So I had a weird question about whirlwind attack from hunter. The action allows you to attack each target within 5 feet of you. The PHB says, in breaking up movement, that when utilizing an action that gives you multiple attacks you can break up the attacks with movement. So does this mean that with whirlwind attack that I can bonus action zephyr strike for the speed boost, then attack 2 people within 5 feet of me, move and attack another after I get within 5 feet of them, since I can attack "all" creatures within 5 feet? My first instinct was no, but than I thought, this would be a really weak melee ability if not, and that seems counter intuitive for a level 11 ability.
So I had a weird question about whirlwind attack from hunter. The action allows you to attack each target within 5 feet of you. The PHB says, in breaking up movement, that when utilizing an action that gives you multiple attacks you can break up the attacks with movement. So does this mean that with whirlwind attack that I can bonus action zephyr strike for the speed boost, then attack 2 people within 5 feet of me, move and attack another after I get within 5 feet of them, since I can attack "all" creatures within 5 feet? My first instinct was no, but than I thought, this would be a really weak melee ability if not, and that seems counter intuitive for a level 11 ability.
I once asked this question. At first glance is seems weak. Maybe it is. I found the math puts it right about where you want it to be though. If you are going colossus slayer at level 3 that damage is in there once. And if you went horde breaker at level 3 then you are getting in even more damage in a group scenario. I like like to build hunters as focused on taking out small hordes of enemies. If you look at a fighter with a sword and a hunter with a sword, both at level 11, it's about right.
To answer your question, my understanding is that you take the action and can attack all creatures within 5' of you when you took that action. You can, in fact, move between attacks, but the only creatures you can attack that turn are the ones that were within 5' of you when you took the whirlwind attack action.
Ok so it is designed to be useless unless there are at least 3 people right next to your character. That seems really small and really bad and really niche by comparison to what other classes get at level 11.
Yes. Like much of the hunter subclass, they can do bonkers damage but it is situational.
Think of it this way. A hunter can have access to three attacks starting at level 3 (if you take horde breaker). And at level 11 they have 3+ attacks (horde breaker plus whirlwind attack). If a hunter has 3 enemies next to them they might make 4 attacks! And this could be even more attacks. If there are 4 enemies surrounding the hunter they might be able to make 5 attacks. If you crunch the numbers of other ranger subclasses you'll find they all do about the same damage around level 11, and this includes the gloom stalker, hunter, swarm keeper, and either beast masters (actually the beast masters both do more than any of the other subclasses at level 11+).
It seems underwhelming compared to say a fighter that gets just three straight up attacks, or perhaps a paladin that just gets a couple extra d8's, but the hunter, given the right circumstances, can put out huge damage. Think of the paladin as the single target killer king, the hunter ranger as the horde killer king, and the fighter as being able to do both.
The thing is, AOE spells are just better at AOE damage. I think if I want to do AOE damage as a Ranger I would just go Draken warden or something along those lines to get myself a nice breath weapon that deals significantly more than 1 attack worth of damage. It, to me just emphasizes how certain classes just fall off at level 11. I think for the most part that I would just go horizon walker over hunter if I wanted "melee ranger" because the teleports make the situations where the effects more reliable. It is just unfortunate that paladin's can get an extra d8 on all attacks and, for the most part ranger is begging for 1d8 of extra damage unless you are in hyper specific scenarios. Being able to do some AoE is good, but needing that many targets within 5 feet of you, just is not realistic, like how are you getting 4 people near you? I am assuming you are literally surrounded at that point. It does make sense why hunter probably goes ranged more often than melee. 10 foot radius that you do not have to be in the middle of is a much better chance for you to have enough people in it and positioning is much less troublesome.
There is also a place where you can get better results if you end up Larger than normal. Multiclass-Druid, Runeknight, enlarge/reduce.
or when fighting Swarms that enter your square or are smaller creatures.
I also would like to point out that you could move first to an optimal position or do "enemy position management" making the chances for setting it up a lot greater.
Thirdly this can really be a benefit if you have interesting weapons or features that respond to hits but the creature can only take it once a round. special magic items with riders like poisoned, fear or stunned or even a Vorpal Sword That has a 1/20 chance of auto death.
Enemy position management explained- working with the party and the environment to group up enemies for such attacks. Spells that reduce movement or make them want to be specific places. party walls. shove or push/pull attacks. and more.
The thing is, AOE spells are just better at AOE damage. I think if I want to do AOE damage as a Ranger I would just go Draken warden or something along those lines to get myself a nice breath weapon that deals significantly more than 1 attack worth of damage. It, to me just emphasizes how certain classes just fall off at level 11. I think for the most part that I would just go horizon walker over hunter if I wanted "melee ranger" because the teleports make the situations where the effects more reliable. It is just unfortunate that paladin's can get an extra d8 on all attacks and, for the most part ranger is begging for 1d8 of extra damage unless you are in hyper specific scenarios. Being able to do some AoE is good, but needing that many targets within 5 feet of you, just is not realistic, like how are you getting 4 people near you? I am assuming you are literally surrounded at that point. It does make sense why hunter probably goes ranged more often than melee. 10 foot radius that you do not have to be in the middle of is a much better chance for you to have enough people in it and positioning is much less troublesome.
You're conflating Ranger and Hunter, which is interesting considering that you namechecked Drake Warden and Horizon Walker as being able to keep up with other classes.
If you're disappointed by how the Hunter plays, that's your prerogative. But don't make sweeping statements about the Ranger as a whole just because you don't like the Hunter's 11th-level ability.
When it comes to Hunters specifically, and melee Hunters at that, I will say that they get their choice of defensive options that help protect them from attacks (Escape the Horde, Multiattack Defense.) So they're really good at going in, baiting enemies to surround them, nailing a bunch of attacks, and then getting out if that is their wont. If those abilities are not enough for you, there's always the Mobile feat. I will say that something Hunters in general lack is the ability to force enemies to attack/surround them -a true Defender mechanic a la 4e. But that's not really a role 5e cares to develop so...oh well.
That said, Rangers in general can be built well as tanks by giving them access to the trifecta of defensive spells: Absorb Elements (already on their spell list), Silvery Barbs (via Fey Touched), and Shield (via Magic/Strixhaven Initiate.) The latter can be obtained by a Background if your DM allows Strixhaven content, thus not getting in the way of progression. So yeah. Hunters can be easily built in such a way that they don't care for getting surrounded and actually enjoy the enemy clustering around them.
*Also, Nature's Veil let's them become invisible for a round, which makes them even harder to hit. Defensively, they're fine
Every ranger subclass damage bump is in some way situational. Can a spellcaster do “better” AoE? Sure. At a cost. Hunters can do this all day long. Thing is, once you start comparing any martial to “what a caster can do better”, you loose. Paladins are getting a d8 per hit and they desperately need it at level 11. Most don’t make paladin 11, as it’s a long road from level 2 or 6. We can’t look at the one ability by itself. Look at how the kit build on itself and use all of that tactically. The others above have just mentioned this.
The thing is, AOE spells are just better at AOE damage. I think if I want to do AOE damage as a Ranger I would just go Draken warden or something along those lines to get myself a nice breath weapon that deals significantly more than 1 attack worth of damage. It, to me just emphasizes how certain classes just fall off at level 11. I think for the most part that I would just go horizon walker over hunter if I wanted "melee ranger" because the teleports make the situations where the effects more reliable. It is just unfortunate that paladin's can get an extra d8 on all attacks and, for the most part ranger is begging for 1d8 of extra damage unless you are in hyper specific scenarios. Being able to do some AoE is good, but needing that many targets within 5 feet of you, just is not realistic, like how are you getting 4 people near you? I am assuming you are literally surrounded at that point. It does make sense why hunter probably goes ranged more often than melee. 10 foot radius that you do not have to be in the middle of is a much better chance for you to have enough people in it and positioning is much less troublesome.
You're conflating Ranger and Hunter, which is interesting considering that you namechecked Drake Warden and Horizon Walker as being able to keep up with other classes.
If you're disappointed by how the Hunter plays, that's your prerogative. But don't make sweeping statements about the Ranger as a whole just because you don't like the Hunter's 11th-level ability.
When it comes to Hunters specifically, and melee Hunters at that, I will say that they get their choice of defensive options that help protect them from attacks (Escape the Horde, Multiattack Defense.) So they're really good at going in, baiting enemies to surround them, nailing a bunch of attacks, and then getting out if that is their wont. If those abilities are not enough for you, there's always the Mobile feat. I will say that something Hunters in general lack is the ability to force enemies to attack/surround them -a true Defender mechanic a la 4e. But that's not really a role 5e cares to develop so...oh well.
That said, Rangers in general can be built well as tanks by giving them access to the trifecta of defensive spells: Absorb Elements (already on their spell list), Silvery Barbs (via Fey Touched), and Shield (via Magic/Strixhaven Initiate.) The latter can be obtained by a Background if your DM allows Strixhaven content, thus not getting in the way of progression. So yeah. Hunters can be easily built in such a way that they don't care for getting surrounded and actually enjoy the enemy clustering around them.
*Also, Nature's Veil let's them become invisible for a round, which makes them even harder to hit. Defensively, they're fine
I want to note that I am not conflating hunter with ranger. I was checking if hunter had some secret tech that was good that meant that there was a good subclass other than gloomstalker. Horizon walker can SOMETIMES keep up with fighter or Paladin but for the most part no, you need to utilize the bonus action at 11 to get 2d8 while they can use Polearm master and get their extra damage. You need 3 targets with horizon walker to hit 3 times and still get that 2d8 while the fighter can just hit 3 times and still have a bonus action attack that can do about the same if not more damage than the 2d8 without using resources. The breath weapon is basically a fireball, which the dragon ranger got at level 11, and the spell casters got that ability 6 levels earlier. Monk has the same issue, and so does Barbarian. Spell casters auto scale and get 6th level spells, fighters get 3 attacks, warlocks get 3 beams, paladins get a d8 to all attacks. Rogues get 1 extra d6, Rangers get 1 extra d8 from most of their subclasses, Monks get their bonus action attacks dealing an average of 1 more per hit, and barbarians get tankier. It just seems in general these are the classes that fall off at 11. Unless you are playing the one subclass that actually makes them super good.
Edit: I mean if you know a way to make a non-gloomstalker ranger keep up with a level 11 fighter in melee. I would love to see it. I am always interested in builds I am not seeing.
A gloomstalker gets basically one free attack per combat. A hunter gets to select from abilities at level 3 and again at level 11 that either offer reliable extra damage round after round or straight up additional attacks. After round one a gloomstalker stalker is doing baseline damage. At level 11 a hunter could have horde breaker, escape the horde, and whirlwind attack. Having played a hunter twice to levels 13 and 15, I found a hunter was making 3 attacks we’ll be fore the fighter through level 10, and made 4+ attacks about every other combat after level 11. The math, over the long haul, exceeds what we expect from a gloomstalker
Edit: I mean if you know a way to make a non-gloomstalker ranger keep up with a level 11 fighter in melee. I would love to see it. I am always interested in builds I am not seeing.
Longstrider or Zephyr strike is usually how PHB rangers "keep up" with other creatures. Tasha' just gets a flat out movement bonus. Rangers are also great at creating difficult terrain they can ignore to slow people down.
All jokes aside, any class is weak or strong under the right circumstances and a ranger can cover more varied circumstances than other classes. We gave lots of options to show playing tactically a ranger can get use out of wirlwind attack. But remember whirlwind and the previous choices can stack. Colossus slayer is usually the best option but Horde breaker could work on an enemy 10' away with a reach weapon.
if those options aren't fun for you, then you can always play a fighter or paladin.
If your dm is deliberately avoiding scenarios with multiple creatures that can also be problematic but that is not a ranger problem its a campaign problem. Whirlwind attack fills a role and a common fantasy one.
Also, either beast master ranger (beast of the land for the variant, and wolf, giant poisonous snake, giant frog, etc. for the handbook) does way more single target damage than a gloomstalker or hunter, reliably too.
Also, either beast master ranger (beast of the land for the variant, and wolf, giant poisonous snake, giant frog, etc. for the handbook) does way more single target damage than a gloomstalker or hunter, reliably too.
Please explain. All the math I have done with beastmaster puts it well behind especially at 11. Early it is fine (first 10 levels are fairly well balanced in general)
Example Spear + PAM Fighter with a shield and dueling each round is 3d6+1d4 +28 with hits average damage before accuracy being taken account is 41. Beast master with druidic fighting so that their wisdom is topped out using shillelagh even assuming that you buffed the weapon before the fight you end up with 4d8+22 or 40 damage. Both have the same chance to hit. But Ranger needs the bonus action to activate shillelagh, which means 1 less attack on round 1 or 3d8+17 and this, of course is not taking into account Fighter subclass. I mean it is close, and honestly close enough that I would call Beastmaster good honestly. Enough for me to say there are 2 good subclasses.
I am curious on the math for dragon, but the pets accuracy drops as you level unfortunately.
Also, either beast master ranger (beast of the land for the variant, and wolf, giant poisonous snake, giant frog, etc. for the handbook) does way more single target damage than a gloomstalker or hunter, reliably too.
Please explain. All the math I have done with beastmaster puts it well behind especially at 11. Early it is fine (first 10 levels are fairly well balanced in general)
Also, either beast master ranger (beast of the land for the variant, and wolf, giant poisonous snake, giant frog, etc. for the handbook) does way more single target damage than a gloomstalker or hunter, reliably too.
Please explain. All the math I have done with beastmaster puts it well behind especially at 11. Early it is fine (first 10 levels are fairly well balanced in general)
Quick math is, over a 4 round battle, at level 11, with rapiers, hunter’s mark, and the dueling style, a gloom stalker is doing 139.5, and a beast master with a wolf is doing 148 (plus possible additional opportunity attacks from the wolf).
Also, either beast master ranger (beast of the land for the variant, and wolf, giant poisonous snake, giant frog, etc. for the handbook) does way more single target damage than a gloomstalker or hunter, reliably too.
Please explain. All the math I have done with beastmaster puts it well behind especially at 11. Early it is fine (first 10 levels are fairly well balanced in general)
Quick math is, over a 4 round battle, at level 11, with rapiers, hunter’s mark, and the dueling style, a gloom stalker is doing 139.5, and a beast master with a wolf is doing 148 (plus possible additional opportunity attacks from the wolf).
You are going to need to show me where the numbers are coming from. Because this means nothing without a breakdown, also, and I could be wrong about this, but it looks like this is assuming that the Gloomstalker didn't take PAM with a V. Human at level 1 or at 4 or 8 to get access to a bonus action attack, which it can use and the beaster master can't.
Also, either beast master ranger (beast of the land for the variant, and wolf, giant poisonous snake, giant frog, etc. for the handbook) does way more single target damage than a gloomstalker or hunter, reliably too.
Please explain. All the math I have done with beastmaster puts it well behind especially at 11. Early it is fine (first 10 levels are fairly well balanced in general)
Quick math is, over a 4 round battle, at level 11, with rapiers, hunter’s mark, and the dueling style, a gloom stalker is doing 139.5, and a beast master with a wolf is doing 148 (plus possible additional opportunity attacks from the wolf).
You are going to need to show me where the numbers are coming from. Because this means nothing without a breakdown, also, and I could be wrong about this, but it looks like this is assuming that the Gloomstalker didn't take PAM with a V. Human at level 1 or at 4 or 8 to get access to a bonus action attack, which it can use and the beaster master can't.
Each round the wolf is doing (2d4+2+4)*2 and the ranger is doing (1d8+2+1d6+5).
As soon as you start getting into feats and such, things change. The Vuman and feat option is fine for a damage build. And gloomstalker is basically a good damage subclass. Beast master with a wolf is going to want lucky or resilient constitution to utilize conjure animals, archery, and their wolf dodging and getting in AoO to level 10, and making attacks at levels 11+. Let’s optimize for the subclass, not try to fit a subclass into a build that doesn’t suit it. Or, play a fighter.
Also, either beast master ranger (beast of the land for the variant, and wolf, giant poisonous snake, giant frog, etc. for the handbook) does way more single target damage than a gloomstalker or hunter, reliably too.
Please explain. All the math I have done with beastmaster puts it well behind especially at 11. Early it is fine (first 10 levels are fairly well balanced in general)
Treantmonk has 2 issues, 1 he makes horrible assumptions about encounters when doing damage calculations which routinely undervalues short rest abilities. And 2 he assumes most people play in the level 1 to 10 levels, which I have already said are pretty good for ranger. My issue is they fall off at 11 and don't recover until 15. Very specific issue which this video does not address, especially considering treant himself says under 50% over baseline is not "good damage" it is "ok damage" which is where he is putting this build. Also his numbers at higher level don't match up with what I am doing for his snake, I think he may be assuming that the snake triggers hunters mark, which it doesnt. Other than that I don't know how he is getting things like 24 and 25 damage with the snake. at 11 it should be doing 1d4+8 points of damage on hit and triggering the save for 3d6+4 (going to just assume that is allowed). And do that twice at the cost of 1 of your attacks. that is 21 points of damage on hit and failed save, The damage with successful save is only 13.75 per hit. Average saves on CR 11 is around +6. so they save on a 5 or better or they save 80% of the time so 80% will be done at 13.75 and 20% at 21 per hit for an average of 15.2 damage per hit. With 2 attacks this is 30.4 x65% chance to hit or 19.76 points of damage. No where near his 24 or 25, so I have no idea where he is getting those numbers.
Also, either beast master ranger (beast of the land for the variant, and wolf, giant poisonous snake, giant frog, etc. for the handbook) does way more single target damage than a gloomstalker or hunter, reliably too.
Please explain. All the math I have done with beastmaster puts it well behind especially at 11. Early it is fine (first 10 levels are fairly well balanced in general)
Quick math is, over a 4 round battle, at level 11, with rapiers, hunter’s mark, and the dueling style, a gloom stalker is doing 139.5, and a beast master with a wolf is doing 148 (plus possible additional opportunity attacks from the wolf).
You are going to need to show me where the numbers are coming from. Because this means nothing without a breakdown, also, and I could be wrong about this, but it looks like this is assuming that the Gloomstalker didn't take PAM with a V. Human at level 1 or at 4 or 8 to get access to a bonus action attack, which it can use and the beaster master can't.
Each round the wolf is doing (2d4+2+4)*2 and the ranger is doing (1d8+2+1d6+5).
As soon as you start getting into feats and such, things change. The Vuman and feat option is fine for a damage build. And gloomstalker is basically a good damage subclass. Beast master with a wolf is going to want lucky or resilient constitution to utilize conjure animals, archery, and their wolf dodging and getting in AoO to level 10, and making attacks at levels 11+. Let’s optimize for the subclass, not try to fit a subclass into a build that doesn’t suit it. Or, play a fighter.
Note I used the feat thing specifically on fighter because fighters get an extra ASI so they might as well. The other factor is I was partially assuming everyone was talking about new beast master and not old. I had not looked into old and since the new one largely gives a use for your bonus action the only feat that is usually relevant for damage for new beast master ranger would be sharp shooter because they are using their bonus action to keep up with the pet.
I think my point is, unless you are playing ranged ranger or gloomstalker (which is typically ranged ranger) you are basically better off playing anything else, and the only reason ranged ranger keeps up is crossbow expert and Sharpshooter which makes me sad because classes shouldnt have to rely on feats to be good (but that is a martial issue since melee martials are also relying on feats to be good).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So I had a weird question about whirlwind attack from hunter. The action allows you to attack each target within 5 feet of you. The PHB says, in breaking up movement, that when utilizing an action that gives you multiple attacks you can break up the attacks with movement. So does this mean that with whirlwind attack that I can bonus action zephyr strike for the speed boost, then attack 2 people within 5 feet of me, move and attack another after I get within 5 feet of them, since I can attack "all" creatures within 5 feet? My first instinct was no, but than I thought, this would be a really weak melee ability if not, and that seems counter intuitive for a level 11 ability.
I once asked this question. At first glance is seems weak. Maybe it is. I found the math puts it right about where you want it to be though. If you are going colossus slayer at level 3 that damage is in there once. And if you went horde breaker at level 3 then you are getting in even more damage in a group scenario. I like like to build hunters as focused on taking out small hordes of enemies. If you look at a fighter with a sword and a hunter with a sword, both at level 11, it's about right.
To answer your question, my understanding is that you take the action and can attack all creatures within 5' of you when you took that action. You can, in fact, move between attacks, but the only creatures you can attack that turn are the ones that were within 5' of you when you took the whirlwind attack action.
Ok so it is designed to be useless unless there are at least 3 people right next to your character. That seems really small and really bad and really niche by comparison to what other classes get at level 11.
Yes. Like much of the hunter subclass, they can do bonkers damage but it is situational.
Think of it this way. A hunter can have access to three attacks starting at level 3 (if you take horde breaker). And at level 11 they have 3+ attacks (horde breaker plus whirlwind attack). If a hunter has 3 enemies next to them they might make 4 attacks! And this could be even more attacks. If there are 4 enemies surrounding the hunter they might be able to make 5 attacks. If you crunch the numbers of other ranger subclasses you'll find they all do about the same damage around level 11, and this includes the gloom stalker, hunter, swarm keeper, and either beast masters (actually the beast masters both do more than any of the other subclasses at level 11+).
It seems underwhelming compared to say a fighter that gets just three straight up attacks, or perhaps a paladin that just gets a couple extra d8's, but the hunter, given the right circumstances, can put out huge damage. Think of the paladin as the single target killer king, the hunter ranger as the horde killer king, and the fighter as being able to do both.
The thing is, AOE spells are just better at AOE damage. I think if I want to do AOE damage as a Ranger I would just go Draken warden or something along those lines to get myself a nice breath weapon that deals significantly more than 1 attack worth of damage. It, to me just emphasizes how certain classes just fall off at level 11. I think for the most part that I would just go horizon walker over hunter if I wanted "melee ranger" because the teleports make the situations where the effects more reliable. It is just unfortunate that paladin's can get an extra d8 on all attacks and, for the most part ranger is begging for 1d8 of extra damage unless you are in hyper specific scenarios. Being able to do some AoE is good, but needing that many targets within 5 feet of you, just is not realistic, like how are you getting 4 people near you? I am assuming you are literally surrounded at that point. It does make sense why hunter probably goes ranged more often than melee. 10 foot radius that you do not have to be in the middle of is a much better chance for you to have enough people in it and positioning is much less troublesome.
There is also a place where you can get better results if you end up Larger than normal. Multiclass-Druid, Runeknight, enlarge/reduce.
or when fighting Swarms that enter your square or are smaller creatures.
I also would like to point out that you could move first to an optimal position or do "enemy position management" making the chances for setting it up a lot greater.
Thirdly this can really be a benefit if you have interesting weapons or features that respond to hits but the creature can only take it once a round. special magic items with riders like poisoned, fear or stunned or even a Vorpal Sword That has a 1/20 chance of auto death.
Enemy position management explained- working with the party and the environment to group up enemies for such attacks. Spells that reduce movement or make them want to be specific places. party walls. shove or push/pull attacks. and more.
You're conflating Ranger and Hunter, which is interesting considering that you namechecked Drake Warden and Horizon Walker as being able to keep up with other classes.
If you're disappointed by how the Hunter plays, that's your prerogative. But don't make sweeping statements about the Ranger as a whole just because you don't like the Hunter's 11th-level ability.
When it comes to Hunters specifically, and melee Hunters at that, I will say that they get their choice of defensive options that help protect them from attacks (Escape the Horde, Multiattack Defense.) So they're really good at going in, baiting enemies to surround them, nailing a bunch of attacks, and then getting out if that is their wont. If those abilities are not enough for you, there's always the Mobile feat. I will say that something Hunters in general lack is the ability to force enemies to attack/surround them -a true Defender mechanic a la 4e. But that's not really a role 5e cares to develop so...oh well.
That said, Rangers in general can be built well as tanks by giving them access to the trifecta of defensive spells: Absorb Elements (already on their spell list), Silvery Barbs (via Fey Touched), and Shield (via Magic/Strixhaven Initiate.) The latter can be obtained by a Background if your DM allows Strixhaven content, thus not getting in the way of progression. So yeah. Hunters can be easily built in such a way that they don't care for getting surrounded and actually enjoy the enemy clustering around them.
*Also, Nature's Veil let's them become invisible for a round, which makes them even harder to hit. Defensively, they're fine
Every ranger subclass damage bump is in some way situational. Can a spellcaster do “better” AoE? Sure. At a cost. Hunters can do this all day long. Thing is, once you start comparing any martial to “what a caster can do better”, you loose. Paladins are getting a d8 per hit and they desperately need it at level 11. Most don’t make paladin 11, as it’s a long road from level 2 or 6. We can’t look at the one ability by itself. Look at how the kit build on itself and use all of that tactically. The others above have just mentioned this.
I want to note that I am not conflating hunter with ranger. I was checking if hunter had some secret tech that was good that meant that there was a good subclass other than gloomstalker. Horizon walker can SOMETIMES keep up with fighter or Paladin but for the most part no, you need to utilize the bonus action at 11 to get 2d8 while they can use Polearm master and get their extra damage. You need 3 targets with horizon walker to hit 3 times and still get that 2d8 while the fighter can just hit 3 times and still have a bonus action attack that can do about the same if not more damage than the 2d8 without using resources. The breath weapon is basically a fireball, which the dragon ranger got at level 11, and the spell casters got that ability 6 levels earlier. Monk has the same issue, and so does Barbarian. Spell casters auto scale and get 6th level spells, fighters get 3 attacks, warlocks get 3 beams, paladins get a d8 to all attacks. Rogues get 1 extra d6, Rangers get 1 extra d8 from most of their subclasses, Monks get their bonus action attacks dealing an average of 1 more per hit, and barbarians get tankier. It just seems in general these are the classes that fall off at 11. Unless you are playing the one subclass that actually makes them super good.
Edit: I mean if you know a way to make a non-gloomstalker ranger keep up with a level 11 fighter in melee. I would love to see it. I am always interested in builds I am not seeing.
A gloomstalker gets basically one free attack per combat. A hunter gets to select from abilities at level 3 and again at level 11 that either offer reliable extra damage round after round or straight up additional attacks. After round one a gloomstalker stalker is doing baseline damage. At level 11 a hunter could have horde breaker, escape the horde, and whirlwind attack. Having played a hunter twice to levels 13 and 15, I found a hunter was making 3 attacks we’ll be fore the fighter through level 10, and made 4+ attacks about every other combat after level 11. The math, over the long haul, exceeds what we expect from a gloomstalker
Longstrider or Zephyr strike is usually how PHB rangers "keep up" with other creatures. Tasha' just gets a flat out movement bonus. Rangers are also great at creating difficult terrain they can ignore to slow people down.
All jokes aside, any class is weak or strong under the right circumstances and a ranger can cover more varied circumstances than other classes. We gave lots of options to show playing tactically a ranger can get use out of wirlwind attack. But remember whirlwind and the previous choices can stack. Colossus slayer is usually the best option but Horde breaker could work on an enemy 10' away with a reach weapon.
if those options aren't fun for you, then you can always play a fighter or paladin.
If your dm is deliberately avoiding scenarios with multiple creatures that can also be problematic but that is not a ranger problem its a campaign problem. Whirlwind attack fills a role and a common fantasy one.
Also, either beast master ranger (beast of the land for the variant, and wolf, giant poisonous snake, giant frog, etc. for the handbook) does way more single target damage than a gloomstalker or hunter, reliably too.
Please explain. All the math I have done with beastmaster puts it well behind especially at 11. Early it is fine (first 10 levels are fairly well balanced in general)
Example Spear + PAM Fighter with a shield and dueling each round is 3d6+1d4 +28 with hits average damage before accuracy being taken account is 41. Beast master with druidic fighting so that their wisdom is topped out using shillelagh even assuming that you buffed the weapon before the fight you end up with 4d8+22 or 40 damage. Both have the same chance to hit. But Ranger needs the bonus action to activate shillelagh, which means 1 less attack on round 1 or 3d8+17 and this, of course is not taking into account Fighter subclass. I mean it is close, and honestly close enough that I would call Beastmaster good honestly. Enough for me to say there are 2 good subclasses.
I am curious on the math for dragon, but the pets accuracy drops as you level unfortunately.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcqyGITBTv8 this is treantmonk's beastmaster build And he didn't even Use Raw Harvesting rules making the damage even better.
Quick math is, over a 4 round battle, at level 11, with rapiers, hunter’s mark, and the dueling style, a gloom stalker is doing 139.5, and a beast master with a wolf is doing 148 (plus possible additional opportunity attacks from the wolf).
You are going to need to show me where the numbers are coming from. Because this means nothing without a breakdown, also, and I could be wrong about this, but it looks like this is assuming that the Gloomstalker didn't take PAM with a V. Human at level 1 or at 4 or 8 to get access to a bonus action attack, which it can use and the beaster master can't.
Each round the wolf is doing (2d4+2+4)*2 and the ranger is doing (1d8+2+1d6+5).
As soon as you start getting into feats and such, things change. The Vuman and feat option is fine for a damage build. And gloomstalker is basically a good damage subclass. Beast master with a wolf is going to want lucky or resilient constitution to utilize conjure animals, archery, and their wolf dodging and getting in AoO to level 10, and making attacks at levels 11+. Let’s optimize for the subclass, not try to fit a subclass into a build that doesn’t suit it. Or, play a fighter.
Doing that Vuman, shield, PAM thing works really well on a hunter.
Treantmonk has 2 issues, 1 he makes horrible assumptions about encounters when doing damage calculations which routinely undervalues short rest abilities. And 2 he assumes most people play in the level 1 to 10 levels, which I have already said are pretty good for ranger. My issue is they fall off at 11 and don't recover until 15. Very specific issue which this video does not address, especially considering treant himself says under 50% over baseline is not "good damage" it is "ok damage" which is where he is putting this build. Also his numbers at higher level don't match up with what I am doing for his snake, I think he may be assuming that the snake triggers hunters mark, which it doesnt. Other than that I don't know how he is getting things like 24 and 25 damage with the snake. at 11 it should be doing 1d4+8 points of damage on hit and triggering the save for 3d6+4 (going to just assume that is allowed). And do that twice at the cost of 1 of your attacks. that is 21 points of damage on hit and failed save, The damage with successful save is only 13.75 per hit. Average saves on CR 11 is around +6. so they save on a 5 or better or they save 80% of the time so 80% will be done at 13.75 and 20% at 21 per hit for an average of 15.2 damage per hit. With 2 attacks this is 30.4 x65% chance to hit or 19.76 points of damage. No where near his 24 or 25, so I have no idea where he is getting those numbers.
Note I used the feat thing specifically on fighter because fighters get an extra ASI so they might as well. The other factor is I was partially assuming everyone was talking about new beast master and not old. I had not looked into old and since the new one largely gives a use for your bonus action the only feat that is usually relevant for damage for new beast master ranger would be sharp shooter because they are using their bonus action to keep up with the pet.
I think my point is, unless you are playing ranged ranger or gloomstalker (which is typically ranged ranger) you are basically better off playing anything else, and the only reason ranged ranger keeps up is crossbow expert and Sharpshooter which makes me sad because classes shouldnt have to rely on feats to be good (but that is a martial issue since melee martials are also relying on feats to be good).