Ok double checked beguiling twist and ya, not great. The first creature has to succeed on the check then you can have a different creature roll. But if that creature fails it is only charmed by you, not by you and the fey creature with 30 health... at level 11. So the way you are using beguiling twist is basically just getting soft advantage, and that is good but not a reason to use a whole action for a summon creature that will die to the first big AOE instead of trying to presummon it the normal way.
Finally strength ranger doesn't have the tools needed to perform the tasks of a strength martial. It doesn't keep up in damage or have any features to make grappling better and falls behind dex or full wisdom rangers pretty heavily in damage and utility.
Ultimately with most things, depends on the dm.
edit: wanted to note that if ranger is 75% damage of Fighter, that means fighter is 150% of ranger. (also I think rogue falls off at higher levels too. Actually technically most martials fall off at higher levels, but rogue, ranger, monk suffer the worst, followed by barbarian, than paladin and finally fighter, again this is about their high level features, their 7,9,10 and 11 level abilities not their 1-6 features. ECM03 has been one of the few people actually arguing high level features of a single subclass, obviously because level 7 and 11 for ranger are dominated by their subclass features.)
ECM03. Can I just say its a pleasure discussing features with you. even when we disagree{sometimes we do. sometimes we don't} I learn something. I wish everyone on this forum could be as helpful/interesting.
(I picked fog cloud to double with blind fighting and tispy sway, making myself harder to hit while also being able to still attack them without disadvantage, when they miss me if there is another creature within 5 feet I can cause them to auto hit the other creature. It sounds fun. Talk about Natural explorer with my current DM makes is super good and I thank you all for opening my eyes to its possibilities. With only 1 terrain I will get some good uses out of it, but won't invalidate some adventure types. Also with performance from Drunken Master, Deception from Charlatan, which fits with Drunken Master, and Persuasion from Fey Wanderer I maximize Fey wanderer's Wisdom usage for charisma skills.)
Sayin the ranger makes the exploration pillar boring or less engaging has not played the part of the game that features travel and exploration. They just haven't.
Why is it that providing examples of how 2 feats, 1 background, and 3 classes/subclasses invalidates the ranger is seen as some kind of nail in the coffin argument? I think I know how people see this when they make this argument, but I assure you that it has the opposite effect.
Sayin the ranger makes the exploration pillar boring or less engaging has not played the part of the game that features travel and exploration. They just haven't.
Why is it that providing examples of how 2 feats, 1 background, and 3 classes/subclasses invalidates the ranger is seen as some kind of nail in the coffin argument? I think I know how people see this when they make this argument, but I assure you that it has the opposite effect.
I want to make something clear. Because I feel like people have taken a lot of things I have said completely out of context. I do not think ranger is bad in the early and mid tiers of play or even in the highest tiers of play. I believe they do not scale as well into the upper mid tiers. I also feel this way about rogue, barbarian and monk. For the first 10 levels the ranger gets all of those skills and abilities without sacrificing their strength as a martial character. But at 11 and all of a sudden we are just supposed to be ok going from 95% martial effectiveness down to 75-80% because everyone leveled up and while we all got a combat effectiveness boost, unless the ranger is playing Beast master or draken warden, they get one of the least effective combat boosts. And it is wierd to me that everyone seems to be ok with this effectiveness drop.
You can even see this with the character I was trying to make. I took NE because I talked to my GM so I get the exploration stuff, but I don't have to sacrifice martial prowess at those higher levels for it.
Sayin the ranger makes the exploration pillar boring or less engaging has not played the part of the game that features travel and exploration. They just haven't.
Why is it that providing examples of how 2 feats, 1 background, and 3 classes/subclasses invalidates the ranger is seen as some kind of nail in the coffin argument? I think I know how people see this when they make this argument, but I assure you that it has the opposite effect.
I want to make something clear. Because I feel like people have taken a lot of things I have said completely out of context. I do not think ranger is bad in the early and mid tiers of play or even in the highest tiers of play. I believe they do not scale as well into the upper mid tiers. I also feel this way about rogue, barbarian and monk. For the first 10 levels the ranger gets all of those skills and abilities without sacrificing their strength as a martial character. But at 11 and all of a sudden we are just supposed to be ok going from 95% martial effectiveness down to 75-80% because everyone leveled up and while we all got a combat effectiveness boost, unless the ranger is playing Beast master or draken warden, they get one of the least effective combat boosts. And it is wierd to me that everyone seems to be ok with this effectiveness drop.
You can even see this with the character I was trying to make. I took NE because I talked to my GM so I get the exploration stuff, but I don't have to sacrifice martial prowess at those higher levels for it.
That's fair. If I'm one of those people, I apologize. I think I understand what you are sating about level 11. Here is my final two cents: Rangers really have to rethink their approach to combat starting at level 11. Paladins and fighters double down on the weapon use thing at level 11. Whereas rangers really lean into their spells more for combat. I know some people will hate for me to brink this up, but rangers cast spells to deal damage in combat. Spike growth, conjure animals, plant growth, hail of thorns, ensnaring strike, guardian of nature, just to name a few. Most spells a ranger casts for combat last for an entire combat and many last for multiple combats. They aren't burning through slots via smites or blasting casting, and they are nova attacking with short rest abilities. They are getting a lot of use out of a few spells and a few slots, enhanced by their martial prowess.
Sayin the ranger makes the exploration pillar boring or less engaging has not played the part of the game that features travel and exploration. They just haven't.
Why is it that providing examples of how 2 feats, 1 background, and 3 classes/subclasses invalidates the ranger is seen as some kind of nail in the coffin argument? I think I know how people see this when they make this argument, but I assure you that it has the opposite effect.
Because in the best circumstances you are basically erasing that pillar as you don't need to do anything anymore while traveling... No need to navigate, no need to map, no need to forage. Ranger actually makes that pillar less engaging not more.
And it is wierd to me that everyone seems to be ok with this effectiveness drop.
Mostly because we judge the Ranger by more than what they can do in combat. They drop off in combat but that's not all there is to the game so we just don't care as much about it as you do. Not to mention that the vast majority of campaigns end around level 12 anyway so it barely matters even for combat.
Also as I've already mentioned earlier in this thread, at level 11 Rangers get an additional spell slot for their Conjure Animals. At most tables that's a significant damage boost. Not during the same combat where you already cast the spell (unless you lost concentration on it or they got killed) but for an entire additional combat.
If you aren't using Conjure Animals at every possible encounter you are leaving a TON of damage and control on the table.
So much so it's basically not worth it to use those slots for anything else.
I will say, if, as a player. I wanted to transition from martial to caster at higher levels. I would probably multi-class druid. By 10 I have 4th level slots and more conjures. If I go 11 with 6th level ranger that is still getting 4th level spells by 13 with 6 ranger and 7 druid and I have 5th level slots to use them with.
I have a half caster rant saved for later, but ya it is unfortunate how wildly different spell casting strength can be. Different spells within the same level have wildly different strength.
Sayin the ranger makes the exploration pillar boring or less engaging has not played the part of the game that features travel and exploration. They just haven't.
Why is it that providing examples of how 2 feats, 1 background, and 3 classes/subclasses invalidates the ranger is seen as some kind of nail in the coffin argument? I think I know how people see this when they make this argument, but I assure you that it has the opposite effect.
Because in the best circumstances you are basically erasing that pillar as you don't need to do anything anymore while traveling... No need to navigate, no need to map, no need to forage. Ranger actually makes that pillar less engaging not more.
This can not be more incorrect, Primus. The ranger abilities open up doors for the party, not close them. Come on. How is your table running travel and exploration? Because it sounds like it’s just a travel montage converted to turns with the intent of being dull.
Now in my opinion they are honestly very boring. Moving slow vs moving fast is a difference of about a 10 day of which you can expect an encounter maybe once a day.
"The other hazards presented here can be identified with a successful Intelligence (Nature) check. Use the guidelines in chapter 8 to set an appropriate DC for any check made to spot or recognize a hazard."
This is an example of a potential hazard.... The check is an intelligence check that the ranger (if they are in their favored terrain) will get ADV on.... But in a stat that they likely dumped as it is arguably the 4th or 5th most important stat for them.
The rogue with nature expertise (Scout) will be better at this activity.
Another activity is getting lost:
"Aventurers traveling in the wilderness run the risk of becoming lost. The party's navigator makes a Wisdom (Survival) check when you decide it's appropriate, against a DC determined by the prevailing terrain, as shown on the Wilderness Navigation table. If the party is moving at a slow pace, the navigator gains a +5 bonus to the check, and a fast pace imposes a -5 penalty. If the party has an accurate map of the region or can see the sun or stars, the navigator has advantage on the check."
Again it's a simple ability check of survival. At least with this the ranger gets to use Wis! But wait ... The rogue has expertise in this too. And they bought a map so they get ADV.... Again better to let the rogue roll here.
Ok well the ranger can go do something else... Like forage!
Oh but wait the druid has good berry ... No need to forage.
Ok now we are in the rangers favored terrain! The ranger keeps the party from getting lost and can ignore difficult terrain here! Ok so that means the rogue no longer needs to roll for checks to get lost... Now they can focus on perception checks to spot enemies as they also have expertise in perception!
So the ranger is just a passive buff here with nothing to really do....
This is not very exciting gameplay if I'm a ranger....
This....the rules are outlined here. Its really not that complicated/interesting IMO
Also worth mentioning is that you don't always have the whole exploration thing just because you travel. When you're just traveling from town to town there are likely already well used paths or even roads. It only really matters when you have a reason to travel through actual wilderness which is probably the exception rather than the rule when it comes to everyday traveling.
I can’t believe I’m arguing again about something that the other person has definitely never done in a game.
What does your table do between battles?
And I can't believe you're again dismissing other people's opinions and experience as if you're the only one who knows how to play the game. A rather common occurrence in Ranger topics you're involved in to be fair. ^^
What my table does between battles? All kinds of things. Battles are honestly not even the majority of what we spend our time with. They are few in between and meaningful, not just ther to fill the day.
He is dismissing mine, so why do you only attack me?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ok double checked beguiling twist and ya, not great. The first creature has to succeed on the check then you can have a different creature roll. But if that creature fails it is only charmed by you, not by you and the fey creature with 30 health... at level 11. So the way you are using beguiling twist is basically just getting soft advantage, and that is good but not a reason to use a whole action for a summon creature that will die to the first big AOE instead of trying to presummon it the normal way.
Finally strength ranger doesn't have the tools needed to perform the tasks of a strength martial. It doesn't keep up in damage or have any features to make grappling better and falls behind dex or full wisdom rangers pretty heavily in damage and utility.
Ultimately with most things, depends on the dm.
edit: wanted to note that if ranger is 75% damage of Fighter, that means fighter is 150% of ranger. (also I think rogue falls off at higher levels too. Actually technically most martials fall off at higher levels, but rogue, ranger, monk suffer the worst, followed by barbarian, than paladin and finally fighter, again this is about their high level features, their 7,9,10 and 11 level abilities not their 1-6 features. ECM03 has been one of the few people actually arguing high level features of a single subclass, obviously because level 7 and 11 for ranger are dominated by their subclass features.)
ECM03. Can I just say its a pleasure discussing features with you. even when we disagree{sometimes we do. sometimes we don't} I learn something. I wish everyone on this forum could be as helpful/interesting.
Thoughts on Monk/Ranger multi-class https://www.dndbeyond.com/characters/72495021
(I picked fog cloud to double with blind fighting and tispy sway, making myself harder to hit while also being able to still attack them without disadvantage, when they miss me if there is another creature within 5 feet I can cause them to auto hit the other creature. It sounds fun. Talk about Natural explorer with my current DM makes is super good and I thank you all for opening my eyes to its possibilities. With only 1 terrain I will get some good uses out of it, but won't invalidate some adventure types. Also with performance from Drunken Master, Deception from Charlatan, which fits with Drunken Master, and Persuasion from Fey Wanderer I maximize Fey wanderer's Wisdom usage for charisma skills.)
Sayin the ranger makes the exploration pillar boring or less engaging has not played the part of the game that features travel and exploration. They just haven't.
Why is it that providing examples of how 2 feats, 1 background, and 3 classes/subclasses invalidates the ranger is seen as some kind of nail in the coffin argument? I think I know how people see this when they make this argument, but I assure you that it has the opposite effect.
I want to make something clear. Because I feel like people have taken a lot of things I have said completely out of context. I do not think ranger is bad in the early and mid tiers of play or even in the highest tiers of play. I believe they do not scale as well into the upper mid tiers. I also feel this way about rogue, barbarian and monk. For the first 10 levels the ranger gets all of those skills and abilities without sacrificing their strength as a martial character. But at 11 and all of a sudden we are just supposed to be ok going from 95% martial effectiveness down to 75-80% because everyone leveled up and while we all got a combat effectiveness boost, unless the ranger is playing Beast master or draken warden, they get one of the least effective combat boosts. And it is wierd to me that everyone seems to be ok with this effectiveness drop.
You can even see this with the character I was trying to make. I took NE because I talked to my GM so I get the exploration stuff, but I don't have to sacrifice martial prowess at those higher levels for it.
That's fair. If I'm one of those people, I apologize. I think I understand what you are sating about level 11. Here is my final two cents: Rangers really have to rethink their approach to combat starting at level 11. Paladins and fighters double down on the weapon use thing at level 11. Whereas rangers really lean into their spells more for combat. I know some people will hate for me to brink this up, but rangers cast spells to deal damage in combat. Spike growth, conjure animals, plant growth, hail of thorns, ensnaring strike, guardian of nature, just to name a few. Most spells a ranger casts for combat last for an entire combat and many last for multiple combats. They aren't burning through slots via smites or blasting casting, and they are nova attacking with short rest abilities. They are getting a lot of use out of a few spells and a few slots, enhanced by their martial prowess.
Because in the best circumstances you are basically erasing that pillar as you don't need to do anything anymore while traveling... No need to navigate, no need to map, no need to forage. Ranger actually makes that pillar less engaging not more.
If you aren't using Conjure Animals at every possible encounter you are leaving a TON of damage and control on the table.
So much so it's basically not worth it to use those slots for anything else.
I will say, if, as a player. I wanted to transition from martial to caster at higher levels. I would probably multi-class druid. By 10 I have 4th level slots and more conjures. If I go 11 with 6th level ranger that is still getting 4th level spells by 13 with 6 ranger and 7 druid and I have 5th level slots to use them with.
I have a half caster rant saved for later, but ya it is unfortunate how wildly different spell casting strength can be. Different spells within the same level have wildly different strength.
Oops wrong thread
This can not be more incorrect, Primus. The ranger abilities open up doors for the party, not close them. Come on. How is your table running travel and exploration? Because it sounds like it’s just a travel montage converted to turns with the intent of being dull.
This....the rules are outlined here. Its really not that complicated/interesting IMO
I can’t believe I’m arguing again about something that the other person has definitely never done in a game.
What does your table do between battles?
This is also a very good point.
Talk and travel but the latter is hardly a 1/3 of the game.... It's hardly 1/10 of the game for me.
Also just reading the rules there is no way any of that is taking more than 20min to sort out.
He is dismissing mine, so why do you only attack me?