for more combat oriented things, which was good because most, if not all, of the people that had complaints about the ranger are in the group. Handbook rangers have more advantage and expertise than rogues, clerics, and bards, when it counts. Also with multiple methods to achieve all of it.
Rangers are simply going to cast less spells than paladins, artificers, and what have you. All of the most fun and potent ranger spells are concentration, many of which last for an hour or more. Their spell list is very efficient. The example above of sustained damage is a great example. Note: The numbers get worse for the paladin when to-hit numbers are used as well. This is full out for the paladin with minimal effort from the ranger. Note: All ranger subclasses get extra damage. Even the handbook beast master. Until level 11, baseline rangers deal more damage than paladins, and at level 11+ it is again their they’ll list and subclass that does the heavy lifting in the combat department.
Should ranger be prepared casters? They could have done that in Tasha’s along with the other variants. They play tested it. It didn’t make it. I wonder why…
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.
We also don't know the levels of these hypothetical characters, so we don't know whether Extra Attack kicks in. Presumably, they're 9th or 10th-level, ECM03 has used both before, but I won't assume that. And I don't particularly care about the Strength 18 and greatsword because that doesn't tell us anything we need to know. Only the AC 15 is relevant for calculating to-hit chance, but to do that we first need an attack modifier. And they haven't even done the bare minimum in "showing us their work." Theirs is the kind of pontificating that would get them an F in math class.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, two 9th-level characters with a +4 ability modifier to attack and damage. That means they have a +8 with their proficiency bonus, +10 if the ranger is using the Archery Fighting Style, and we assume no magical weapons. The paladin is probably using Strength, and can have an AC at least as high without even wielding a shield. Still, I'll try and cover the gamut. Two attacks with a greatsword/maul means an average of 11 (2d6 + 4) per swing. That gets elevated to 12.33 if they use Great Weapon Fighting Style. But against an AC of 15, their miss chance is 30% since a 6 or lower on the D20 means they fail. So, their effective damage per swing is 8.631, or 17.262 damage per round, before factoring in any magical enhancements.
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. Dueling Fighting Style adds a flat +2 damage to each swing, so that's 9.5 (1d6 + 6) per swing and 8.5 (1d4 + 6) with the bonus action for 19.25 DPR after the to-hit chance reduces the odds by 30%. So what they lose in 0.07 DPR and only 5-foot reach they make up for with +2 AC because of their shield. That said, these build are routinely giving up their bonus actions for damage, which I don't think is optimal. A significant number of paladin spells rely on their bonus actions. Not just the many "smite" spells, but others like shield of faith and Sacred Oath spells like ensnaring strike, hunter's mark, and misty step. And I know I said we're trying not to factor in magic, because that's a variable too large to reasonably account for, we can still acknowledge how different builds are going to hinder or promote various styles of play.
Moving on to the ranger, Two-Weapon Fighting is generally considered suboptimal so, we'll stick to Archery and Dueling. And Dueling doesn't meaningfully change things, except that a ranger is more likely to emphasize Dexterity over Strength and so wouldn't be able to make use of that bonus action attack. Which really just leaves us with Archery. That's going to be 8.5 (1d8 + 4) per shot for a total of 17; reduced to 13.6 DPR because of the 20% reduction in their to-hit chance. If they were to add hunter's mark, they would increase their DPR to 19.2. But that spell requires Concentration, which means they cannot concentrate on something else which might contribute even more. Or just the idea that this one spell is not a hammer to solve every problem with.
Now, 10th-level would see the ranger potentially gaining Nature's Veil, which they can use on rounds two and three of a typical three-round combat. So a round one of 19.2 DPR gives way to 23.04 DPR for rounds two through three. Which gives us a three-round mean of 21.76 DPR. But that costs two limited resources: a spell slot and three of their four uses of Nature's Veil for the day. And as soon as 11th-level kicks in, the paladin gets Improved Divine Smite to add +1d8 radiant damage to every single attack with a melee weapon. That's an extra 6.3 DPR for the greatsword/maul user, bringing their DPR to 23.562. And for the polearm wielders, that an extra 9.45 DPR; bringing them to 28.77 (glaive/halberd) and 28.7 (spear) respectively. And that's all without spending limited resources.
###
Yes, some subclasses will add new options that could help push the ranger over the paladin. 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 mark aren't essential to their contributions. I find that liberating; as it encourages ranger players to look at other spells and options.
I don’t want to get into an optimization conversation here, but I do want to mention that, yes, CR is built around 3-round combats, but 6-8 combats is incorrect. It is an amount of CR that, divided up in just one way, yields 6-8 medium to hard combats. And, yes, that is all combat. The section for building combats is in the combat encounter section.
I have no desire to dive headlong into a discussion on optimization, either. That said, any discussion on damage dealing will invariably lead to a discussion on optimization. I just wanted to be thorough, since ECM03 was leaving information on the table by omitting their work. Paladins and rangers are competitive without either needing to spend additional resources. Rangers are good, I like rangers, but they're not as strong as the two of you are pretending they are.
The numbers any character is able to put up honestly comes down to a combination of two key factors: the unique circumstances of each battle and how those characters are developed. But numbers aren't everything, and this obsession over them is detracting from the original topic.
I remember when this topic used to be about whether Rangers should be prepared casters like everyone else. 😝
Nobody arguing that Rangers are the strongest half caster has yet said whether they think that means that Rangers should or should not be prepared casters; it doesn't seem like it matters to me either way. Ranger could be the single most powerful class in the game without contest, and it wouldn't change that being a non-prepared caster doesn't make a difference except to make it more annoying to tweak your spell list if you follow strict RAW.
Conversely nobody arguing that Paladins are stupid weak little babies compared to Rangers has justified why them being a prepared caster makes any difference, because it really doesn't. The only argument I can think would be that Paladins are so pathetically weak that they need the small consolation of having less of a chore to manage their spells, but nobody seems to actually be saying that either so it's all 100% off-topic. 😂
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I’m with you. LOL!
I definitely think rangers have enough going for them that it isn’t needed, and WotC agrees.
Per Sage Advice, it's not a power thing. It's purely thematic. The type of fantasy they were aiming for.
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}
When was that first published? The bit you’re referring to? How many times has JC hand waved things away? The answers are 1. A long time ago. and 2. Many times.
Poeple have played rangers (very successfully) as known casters for years now. Still do.
It's one thing to change one's interpretation of a ruling, or to disregard the RAW because you know what's fun for your players.
It's another thing entirely for you to question their expressed reasoning for why something was designed a certain way. You don't need to put words in anyone's mouths.
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.
Very well. Cheerfully withdrawn.
Did WotC not publish a Tasha’s UA where all of the prepared casters could “prepare” spells on a long rest instead of on a level up? And did that not make it into the book? What do you and others make of that exploration and abandonment?
to be clear I think scrolls as rewards is more interesting than Permanent magic items. Or having to make choices between buying a scroll or a potion or the next armor. Just like I kind of had to with old RPGs if i wanted to continue without farming.
MY prefered play/dming style is "permanent magic items should never Be for sale in a world if they are above common or uncommon." I like worlds where every magic item is Too desirable to have a price. they would be major quest items directly integrated into the adventure .Gated behind high risk High reward scenarios.
Here it is. https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/downloads/UA-ClassFeatures.pdf