Let me correct my self, IF tasha's beast is re-summoned via long rest resurrections OR Via changing forms it is a new beast.
When you finish a long rest, you can summon a different primal beast. The new beast appears in an unoccupied space within 5 feet of you, and you choose its stat block and appearance. If you already have a beast from this feature, it vanishes when the new beast appears. The beast also vanishes if you die.
Meanwhile A PHB ranger Pet body physically stays in existence. (even after bonding a new one) So, Using resurrections would maintain trained skills, permanent blessings or effects (Such as the simic guild, dark gifts or powers etc). Yes there are costs involved but a regular ranger has tools to off set such costs. Still the best plan is to play smart and prevent the death all together.
PHB is a Investment pays off play concept(even base ranger not just beasmaster), Meanwhile Tasha's is designed more for quick payoffs.
You are creating workaround strategies for the beastmaster’s weak features. You don’t need to do that with Tasha’s.
It's not a work around if it creates interesting play and practically uses game mechanics without breaking balance.
In particular the features aren't weak the restrictions on actions are designed to compensate for the huge benefits.
It's give and take. You give up some features for the easy action economy for tasha's.
You don't have to like it for yourself but enough people enjoy it for it to hold its playspace.
Let me correct my self, IF tasha's beast is re-summoned via long rest resurrections OR Via changing forms it is a new beast.
When you finish a long rest, you can summon a different primal beast. The new beast appears in an unoccupied space within 5 feet of you, and you choose its stat block and appearance. If you already have a beast from this feature, it vanishes when the new beast appears. The beast also vanishes if you die.
Meanwhile A PHB ranger Pet body physically stays in existence. (even after bonding a new one) So, Using resurrections would maintain trained skills, permanent blessings or effects (Such as the simic guild, dark gifts or powers etc). Yes there are costs involved but a regular ranger has tools to off set such costs. Still the best plan is to play smart and prevent the death all together.
PHB is a Investment pays off play concept(even base ranger not just beasmaster), Meanwhile Tasha's is designed more for quick payoffs.
You are creating workaround strategies for the beastmaster’s weak features. You don’t need to do that with Tasha’s.
that is the idea of a roleplay game or almost every good game, avoiding weaknesses and using strengths. if you want something whereby you don’t need either strategy, tactic or creativity you are either to dumb to do it normal or to lazy. and tashas is one big workaround, basically the ranger part is: all “flaws” changed for optional rules plus some subclasses. tashas still need workaround, because it is DND, and dnd is a good game and a rpg and the thing tashas did was making things that seemed better to most, (I already said I don’t think so)and making further workaround strategies impossible, like the problem with the fact that all cr 1 or lower beasts ,medium or smaller,have only three statblocks, it doesn’t work with reasons for choosing the pet in phb, like poison, amphibious features, climbing speed, pack tactics or special attack features, like spider web or the prone chance for wolf.
And those abilities are really the point of how strong the PHB Beastmaster actually is - and the fact that it is a tactical (ie thinking man’s) character not a chop chop martial.
They suck, most of their abilities are situational, subclasses aren’t better, I mean beast master you just get a beast which uses its turn oh if that isn’t bad enough let’s make it it needs to be your challenge rating. Prove me wrong. :)
Honestly, I was going to jump in and list out the reasons why you were wrong and prove it to you. realistically though, I don't care if you're wrong. You're allowed to be as wrong as you want. if you think they suck, don't play them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
And those abilities are really the point of how strong the PHB Beastmaster actually is - and the fact that it is a tactical (ie thinking man’s) character not a chop chop martial.
PHB BM has always been strong. As you say, it's a thinking man's archetype. With the proper pet selection BM stomps. The problem is that not all pets are created equally, and new people picking trap pets, then using them poorly gave it a bad reputation. BM is a archetype with a high skill floor...but one that new players are drawn to because "pets are cool"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
And those abilities are really the point of how strong the PHB Beastmaster actually is - and the fact that it is a tactical (ie thinking man’s) character not a chop chop martial.
PHB BM has always been strong. As you say, it's a thinking man's archetype. With the proper pet selection BM stomps. The problem is that not all pets are created equally, and new people picking trap pets, then using them poorly gave it a bad reputation. BM is a archetype with a high skill floor...but one that new players are drawn to because "pets are cool"
Honestly I have played phb beastmaster with a poor pet choice(random rolls from enviroment left me with a fire Beatle) and still have used my subclass to better than many monks, clerics and paladins at non optimization tables.
And those abilities are really the point of how strong the PHB Beastmaster actually is - and the fact that it is a tactical (ie thinking man’s) character not a chop chop martial.
PHB BM has always been strong. As you say, it's a thinking man's archetype. With the proper pet selection BM stomps. The problem is that not all pets are created equally, and new people picking trap pets, then using them poorly gave it a bad reputation. BM is a archetype with a high skill floor...but one that new players are drawn to because "pets are cool"
Honestly I have played phb beastmaster with a poor pet choice(random rolls from enviroment left me with a fire Beatle) and still have used my subclass to better than many monks, clerics and paladins at non optimization tables.
fire beatle is good, if you ask me, I mean you have a non-stop light source
And those abilities are really the point of how strong the PHB Beastmaster actually is - and the fact that it is a tactical (ie thinking man’s) character not a chop chop martial.
PHB BM has always been strong. As you say, it's a thinking man's archetype. With the proper pet selection BM stomps. The problem is that not all pets are created equally, and new people picking trap pets, then using them poorly gave it a bad reputation. BM is a archetype with a high skill floor...but one that new players are drawn to because "pets are cool"
Honestly I have played phb beastmaster with a poor pet choice(random rolls from enviroment left me with a fire Beatle) and still have used my subclass to better than many monks, clerics and paladins at non optimization tables.
fire beatle is good, if you ask me, I mean you have a non-stop light source
Fire beatles are not great. Most pets have at least 3 leverageable features but They have only 2 features that are leverageable and both fill the same tree of problems (sight issues)
Now having sight resolved can free up a race option as you don't need dark vision or a hand used up for lighting.
And having that hand free means you can focus on a defensive ranged build or take a shield or two handed option. Having that choice all the time is a benefit but not much.
Now the best use of a fire Beatles is focused on using its blindsight but because it creates light darkness isn't an advantage ( literally on attacks and figuratively on defense). This means focus on either fogcloud or magic darkness.
As a team, where someone else is concentrating on either, the ranger can use beast sense but you'd want to invest in ritual caster. Still this is more versatile than the next option allowing boons outside of sight resolution your party can't do the teamwork thing.
Without a team member synergy would want to invest your fighting style on blindfigting or another feat or if really lucky a magic item. At that point you are fully invested into a blindsight pet and committed to a fogcloud strategy.
In the end firebeatle as a companion is functional but having a better return on investment is preferable.
Rangers don't suck they excel especially in combat and exploration have features such as Fighting Style,Extra Attack and Spellcasting that makes them versatile character and have some good Archetype but some left to be desired, so is most of the classes.
And those abilities are really the point of how strong the PHB Beastmaster actually is - and the fact that it is a tactical (ie thinking man’s) character not a chop chop martial.
PHB BM has always been strong. As you say, it's a thinking man's archetype. With the proper pet selection BM stomps. The problem is that not all pets are created equally, and new people picking trap pets, then using them poorly gave it a bad reputation. BM is a archetype with a high skill floor...but one that new players are drawn to because "pets are cool"
Honestly I have played phb beastmaster with a poor pet choice(random rolls from enviroment left me with a fire Beatle) and still have used my subclass to better than many monks, clerics and paladins at non optimization tables.
fire beatle is good, if you ask me, I mean you have a non-stop light source
most people complain about the ranger having a lower dpr than fighter, that is because the standard apr(attack per round) of the fighter with two weapons being 8 and ranger hunter with two weapons (the basic and battle subclass)(using giant killer,escape the horde and stand against the tide)4, when against big enemies or two enemies it becomes 6 and in the combined it becomes 10(if the ranger goes out and in enemy reach between attacks).a fighter always has 8 or 10 with action surge.but the key strength of the ranger hunter is against big armies, most medieval armies(the dnd setting)were around ten thousands, but even against a few hundreds a ranger hunter can do enormous damage.when using whirlwind attack too, a ranger hunter can move through let’s say 54 enemies and when attacked by six enemies, this makes an apr of 174, with a dpa(damage per attack)of let’s say 7(2d6), makes 1188 dpr against 56(8 x 1d6/4 x 2d6) is 1132 dpr more for the ranger hunter each round, not like action surge.when adding bonuses(let’s say +2) it becomes 1536 dpr against 72, the total becomes 1464 dpr more for the ranger hunter, growing with 13,5 per extra enemy attacking or enemy apr above 1.the dpr of ranger is 27,5 times the one of the fighter, this makes the ranger hunter the superior against big armies, it is like said in the ranger’s apprentice(a book series)”one revolt, one ranger”
Ok let’s not get carried away. At L10 both the fighter and ranger get 2 attacks a round plus a possible bonus action attack.. assuming both to be double wielding a longsword (or rapier) and a scimitar (so at least one weapon meets the light requirement), neither gets a critical (to avoid subclass extras and differences), their stat bonuses are both +5 and neither is wielding (or needs) a magic weapon (all this so the comparison is as even as possible) the fighter is 5% less likely to get hit (AC 18 vs AC17), both have the same HP, both get 3 attacks and (assuming all 3 hit) do 2d8+1d6 +15 (+5x3) damage (27-28HP average). The fighter’s advantage is that stead of dual wielding they can take polearms/great weapons doing 1d10 per attack ( pole arm) with a bonus action 1d4 assuming great weapon fighter and pole arm master letting them do @29 points of damage if all 3 attacks hit. The ranger’s advantage is his spells of which the best for this is hunter’s mark which is a bonus action spell so the ranger only gets 2 attacks but hunters mark adds 1d6 to the damage of each so 2d8+2d6+10= 26 HP (and if it’s already up its 3 attacks for 2d8+4d6+15= 38. Assuming the fighter saves action surge for a later fight in the 3 rounds of atypical fight the pole arm fighter does (3x29=) 87 HP damage while the ranger does (26+38+38=) 102 HP damage. (An action surged fighter does (4x29=) 116 HP but can’t do it again until the next day while the ranger can do hunters mark up to 9 times a day for a total of 918 HP before running out of slots. The fighter meanwhile does 812 HP in the same 9 fights - actual numbers would be less since this assumes all attacks hit but they will be less by the same proportions so the comparison is still valid.). Overall the ranger is 5% more likely to get hit but does essentially the same to @ 15% more damage than an equally set up fighter. Somehow that doesn’t strike me as being a “weak class” . Also note that this did not include any subclass damage additions which the ranger generally gets and the fighter generally doesn’t .
most people complain about the ranger having a lower dpr than fighter, that is because the standard apr(attack per round) of the fighter with two weapons being 8 and ranger hunter with two weapons (the basic and battle subclass)(using giant killer,escape the horde and stand against the tide)4, when against big enemies or two enemies it becomes 6 and in the combined it becomes 10(if the ranger goes out and in enemy reach between attacks).a fighter always has 8 or 10 with action surge.but the key strength of the ranger hunter is against big armies, most medieval armies(the dnd setting)were around ten thousands, but even against a few hundreds a ranger hunter can do enormous damage.when using whirlwind attack too, a ranger hunter can move through let’s say 54 enemies and when attacked by six enemies, this makes an apr of 174, with a dpa(damage per attack)of let’s say 7(2d6), makes 1188 dpr against 56(8 x 1d6/4 x 2d6) is 1132 dpr more for the ranger hunter each round, not like action surge.when adding bonuses(let’s say +2) it becomes 1536 dpr against 72, the total becomes 1464 dpr more for the ranger hunter, growing with 13,5 per extra enemy attacking or enemy apr above 1.the dpr of ranger is 27,5 times the one of the fighter, this makes the ranger hunter the superior against big armies, it is like said in the ranger’s apprentice(a book series)”one revolt, one ranger”
I’ve literally never seen that argument. Most people dislike Ranger because Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer, Hide in Plain Sight, and Primeval Awareness are near useless. There’s only a small amount of scenarios and Campaigns were those features will actually apply, and even when they do, they’re not all that great.
Also note that this did not include any subclass damage additions which the ranger generally gets and the fighter generally doesn’t .
I don't know about that. Most fighter subclasses do have damage bonuses, they are just not always active. The only ones I can think of that don't are Samauri, Cavalier and Eldritch Knight and although they do not have explicit damage boosts to their attacks, they do get more damage out of them, the Cavalier with his Mark attack, the EK with War Magic and the Samaurai from the increased chance to hit that comes with advantage.
Also unless you can not do Two-Weapon fighting with a Rapier or Longsword unless you have the dual wielder feat.
Also action surge is once per short rest, not once a day.
Finally Hunter's Mark isboth concentration and uses a bonus action both to cast and to switch targets (so no two weapon fighting). Given that your damage is extremely optimistic on a character in melee with a low AC and no constitution proficiency. In melee with a 17AC I think you are generally going to get about 4 hits out of hunters Mark at 10th level, or about 15 points damage per casting. It is also not the best you can do at this level, Ashardalon's Stride, Conjure Barrage and Spike Growth are all going to usually outrun HM. Obviously not in every situation, but in most I think they will.
Also note that this did not include any subclass damage additions which the ranger generally gets and the fighter generally doesn’t .
I don't know about that. Most fighter subclasses do have damage bonuses, they are just not always active. The only ones I can think of that don't are Samauri, Cavalier and Eldritch Knight and although they do not have explicit damage boosts to their attacks, they do get more damage out of them, the Cavalier with his Mark attack, the EK with War Magic and the Samaurai from the increased chance to hit that comes with advantage.
Also unless you can not do Two-Weapon fighting with a Rapier or Longsword unless you have the dual wielder feat.
Also action surge is once per short rest, not once a day.
Finally Hunter's Mark isboth concentration and uses a bonus action both to cast and to switch targets (so no two weapon fighting). Given that your damage is extremely optimistic on a character in melee with a low AC and no constitution proficiency. In melee with a 17AC I think you are generally going to get about 4 hits out of hunters Mark at 10th level, or about 15 points damage per casting. It is also not the best you can do at this level, Ashardalon's Stride, Conjure Barrage and Spike Growth are all going to usually outrun HM. Obviously not in every situation, but in most I think they will.
That was actually my point - both ranger and fighter subclasses have things that can boost damage - but each one is different. To compare classes you have to leave all of that out as it’s too variable to consider ( or you have to do each subclass vs all the others and I’m not wasting the time that would take) in the initial comparison both were assumed to have the two weapon style and dual wielding, in the second the ranger continued while the fighter had great weapon fighting and polearm master - the damage is higher mostly because of the benefits of great weapon fighting allowing a reroll of initial 1s & 2sin damage. action surge - ok so they can use it 3 times a day, the ranger has 9 spell slots for hunter’s mark or other damage dealing spells. I assumed a fresh use of it for each combat. Yes it might go down and need to be refreshed lowering damage in a particular fight etc. however for comparison purposes it actually doesn’t matter as we are trying to see what they CAN do and trying to eliminate as many variables as possible. Yes there are other spells they could use but each throws variables into the calculations that throw off the comparisons. I was looking strictly at melee fighting so spells like conjure barrage, lightning arrow etc are automatically out. Then things like spike growth are out because it’s not really a melee attack it’s an area control spell that can be effective even if it does 0 damage and there is nothing similar in the fighter repertoire for comparison. The very fact that rangers have spells makes them superior to fighters. Again trying to account for all the potential effects of all the possible spells is (again) a fools errand and is an effort in comparing apples and oranges - invalid.
most people complain about the ranger having a lower dpr than fighter, that is because the standard apr(attack per round) of the fighter with two weapons being 8 and ranger hunter with two weapons (the basic and battle subclass)(using giant killer,escape the horde and stand against the tide)4, when against big enemies or two enemies it becomes 6 and in the combined it becomes 10(if the ranger goes out and in enemy reach between attacks).a fighter always has 8 or 10 with action surge.but the key strength of the ranger hunter is against big armies, most medieval armies(the dnd setting)were around ten thousands, but even against a few hundreds a ranger hunter can do enormous damage.when using whirlwind attack too, a ranger hunter can move through let’s say 54 enemies and when attacked by six enemies, this makes an apr of 174, with a dpa(damage per attack)of let’s say 7(2d6), makes 1188 dpr against 56(8 x 1d6/4 x 2d6) is 1132 dpr more for the ranger hunter each round, not like action surge.when adding bonuses(let’s say +2) it becomes 1536 dpr against 72, the total becomes 1464 dpr more for the ranger hunter, growing with 13,5 per extra enemy attacking or enemy apr above 1.the dpr of ranger is 27,5 times the one of the fighter, this makes the ranger hunter the superior against big armies, it is like said in the ranger’s apprentice(a book series)”one revolt, one ranger”
I’ve literally never seen that argument. Most people dislike Ranger because Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer, Hide in Plain Sight, and Primeval Awareness are near useless. There’s only a small amount of scenarios and Campaigns were those features will actually apply, and even when they do, they’re not all that great.
Favored enemy and natural explorer were fine until scout rogue came along as I’ve explained several times in this and other threads. Hide in plain sight was a problem mostly because t was so badly worded that most folks thought you had to do the minute of camo makeup right then instead of at some prior out of combat time. Primeval awareness had a similar problem, folks didn’t like it because it didn’t tell you distance and direction, just presence or abscence. Missing the point that you had other ways to get distance/direction if you needed it but knowing whether you needed it kept you from wasting resources .as a single L1 slot used told you presence or abscence of all the biggest threats in a 1 mile (or 6 mile in favored terrain) radius so you knew if you were safe or potentially subject to major problems in the near future. The abilities weren’t bad, but folks understanding of what they were and how to use them effectively was far too often flawed.
most people complain about the ranger having a lower dpr than fighter, that is because the standard apr(attack per round) of the fighter with two weapons being 8 and ranger hunter with two weapons (the basic and battle subclass)(using giant killer,escape the horde and stand against the tide)4, when against big enemies or two enemies it becomes 6 and in the combined it becomes 10(if the ranger goes out and in enemy reach between attacks).a fighter always has 8 or 10 with action surge.but the key strength of the ranger hunter is against big armies, most medieval armies(the dnd setting)were around ten thousands, but even against a few hundreds a ranger hunter can do enormous damage.when using whirlwind attack too, a ranger hunter can move through let’s say 54 enemies and when attacked by six enemies, this makes an apr of 174, with a dpa(damage per attack)of let’s say 7(2d6), makes 1188 dpr against 56(8 x 1d6/4 x 2d6) is 1132 dpr more for the ranger hunter each round, not like action surge.when adding bonuses(let’s say +2) it becomes 1536 dpr against 72, the total becomes 1464 dpr more for the ranger hunter, growing with 13,5 per extra enemy attacking or enemy apr above 1.the dpr of ranger is 27,5 times the one of the fighter, this makes the ranger hunter the superior against big armies, it is like said in the ranger’s apprentice(a book series)”one revolt, one ranger”
I’ve literally never seen that argument. Most people dislike Ranger because Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer, Hide in Plain Sight, and Primeval Awareness are near useless. There’s only a small amount of scenarios and Campaigns were those features will actually apply, and even when they do, they’re not all that great.
Favored enemy and natural explorer were fine until scout rogue came along as I’ve explained several times in this and other threads. Hide in plain sight was a problem mostly because t was so badly worded that most folks thought you had to do the minute of camo makeup right then instead of at some prior out of combat time. Primeval awareness had a similar problem, folks didn’t like it because it didn’t tell you distance and direction, just presence or abscence. Missing the point that you had other ways to get distance/direction if you needed it but knowing whether you needed it kept you from wasting resources .as a single L1 slot used told you presence or abscence of all the biggest threats in a 1 mile (or 6 mile in favored terrain) radius so you knew if you were safe or potentially subject to major problems in the near future. The abilities weren’t bad, but folks understanding of what they were and how to use them effectively was far too often flawed.
Even though the rogue came along side the ranger playspace.... that wasn't the problem.
DMS and wotc started changing established standards for skill/featue use. They minimized the unique portions of such things down to non-mechanics. IF wotc would have answered questions alot of the vague/misunderstood parts that caused arguments would have at least had solid analysis points. DMS giving exact tracking #'s and timeframes to scouts is a dm problem that l takes "the lunch from ranger". dms not following skill action economy steals from unique ranger features. even the rules that allow stacking tools and skills re-wrote the functional value of PHB features via perceived expectations. There are several points across ranger where encouraged use cases changed overtime.
QUOTE From imaginedragons289: "Most people dislike Ranger because Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer, Hide in Plain Sight, and Primeval Awareness are near useless.There’s only a small amount of scenarios and Campaigns were those features will actually apply, and even when they do, they’re not all that great."
The age old Argument following the same Nebulous reasoning that becomes "Truism argument". Firstly data backing that statement doesn't exist because even situations with no favored terrain or favored enemies can still be impacted via skills and tools outside of those situations. You have added so many conditional assumptions to make that a non statement. Situational means it doesn't always work but situational is not equivalent to bad. if those features provide enough of a boon during its "effect time" to cover the Class feature budget then its worth a consideration for its build.
Hide in plain sight was useful as the only counter of truesight in the game, ambush positions enhancement, and guaranteed long rest Defensive mesure.
Primeval awareness also is a really good tool but most people don't understand its use. The negative information has as much value as the positive, it also allows triangulation, and creates a preparation tool allowing informed Choices (equipment and spells). Players that use it like a Divine sense call it bad but that's like saying a daggers' damage is bad.(avoiding the whole point of its existence). Not only that but its a top off feature when you look at the total value a ranger comes out ahead. Please don't say a single screwdriver is bad because its not a whole Drillset.
It's not a work around if it creates interesting play and practically uses game mechanics without breaking balance.
In particular the features aren't weak the restrictions on actions are designed to compensate for the huge benefits.
It's give and take. You give up some features for the easy action economy for tasha's.
You don't have to like it for yourself but enough people enjoy it for it to hold its playspace.
that is the idea of a roleplay game or almost every good game, avoiding weaknesses and using strengths. if you want something whereby you don’t need either strategy, tactic or creativity you are either to dumb to do it normal or to lazy. and tashas is one big workaround, basically the ranger part is: all “flaws” changed for optional rules plus some subclasses. tashas still need workaround, because it is DND, and dnd is a good game and a rpg and the thing tashas did was making things that seemed better to most, (I already said I don’t think so)and making further workaround strategies impossible, like the problem with the fact that all cr 1 or lower beasts ,medium or smaller,have only three statblocks, it doesn’t work with reasons for choosing the pet in phb, like poison, amphibious features, climbing speed, pack tactics or special attack features, like spider web or the prone chance for wolf.
And those abilities are really the point of how strong the PHB Beastmaster actually is - and the fact that it is a tactical (ie thinking man’s) character not a chop chop martial.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Honestly, I was going to jump in and list out the reasons why you were wrong and prove it to you. realistically though, I don't care if you're wrong. You're allowed to be as wrong as you want. if you think they suck, don't play them.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
PHB BM has always been strong. As you say, it's a thinking man's archetype. With the proper pet selection BM stomps. The problem is that not all pets are created equally, and new people picking trap pets, then using them poorly gave it a bad reputation. BM is a archetype with a high skill floor...but one that new players are drawn to because "pets are cool"
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Honestly I have played phb beastmaster with a poor pet choice(random rolls from enviroment left me with a fire Beatle) and still have used my subclass to better than many monks, clerics and paladins at non optimization tables.
fire beatle is good, if you ask me, I mean you have a non-stop light source
Literally that can be solved with a torch.
Fire beatles are not great. Most pets have at least 3 leverageable features but They have only 2 features that are leverageable and both fill the same tree of problems (sight issues)
Now having sight resolved can free up a race option as you don't need dark vision or a hand used up for lighting.
And having that hand free means you can focus on a defensive ranged build or take a shield or two handed option. Having that choice all the time is a benefit but not much.
Now the best use of a fire Beatles is focused on using its blindsight but because it creates light darkness isn't an advantage ( literally on attacks and figuratively on defense). This means focus on either fogcloud or magic darkness.
As a team, where someone else is concentrating on either, the ranger can use beast sense but you'd want to invest in ritual caster. Still this is more versatile than the next option allowing boons outside of sight resolution your party can't do the teamwork thing.
Without a team member synergy would want to invest your fighting style on blindfigting or another feat or if really lucky a magic item. At that point you are fully invested into a blindsight pet and committed to a fogcloud strategy.
In the end firebeatle as a companion is functional but having a better return on investment is preferable.
Rangers don't suck they excel especially in combat and exploration have features such as Fighting Style, Extra Attack and Spellcasting that makes them versatile character and have some good Archetype but some left to be desired, so is most of the classes.
but torches are consumable
most people complain about the ranger having a lower dpr than fighter, that is because the standard apr(attack per round) of the fighter with two weapons being 8 and ranger hunter with two weapons (the basic and battle subclass)(using giant killer,escape the horde and stand against the tide)4, when against big enemies or two enemies it becomes 6 and in the combined it becomes 10(if the ranger goes out and in enemy reach between attacks).a fighter always has 8 or 10 with action surge.but the key strength of the ranger hunter is against big armies, most medieval armies(the dnd setting)were around ten thousands, but even against a few hundreds a ranger hunter can do enormous damage.when using whirlwind attack too, a ranger hunter can move through let’s say 54 enemies and when attacked by six enemies, this makes an apr of 174, with a dpa(damage per attack)of let’s say 7(2d6), makes 1188 dpr against 56(8 x 1d6/4 x 2d6) is 1132 dpr more for the ranger hunter each round, not like action surge.when adding bonuses(let’s say +2) it becomes 1536 dpr against 72, the total becomes 1464 dpr more for the ranger hunter, growing with 13,5 per extra enemy attacking or enemy apr above 1.the dpr of ranger is 27,5 times the one of the fighter, this makes the ranger hunter the superior against big armies, it is like said in the ranger’s apprentice(a book series)”one revolt, one ranger”
Ok let’s not get carried away. At L10 both the fighter and ranger get 2 attacks a round plus a possible bonus action attack.. assuming both to be double wielding a longsword (or rapier) and a scimitar (so at least one weapon meets the light requirement), neither gets a critical (to avoid subclass extras and differences), their stat bonuses are both +5 and neither is wielding (or needs) a magic weapon (all this so the comparison is as even as possible) the fighter is 5% less likely to get hit (AC 18 vs AC17), both have the same HP, both get 3 attacks and (assuming all 3 hit) do 2d8+1d6 +15 (+5x3) damage (27-28HP average). The fighter’s advantage is that stead of dual wielding they can take polearms/great weapons doing 1d10 per attack ( pole arm) with a bonus action 1d4 assuming great weapon fighter and pole arm master letting them do @29 points of damage if all 3 attacks hit. The ranger’s advantage is his spells of which the best for this is hunter’s mark which is a bonus action spell so the ranger only gets 2 attacks but hunters mark adds 1d6 to the damage of each so 2d8+2d6+10= 26 HP (and if it’s already up its 3 attacks for 2d8+4d6+15= 38. Assuming the fighter saves action surge for a later fight in the 3 rounds of atypical fight the pole arm fighter does (3x29=) 87 HP damage while the ranger does (26+38+38=) 102 HP damage. (An action surged fighter does (4x29=) 116 HP but can’t do it again until the next day while the ranger can do hunters mark up to 9 times a day for a total of 918 HP before running out of slots. The fighter meanwhile does 812 HP in the same 9 fights - actual numbers would be less since this assumes all attacks hit but they will be less by the same proportions so the comparison is still valid.). Overall the ranger is 5% more likely to get hit but does essentially the same to @ 15% more damage than an equally set up fighter. Somehow that doesn’t strike me as being a “weak class” .
Also note that this did not include any subclass damage additions which the ranger generally gets and the fighter generally doesn’t .
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I’ve literally never seen that argument. Most people dislike Ranger because Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer, Hide in Plain Sight, and Primeval Awareness are near useless. There’s only a small amount of scenarios and Campaigns were those features will actually apply, and even when they do, they’re not all that great.
I don't know about that. Most fighter subclasses do have damage bonuses, they are just not always active. The only ones I can think of that don't are Samauri, Cavalier and Eldritch Knight and although they do not have explicit damage boosts to their attacks, they do get more damage out of them, the Cavalier with his Mark attack, the EK with War Magic and the Samaurai from the increased chance to hit that comes with advantage.
Also unless you can not do Two-Weapon fighting with a Rapier or Longsword unless you have the dual wielder feat.
Also action surge is once per short rest, not once a day.
Finally Hunter's Mark isboth concentration and uses a bonus action both to cast and to switch targets (so no two weapon fighting). Given that your damage is extremely optimistic on a character in melee with a low AC and no constitution proficiency. In melee with a 17AC I think you are generally going to get about 4 hits out of hunters Mark at 10th level, or about 15 points damage per casting. It is also not the best you can do at this level, Ashardalon's Stride, Conjure Barrage and Spike Growth are all going to usually outrun HM. Obviously not in every situation, but in most I think they will.
That was actually my point - both ranger and fighter subclasses have things that can boost damage - but each one is different. To compare classes you have to leave all of that out as it’s too variable to consider ( or you have to do each subclass vs all the others and I’m not wasting the time that would take)
in the initial comparison both were assumed to have the two weapon style and dual wielding, in the second the ranger continued while the fighter had great weapon fighting and polearm master - the damage is higher mostly because of the benefits of great weapon fighting allowing a reroll of initial 1s & 2sin damage.
action surge - ok so they can use it 3 times a day, the ranger has 9 spell slots for hunter’s mark or other damage dealing spells. I assumed a fresh use of it for each combat. Yes it might go down and need to be refreshed lowering damage in a particular fight etc. however for comparison purposes it actually doesn’t matter as we are trying to see what they CAN do and trying to eliminate as many variables as possible.
Yes there are other spells they could use but each throws variables into the calculations that throw off the comparisons. I was looking strictly at melee fighting so spells like conjure barrage, lightning arrow etc are automatically out. Then things like spike growth are out because it’s not really a melee attack it’s an area control spell that can be effective even if it does 0 damage and there is nothing similar in the fighter repertoire for comparison. The very fact that rangers have spells makes them superior to fighters. Again trying to account for all the potential effects of all the possible spells is (again) a fools errand and is an effort in comparing apples and oranges - invalid.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Favored enemy and natural explorer were fine until scout rogue came along as I’ve explained several times in this and other threads. Hide in plain sight was a problem mostly because t was so badly worded that most folks thought you had to do the minute of camo makeup right then instead of at some prior out of combat time. Primeval awareness had a similar problem, folks didn’t like it because it didn’t tell you distance and direction, just presence or abscence. Missing the point that you had other ways to get distance/direction if you needed it but knowing whether you needed it kept you from wasting resources .as a single L1 slot used told you presence or abscence of all the biggest threats in a 1 mile (or 6 mile in favored terrain) radius so you knew if you were safe or potentially subject to major problems in the near future. The abilities weren’t bad, but folks understanding of what they were and how to use them effectively was far too often flawed.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Even though the rogue came along side the ranger playspace.... that wasn't the problem.
DMS and wotc started changing established standards for skill/featue use. They minimized the unique portions of such things down to non-mechanics. IF wotc would have answered questions alot of the vague/misunderstood parts that caused arguments would have at least had solid analysis points. DMS giving exact tracking #'s and timeframes to scouts is a dm problem that l takes "the lunch from ranger". dms not following skill action economy steals from unique ranger features. even the rules that allow stacking tools and skills re-wrote the functional value of PHB features via perceived expectations. There are several points across ranger where encouraged use cases changed overtime.
The age old Argument following the same Nebulous reasoning that becomes "Truism argument". Firstly data backing that statement doesn't exist because even situations with no favored terrain or favored enemies can still be impacted via skills and tools outside of those situations. You have added so many conditional assumptions to make that a non statement. Situational means it doesn't always work but situational is not equivalent to bad. if those features provide enough of a boon during its "effect time" to cover the Class feature budget then its worth a consideration for its build.
Hide in plain sight was useful as the only counter of truesight in the game, ambush positions enhancement, and guaranteed long rest Defensive mesure.
Primeval awareness also is a really good tool but most people don't understand its use. The negative information has as much value as the positive, it also allows triangulation, and creates a preparation tool allowing informed Choices (equipment and spells). Players that use it like a Divine sense call it bad but that's like saying a daggers' damage is bad.(avoiding the whole point of its existence). Not only that but its a top off feature when you look at the total value a ranger comes out ahead. Please don't say a single screwdriver is bad because its not a whole Drillset.
Thank you Roscoeivan.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Sigh. I’m now building a PHB beastmaster.