You act as if it's bad/hard to make a melee ranger, whether they focus on Strength or Dexterity. And that just isn't true.
It is. When you choose to be in melee, you have to choose whether to be Dexterity based or Strength based. Here is why they both are comparatively objectively bad.
If you want to focus on Strength, you have to be very MAD, taking Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom, while a Dexterity based ranger just needs Strength, Constitution, and Wisdom, which is enough already. You get medium armor, which is worse than both Heavy and Light Armor. Even if you manage to have decent stats in all four of those ability scores and an okay AC, you are strictly worse at it than a Fighter or Paladin and worse than a ranged ranger. This is mostly due to not having Great Weapon Fighting, but also due to not having Heavy Armor, and also due to the imbalance between ranged and melee combat in 5e.
If you instead focus on Dexterity, you will almost always want Light Armor. Assuming you start out with Leather Armor and a Dexterity of +3, your AC will be 14, or 16 with a shield (you shouldn't be using a shield). You will either use Two-Weapon Fighting or Dueling, and you will probably end up using Two-Weapon Fighting to make the most out of your Hunter's Mark. Two-Weapon Fighting, the more damaging option, will be objectively worse in damage than a Paladin/Fighter that uses Great Weapon Fighting and also worse than a Ranger or Rogue that uses a bow/crossbow due to no dual-wielding equivalent of Great Weapon Master/Sharpshooter. To add to this imbalance, Two-Weapon Fighting takes your bonus action every round in order to get 1d6+3 extra damage (1d8+3 with the Dual Wielder feat and a rapier), when an archer with a hand crossbow, the crossbow expert and sharpshooter feats, and archery fighting style gives you a higher bonus to hit, bonus action attack, a ton of extra damage when you want to sacrifice your bonus to hit, and are much less likely to get hit because you're attacking at range. The bonus action each round will be taken to deal damage, making this style of fighting even worse compared to other ranges. In all, a Dexterity based ranger in 5e that focus on dealing damage in melee will do less damage than other melee classes and ranged rangers/rogues, will have lower AC than other melee focused builds, will have worse action economy than pretty much any other martial character, and is objectively, truly worse.
An additional disadvantage of being a melee ranger is that you are more often going to take damage. More monsters have melee attacks than ranged ones, melee attacks typically deal more damage than ranged ones, and you will be more likely to go down in combat.
Melee rangers are bad. They really, truly are.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
You may as well be complaining about the College of Valor for bards.
Whether you roll for stats, use the standard array, or the variant point-buy method, it's not hard to get desirable statistics and serve as a melee ranger. Rangers who focus on dexterity have a slightly easier time of it, but it's not a terrible thing. And, in fact, if you want pure damage numbers a Strength-based Beast Master has the potential for more than an archer.
Two-Weapon Fighting is competitive. Yes, it consumes a bonus action, but it outpaces every other weapon in the early levels. After level 5, it's still competitive with the greatsword or maul, averaging only 1 DPR less with a +3 ability modifier, before factoring in hunter's mark. And with hunter's mark, it can outpace even the fighter's Extra Attack (2) at 11th-level.
You don't like medium armor or shields. Well, I guess we should just throw away all the potential armors that rangers can use but, in your opinion, shouldn't.
Theory-crafting is all well and good until you start telling people there's a right and wrong way to play. I find your opinion of the class myopic and, quite frankly, useless.
You may as well be complaining about the College of Valor for bards.
Ad hominem, strawman, and irrelevant. That has no relevance here. If you still disagree, get some real arguments besides that statement that has no place here. Also, I'm not complaining, I'm merely proving you wrong! You can't say something that's false, be proven incorrect, and then mark me as a whiner because you lost the argument.
Valor and Swords Bards are first and foremost bards, not melee fighters. If there are subclasses of bards, wizards, and warlocks that can use melee combat, they will never be able to match the power of a fighter, barbarian, or paladin unless they give up a ton of their magical powers to do so. The martial classes that focus on doing weapon damage should be good at doing martial damage, especially if they are supposed to be good with that type of fighting.
Rangers are underpowered in melee combat compared to the other martial classes. If you want to continue the discussion, actually refute my posts instead of making fallacious statements that aren't on topic and don't support your argument.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
You may as well be complaining about the College of Valor for bards.
Ad hominem, strawman, and irrelevant. That has no relevance here. If you still disagree, get some real arguments besides that statement that has no place here. Also, I'm not complaining, I'm merely proving you wrong! You can't say something that's false, be proven incorrect, and then mark me as a whiner because you lost the argument.
Valor and Swords Bards are first and foremost bards, not melee fighters. If there are subclasses of bards, wizards, and warlocks that can use melee combat, they will never be able to match the power of a fighter, barbarian, or paladin unless they give up a ton of their magical powers to do so. The martial classes that focus on doing weapon damage should be good at doing martial damage, especially if they are supposed to be good with that type of fighting.
Rangers are underpowered in melee combat compared to the other martial classes. If you want to continue the discussion, actually refute my posts instead of making fallacious statements that aren't on topic and don't support your argument.
Thank you, I suppose, for demonstrating to everyone you have no idea what an ad hominem or strawman is.
Valor and Swords bards both can wear medium armor. The former has proficiency with shields and all martial weapons; just like rangers do. The latter learns one of two fighting styles; both of which are for melee. Both get Extra Attack at 6th-level; only one level after the ranger. Their respective features indicate that they are intended to fight in melee. Both are 100% relevant comparisons. The fact you would rather attack and demean, rather than acknowledge these facts, is quintessentially an ad hominem. You're projecting, and I don't appreciate it. It's downright disrespectful on these forums.
You haven't proven anything. You've simply formed and shared some ill-supported opinions.
You act as if it's bad/hard to make a melee ranger, whether they focus on Strength or Dexterity. And that just isn't true.
It is. When you choose to be in melee, you have to choose whether to be Dexterity based or Strength based. Here is why they both are comparatively objectively bad.
If you want to focus on Strength, you have to be very MAD, taking Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom, while a Dexterity based ranger just needs Strength, Constitution, and Wisdom, which is enough already. You get medium armor, which is worse than both Heavy and Light Armor. Even if you manage to have decent stats in all four of those ability scores and an okay AC, you are strictly worse at it than a Fighter or Paladin and worse than a ranged ranger. This is mostly due to not having Great Weapon Fighting, but also due to not having Heavy Armor, and also due to the imbalance between ranged and melee combat in 5e.
If you instead focus on Dexterity, you will almost always want Light Armor. Assuming you start out with Leather Armor and a Dexterity of +3, your AC will be 14, or 16 with a shield (you shouldn't be using a shield). You will either use Two-Weapon Fighting or Dueling, and you will probably end up using Two-Weapon Fighting to make the most out of your Hunter's Mark. Two-Weapon Fighting, the more damaging option, will be objectively worse in damage than a Paladin/Fighter that uses Great Weapon Fighting and also worse than a Ranger or Rogue that uses a bow/crossbow due to no dual-wielding equivalent of Great Weapon Master/Sharpshooter. To add to this imbalance, Two-Weapon Fighting takes your bonus action every round in order to get 1d6+3 extra damage (1d8+3 with the Dual Wielder feat and a rapier), when an archer with a hand crossbow, the crossbow expert and sharpshooter feats, and archery fighting style gives you a higher bonus to hit, bonus action attack, a ton of extra damage when you want to sacrifice your bonus to hit, and are much less likely to get hit because you're attacking at range. The bonus action each round will be taken to deal damage, making this style of fighting even worse compared to other ranges. In all, a Dexterity based ranger in 5e that focus on dealing damage in melee will do less damage than other melee classes and ranged rangers/rogues, will have lower AC than other melee focused builds, will have worse action economy than pretty much any other martial character, and is objectively, truly worse.
An additional disadvantage of being a melee ranger is that you are more often going to take damage. More monsters have melee attacks than ranged ones, melee attacks typically deal more damage than ranged ones, and you will be more likely to go down in combat.
Melee rangers are bad. They really, truly are.
If you are wishing that you had heavy armor, I don't see a reason why you would take light armor instead of medium armor. Your AC will be better to start, will only be 1 AC off of heavy Armor once your AC is maxed with it, and there is no difference between Half Plate and Plate in regards to stealth. If you go dexterity, it makes sense to go to Studded Leather once dex is maxed as a melee Ranger, but not before. If you are willing to drop two feats on crossbow expert and sharpshooter for ranged, going Dual Wielder and Medium Armor Master will give you 2 more AC and improve your damage to d8s instead of d6s. While its true that you won't have the power attack, both dueling fighting style and two weapon fighting style give better damage boosts than great weapon fighting style and I would argue that defensive fighting style is a better fighting style for great weapon fighters anyway. The difference in hit% between power attacks and regular attacks shouldn't be discounted either. Many creatures that will be hit more easily by power attacks won't always need that extra damage to go down. There aren't any bonus points for overkill. More attacks and steadier damage can be better at times. These are all factors that should be weighed. The action economy is definitely something that is going against Ranger, and it will limit the subclasses that'll you'll want to choose from so that you don't become overburdened with "must have options" for your bonus action.
While being a ranged Ranger is easier to accomplish with less emphasis needed on constitution and less likelyhood of taking damage, the melee builds for fighter, paladin, and ranger aren't all that different in that regard. A ranger with medium armor, and a 14 in dex will start with 16 AC which is the same as a fighter or paladin in chain mail. Half plate gets you up to 17 which is one point shy of full plate for half the cost. Medium Armor Master gets you to 18 if you have a 16 dex, placing emphasis on dex fighters. Rangers have shield proficiency and defensive fighting style just like fighters and paladins. Fighters and Paladins can dump dex which Rangers can't do without shooting their AC in the foot, but then they'll have poorer dex saves without considering the actual save proficiency (or Ranger's 14th ability options or Aura of protection). 5% more likely to take an attack but progressively less chance to fail a dex save. Otherwise, the degree of MADness is about the same.
The concentration concern is legit, particularly when Hunter's Mark will be a significant addition to melee damage. Going reach weapon with PAM (and possibly sentinel) would be a decent way to mitigate that concern.
The point that I'm trying to make isn't that the Ranger can easily be the same as either of the other two classes, just that it's not miles apart. Some of the tools that would be used to help Ranger achieve this are similar tools to what the other strength melee classes would use as well.
Comparing melee Ranger to ranged Ranger isn't necessarily productive for the conversation since you're trying to build a melee character. Paladin doesn't have great class support for ranged but can use the same feats. All the arguments made for ranged Ranger being better than melee Ranger are the the same for fighter, especially if we don't talk about the many Ranger spells that are better for ranged but don't get much play because of Hunter's Mark.
You may as well be complaining about the College of Valor for bards.
Ad hominem, strawman, and irrelevant. That has no relevance here. If you still disagree, get some real arguments besides that statement that has no place here. Also, I'm not complaining, I'm merely proving you wrong! You can't say something that's false, be proven incorrect, and then mark me as a whiner because you lost the argument.
Valor and Swords Bards are first and foremost bards, not melee fighters. If there are subclasses of bards, wizards, and warlocks that can use melee combat, they will never be able to match the power of a fighter, barbarian, or paladin unless they give up a ton of their magical powers to do so. The martial classes that focus on doing weapon damage should be good at doing martial damage, especially if they are supposed to be good with that type of fighting.
Rangers are underpowered in melee combat compared to the other martial classes. If you want to continue the discussion, actually refute my posts instead of making fallacious statements that aren't on topic and don't support your argument.
Thank you, I suppose, for demonstrating to everyone you have no idea what an ad hominem or strawman is.
Valor and Swords bards both can wear medium armor. The former has proficiency with shields and all martial weapons; just like rangers do. The latter learns one of two fighting styles; both of which are for melee. Both get Extra Attack at 6th-level; only one level after the ranger. Their respective features indicate that they are intended to fight in melee. Both are 100% relevant comparisons. The fact you would rather attack and demean, rather than acknowledge these facts, is quintessentially an ad hominem. You're projecting, and I don't appreciate it. It's downright disrespectful on these forums.
You haven't proven anything. You've simply formed and shared some ill-supported opinions.
A strawman is purposefully misinterpreting an argument, and ad hominem is attacking another person, not their argument. You painted me as someone who complains or whines about the power of rangers, which I don't. I don't complain about it, I am not annoyed by the fact that rangers are underpowered, I merely accept that it is true and a problem. You misinterpreted that, apparently intentionally due to you not actually creating a true argument. If you made that post to call me as complainer, that is an ad hominem.
They are intended to do well in melee, but that isn't their purpose, that is their subclass. In 5e, a character's main purpose is to be their class. The purpose of a valor or swords bard is most importantly to be a bard, and secondarily to be a decent melee fighter for a bard. It is not relevant to the discussion, as it is not a valid point to support your argument. A melee fighting subclass of a full-caster class is not a valid comparison to a full martial half-caster class. A ranger should be better at fighting than a swords or valor bard, because that is the whole point of a ranger, while the whole point of a bard is jack of all trades, battlefield control, and team support. I did not attack or demean you, I attacked and refuted your argument. I mean no disrespect, but will call out apparent logical fallacies.
Also, I did prove it in my previous post outlining exactly why rangers are comparatively bad in melee. It is not an opinion that strength based rangers need 4 good ability scores to function in melee combat, while a fighter can with 2, that is an irrefutable fact. It is not an opinion that the most effective way to deal damage as a ranger in melee is to dual wield rapiers, that is a fact. It is not an opinion that no matter how much a ranger character focuses on melee combat, they will not match the damage output of a fighter or paladin, and will have worse action economy than a ranged ranger.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I don't think you actually know what the purpose of a bard or ranger is, which is why you think rangers are underpowered. I've also addressed the ranger's relative power, in terms of RAW DPR, twice now. The first was when I quoted you on page 5, which you still haven't responded to.
The ranger isn’t underpowered. Not even the beast master. The baseline ranger class is the most open to DM interpretation of any of the classes.
I feel like you're trolling here, or have a very different experience of rangers than practically everyone else in D&D 5e. Have you played a ranger? Have you played one with another damage dealing character? Have you played more than just a ranger? Do you still think rangers aren't underpowered?
If you answered yes, yes, yes, and yes, you have been doing something wrong. Rangers are underpowered, especially beast masters.
No, they're really not. I ran a game for 6 months for a party of three, and out of the monk, paladin, and ranger it was the ranger who was the MVP. I've played one into Tier 3 and had a blast. Dan Dillon has played a beast master, using the RAW and no house rules, up to level 20. It's not underpowered as a class. If anything, it fills a specific niche (wilderness exploration) a little too well. Their sustained damage output remains competitive with other classes throughout their career, and they come with potent support magic.
The single biggest weakness for beast masters is the dearth of beasts presented in the PHB. A weak beast can hurt, so you need the monster manual to really know what your options are. But other than that they're perfectly functional.
The second was in an edited post found on page 6, which goes into greater detail. If you need me to start linking my math, I will. But the short version is they can keep up in dealing damage with minimal investment while still contributing elsewhere. They may never deal as much damage as a fighter with 4 attacks or a paladin going nova with their smites, but they can contribute in other ways. If all you're going to focus on is the DPR, then you're missing the forest for the trees.
Why we only compare melee ranger to Fighter and Paladin? Some of the subclasses support ranger to be the secondary frontline with an in-and-out fighting style that is similar to Rogue and Monk. Shouldn't we compare melee ranger to secondary frontline class too?
Why we only compare melee ranger to Fighter and Paladin? Some of the subclasses support ranger to be the secondary frontline with an in-and-out fighting style that is similar to Rogue and Monk. Shouldn't we compare melee ranger to secondary frontline class too?
Ranger is between the full front line of Fighter/Paladin and the skirmisher of rogue/monk. Ranger has the full martial weapon proficiency of the first two, shares the d10 hit die, has shield proficiency, and a heavier armor proficiency than either monk or rogue. However, it does share the dexterity save proficiency and a suite of movement abilities that are closer to the skirmishers. Ranger and Paladin are martial half casters while EK gives a semi comparable as a third caster (which rogue also offers). One thing that is disingenuous about comparing EK to Ranger is that you're comparing a full class/subclass to base class. Offering Hunter as comparable means that you can add an extra d8 damage with either colossus slayer or horde breaker (assuming the right conditions apply) which is enough to bring Hunter inline with EK getting cantrips, using Warcaster, and adding periodic OAs with Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade. The cantrips scale, but its not scaling so much that its blasting Ranger out of the park on a regular basis. Horde breaker can even crit, which the SCAGtrips and Colossus Slayer can't. Level 7 brings defensive options like disadvantage on OAs against the Ranger or multiattack defense increasing AC by 4 against all of a creatures subsequent attacks after a first attack.
Apparently, I was wrong about what level 14 was for a Ranger as Hunter 15 is what I was thinking was there. A choice between Evasion and Uncanny Dodge is nice, though even at 14 it would have been late and this is later.
I think we have to compare apples to apples when talking about roles in combat for different classes. Start simple and compare the fighter, paladin, and ranger all with swears and shield fighting style/combat role. Also, we should compare all baseline classes only. Or subclasses of choice. The beast master, for example plays very different from any other subclass, even other rangers. When comparing subclasses, the hunter should probably be used. Also levels 1-10 are VERY different from levels 11-20 for the martial classes. The conversation should probably be broken down into two subcategories as well. Then we have to look at what kind of damage we are talking about. Fighters, paladins, and rogues all deal superior big, single target, “nova” damage that the ranger can never hope to compete with. Rangers, especially hunter, can deal damage to multiple targets that fighters, paladins, and rogues can only dream of.
I think we have to compare apples to apples when talking about roles in combat for different classes. Start simple and compare the fighter, paladin, and ranger all with swears and shield fighting style/combat role. Also, we should compare all baseline classes only. Or subclasses of choice. The beast master, for example plays very different from any other subclass, even other rangers. When comparing subclasses, the hunter should probably be used. Also levels 1-10 are VERY different from levels 11-20 for the martial classes. The conversation should probably be broken down into two subcategories as well. Then we have to look at what kind of damage we are talking about. Fighters, paladins, and rogues all deal superior big, single target, “nova” damage that the ranger can never hope to compete with. Rangers, especially hunter, can deal damage to multiple targets that fighters, paladins, and rogues can only dream of.
An interesting experiment, and one I welcome. Removing as many variables as possible is a good idea, but part of the allure is every subclass plays differently. Even here, fighters and rangers support both strength-based and dexterity-based attacking.
But, sure, each begins with 1 attack, the dueling fighting style, and a +2 modifier. As they gain extra attacks, the modifier increases by +1. Fighters have an initial advantage, but by 2nd level can be outpaced by the competition. By 5th-level, fighters are rolling 19 (1d8+3+2)*2 while paladins can add various smite spells (each adding +2d6 or more) and Divine Smite (+2d8) for powerful burst damage. Rangers can add a sustained 7 (1d6)*2 to each attack action for an hour, possibly including multiple encounters.
It's not until 11th-level, when fighters get a third attack, that we start to see ground being closed. They can deal 31 (1d8+4+2)*3 on average, assuming all three attacks hit. A paladin only swings twice for 21 (1d8+4+2)*2, but a single 1st-level Divine Smite adds 13 (3d8) radiant. This allows them to make up for missing a hit, and to outpace a fighter at the expense of a resource. Rangers, like paladins, deal an average of 21 (1d8+4+2)*2, but like before can also add their hunter's mark for 7 (2d6).
So, at 11th-level and no archetypes, we're looking at averages of 31 (fighter), 21-48 (paladin), and 21-28 (ranger). That's not terrible. Fighters are designed to do one thing well and that's it. The others have spellcasting which might be better served boosting damage or otherwise aiding the party.
I think we have to compare apples to apples when talking about roles in combat for different classes. Start simple and compare the fighter, paladin, and ranger all with swears and shield fighting style/combat role. Also, we should compare all baseline classes only. Or subclasses of choice. The beast master, for example plays very different from any other subclass, even other rangers. When comparing subclasses, the hunter should probably be used. Also levels 1-10 are VERY different from levels 11-20 for the martial classes. The conversation should probably be broken down into two subcategories as well. Then we have to look at what kind of damage we are talking about. Fighters, paladins, and rogues all deal superior big, single target, “nova” damage that the ranger can never hope to compete with. Rangers, especially hunter, can deal damage to multiple targets that fighters, paladins, and rogues can only dream of.
I agree about comparing apples to apples, part of the reason that I brought in the Hunter comparisons (which helped me realize my mistake about level 14 abilities).
One of the nice things about Ranger in general is that they do have several AOE options that are more unique among martial characters. Many of them do cater to a ranged dexterity build, particularly with the base class options. However, there are options that pop up in the subclasses that do add to those options including melee options. Ranger subclasses seem to offer more damage options than Paladin (which needs less support there due to Divine Smite and improved Divine Smite) and about as many as Fighter. Fighter tends to add those bonuses as resource based (ie EK and Battlemaster) whereas Ranger likes conditional damage to limit the usage some.
Each class undoubtedly has its strengths which allows them to shine in different circumstances. I don't doubt that those who are saying that Ranger is worse don't belief it, but I think those differences are more subjective than they believe that they are. I'd wager that they could give a build that in a given circumstance would smoke a Ranger build in a similar circumstance, but the same Ranger build would smoke that same fighter or Paladin build in a different circumstance. Across a campaign, I'd wager that they could easily come out similarly.
If a ranger forgoes a shield they have a free hand to occasionally chuck a dagger with their free hand to trigger restraining strike, hail of thorns, lightning arrow, etc.
Fighters can action surge and paladins can smite ( you using resources of course) for spikey nova damage against a single target. Rangers get massive damage boosts against many targets exceeding the total output of either a fighter or paladin if enough targets are present (do the math of a hail of thorns against 3 targets compared to a smite of the same spell a lot level). Hunter rangers pump up the average damage output quite a bit and add heaps of mobile defense options as well.
Average Damage Using A Sword In One Hand (longsword or rapier)
Level 3:
Fighter 9.5
Paladin 9.5
Ranger 13
Level 5:
Fighter 21
Paladin 21
Ranger 28
Level 8:
Fighter 23
Paladin 23
Ranger 30
Level 10:
Fighter 23
Paladin 23
Ranger 30
Why did you only do to level 10? Why did you do a level 8 and level 10? Here's a better way to show this, as a general ranger, general paladin, and general fighter's average damage, no subclass features, assuming a +3 in their main stat at level 1, +4 at level 5, and +5 at level 11, all with Dueling Fighting Style:
Level 1: Fighter 9.5 Paladin 9.5 Ranger 9.5
Level 5: Fighter 21 Paladin 21 Ranger 28 (Hunter's Mark, requiring concentration, bonus actions, and spell slots to do this)
Level 20 Fighter 46 (Extra Attack 3 gives this) Paladin 32 Ranger 30 (+wisdom modifier once a turn if you use Foe Slayer)
Those numbers are correct and not misleading, like what you were saying they were. You technically didn't tell a lie about it, but lied by omission. This isn't even counting the subclasses and nova features that paladins and fighters get, with Action Surge, Divine Smite, Smite Spells, Superiority Dice, and so on. Rangers do get some nova powers that can help with this DPR, but not nearly as many as Paladins and Fighters, and they're not nearly as good.
Rangers can use shields and medium armor so their armor class is 1 point less than a fighter or paladin.
They can use medium armor, but their AC will be bad comparatively. Assuming that a Fighter or Paladin gets Plate Armor eventually, they get a base AC with a shield of 20, while the Ranger is limited to Half-Plate, with an AC of 19, or 20 by giving a feat to Medium Armor Master and a DEX of 16. They are also much more MAD than Paladins or Fighters, which is strictly worse.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
It is. When you choose to be in melee, you have to choose whether to be Dexterity based or Strength based. Here is why they both are comparatively objectively bad.
If you want to focus on Strength, you have to be very MAD, taking Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom, while a Dexterity based ranger just needs Strength, Constitution, and Wisdom, which is enough already. You get medium armor, which is worse than both Heavy and Light Armor. Even if you manage to have decent stats in all four of those ability scores and an okay AC, you are strictly worse at it than a Fighter or Paladin and worse than a ranged ranger. This is mostly due to not having Great Weapon Fighting, but also due to not having Heavy Armor, and also due to the imbalance between ranged and melee combat in 5e.
If you instead focus on Dexterity, you will almost always want Light Armor. Assuming you start out with Leather Armor and a Dexterity of +3, your AC will be 14, or 16 with a shield (you shouldn't be using a shield). You will either use Two-Weapon Fighting or Dueling, and you will probably end up using Two-Weapon Fighting to make the most out of your Hunter's Mark. Two-Weapon Fighting, the more damaging option, will be objectively worse in damage than a Paladin/Fighter that uses Great Weapon Fighting and also worse than a Ranger or Rogue that uses a bow/crossbow due to no dual-wielding equivalent of Great Weapon Master/Sharpshooter. To add to this imbalance, Two-Weapon Fighting takes your bonus action every round in order to get 1d6+3 extra damage (1d8+3 with the Dual Wielder feat and a rapier), when an archer with a hand crossbow, the crossbow expert and sharpshooter feats, and archery fighting style gives you a higher bonus to hit, bonus action attack, a ton of extra damage when you want to sacrifice your bonus to hit, and are much less likely to get hit because you're attacking at range. The bonus action each round will be taken to deal damage, making this style of fighting even worse compared to other ranges. In all, a Dexterity based ranger in 5e that focus on dealing damage in melee will do less damage than other melee classes and ranged rangers/rogues, will have lower AC than other melee focused builds, will have worse action economy than pretty much any other martial character, and is objectively, truly worse.
An additional disadvantage of being a melee ranger is that you are more often going to take damage. More monsters have melee attacks than ranged ones, melee attacks typically deal more damage than ranged ones, and you will be more likely to go down in combat.
Melee rangers are bad. They really, truly are.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
You may as well be complaining about the College of Valor for bards.
Whether you roll for stats, use the standard array, or the variant point-buy method, it's not hard to get desirable statistics and serve as a melee ranger. Rangers who focus on dexterity have a slightly easier time of it, but it's not a terrible thing. And, in fact, if you want pure damage numbers a Strength-based Beast Master has the potential for more than an archer.
Two-Weapon Fighting is competitive. Yes, it consumes a bonus action, but it outpaces every other weapon in the early levels. After level 5, it's still competitive with the greatsword or maul, averaging only 1 DPR less with a +3 ability modifier, before factoring in hunter's mark. And with hunter's mark, it can outpace even the fighter's Extra Attack (2) at 11th-level.
You don't like medium armor or shields. Well, I guess we should just throw away all the potential armors that rangers can use but, in your opinion, shouldn't.
Theory-crafting is all well and good until you start telling people there's a right and wrong way to play. I find your opinion of the class myopic and, quite frankly, useless.
Ad hominem, strawman, and irrelevant. That has no relevance here. If you still disagree, get some real arguments besides that statement that has no place here. Also, I'm not complaining, I'm merely proving you wrong! You can't say something that's false, be proven incorrect, and then mark me as a whiner because you lost the argument.
Valor and Swords Bards are first and foremost bards, not melee fighters. If there are subclasses of bards, wizards, and warlocks that can use melee combat, they will never be able to match the power of a fighter, barbarian, or paladin unless they give up a ton of their magical powers to do so. The martial classes that focus on doing weapon damage should be good at doing martial damage, especially if they are supposed to be good with that type of fighting.
Rangers are underpowered in melee combat compared to the other martial classes. If you want to continue the discussion, actually refute my posts instead of making fallacious statements that aren't on topic and don't support your argument.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Thank you, I suppose, for demonstrating to everyone you have no idea what an ad hominem or strawman is.
Valor and Swords bards both can wear medium armor. The former has proficiency with shields and all martial weapons; just like rangers do. The latter learns one of two fighting styles; both of which are for melee. Both get Extra Attack at 6th-level; only one level after the ranger. Their respective features indicate that they are intended to fight in melee. Both are 100% relevant comparisons. The fact you would rather attack and demean, rather than acknowledge these facts, is quintessentially an ad hominem. You're projecting, and I don't appreciate it. It's downright disrespectful on these forums.
You haven't proven anything. You've simply formed and shared some ill-supported opinions.
If you are wishing that you had heavy armor, I don't see a reason why you would take light armor instead of medium armor. Your AC will be better to start, will only be 1 AC off of heavy Armor once your AC is maxed with it, and there is no difference between Half Plate and Plate in regards to stealth. If you go dexterity, it makes sense to go to Studded Leather once dex is maxed as a melee Ranger, but not before. If you are willing to drop two feats on crossbow expert and sharpshooter for ranged, going Dual Wielder and Medium Armor Master will give you 2 more AC and improve your damage to d8s instead of d6s. While its true that you won't have the power attack, both dueling fighting style and two weapon fighting style give better damage boosts than great weapon fighting style and I would argue that defensive fighting style is a better fighting style for great weapon fighters anyway. The difference in hit% between power attacks and regular attacks shouldn't be discounted either. Many creatures that will be hit more easily by power attacks won't always need that extra damage to go down. There aren't any bonus points for overkill. More attacks and steadier damage can be better at times. These are all factors that should be weighed. The action economy is definitely something that is going against Ranger, and it will limit the subclasses that'll you'll want to choose from so that you don't become overburdened with "must have options" for your bonus action.
While being a ranged Ranger is easier to accomplish with less emphasis needed on constitution and less likelyhood of taking damage, the melee builds for fighter, paladin, and ranger aren't all that different in that regard. A ranger with medium armor, and a 14 in dex will start with 16 AC which is the same as a fighter or paladin in chain mail. Half plate gets you up to 17 which is one point shy of full plate for half the cost. Medium Armor Master gets you to 18 if you have a 16 dex, placing emphasis on dex fighters. Rangers have shield proficiency and defensive fighting style just like fighters and paladins. Fighters and Paladins can dump dex which Rangers can't do without shooting their AC in the foot, but then they'll have poorer dex saves without considering the actual save proficiency (or Ranger's 14th ability options or Aura of protection). 5% more likely to take an attack but progressively less chance to fail a dex save. Otherwise, the degree of MADness is about the same.
The concentration concern is legit, particularly when Hunter's Mark will be a significant addition to melee damage. Going reach weapon with PAM (and possibly sentinel) would be a decent way to mitigate that concern.
The point that I'm trying to make isn't that the Ranger can easily be the same as either of the other two classes, just that it's not miles apart. Some of the tools that would be used to help Ranger achieve this are similar tools to what the other strength melee classes would use as well.
Comparing melee Ranger to ranged Ranger isn't necessarily productive for the conversation since you're trying to build a melee character. Paladin doesn't have great class support for ranged but can use the same feats. All the arguments made for ranged Ranger being better than melee Ranger are the the same for fighter, especially if we don't talk about the many Ranger spells that are better for ranged but don't get much play because of Hunter's Mark.
A strawman is purposefully misinterpreting an argument, and ad hominem is attacking another person, not their argument. You painted me as someone who complains or whines about the power of rangers, which I don't. I don't complain about it, I am not annoyed by the fact that rangers are underpowered, I merely accept that it is true and a problem. You misinterpreted that, apparently intentionally due to you not actually creating a true argument. If you made that post to call me as complainer, that is an ad hominem.
They are intended to do well in melee, but that isn't their purpose, that is their subclass. In 5e, a character's main purpose is to be their class. The purpose of a valor or swords bard is most importantly to be a bard, and secondarily to be a decent melee fighter for a bard. It is not relevant to the discussion, as it is not a valid point to support your argument. A melee fighting subclass of a full-caster class is not a valid comparison to a full martial half-caster class. A ranger should be better at fighting than a swords or valor bard, because that is the whole point of a ranger, while the whole point of a bard is jack of all trades, battlefield control, and team support. I did not attack or demean you, I attacked and refuted your argument. I mean no disrespect, but will call out apparent logical fallacies.
Also, I did prove it in my previous post outlining exactly why rangers are comparatively bad in melee. It is not an opinion that strength based rangers need 4 good ability scores to function in melee combat, while a fighter can with 2, that is an irrefutable fact. It is not an opinion that the most effective way to deal damage as a ranger in melee is to dual wield rapiers, that is a fact. It is not an opinion that no matter how much a ranger character focuses on melee combat, they will not match the damage output of a fighter or paladin, and will have worse action economy than a ranged ranger.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I don't think you actually know what the purpose of a bard or ranger is, which is why you think rangers are underpowered. I've also addressed the ranger's relative power, in terms of RAW DPR, twice now. The first was when I quoted you on page 5, which you still haven't responded to.
The second was in an edited post found on page 6, which goes into greater detail. If you need me to start linking my math, I will. But the short version is they can keep up in dealing damage with minimal investment while still contributing elsewhere. They may never deal as much damage as a fighter with 4 attacks or a paladin going nova with their smites, but they can contribute in other ways. If all you're going to focus on is the DPR, then you're missing the forest for the trees.
As I said, myopic.
Why we only compare melee ranger to Fighter and Paladin? Some of the subclasses support ranger to be the secondary frontline with an in-and-out fighting style that is similar to Rogue and Monk. Shouldn't we compare melee ranger to secondary frontline class too?
Ranger is between the full front line of Fighter/Paladin and the skirmisher of rogue/monk. Ranger has the full martial weapon proficiency of the first two, shares the d10 hit die, has shield proficiency, and a heavier armor proficiency than either monk or rogue. However, it does share the dexterity save proficiency and a suite of movement abilities that are closer to the skirmishers. Ranger and Paladin are martial half casters while EK gives a semi comparable as a third caster (which rogue also offers). One thing that is disingenuous about comparing EK to Ranger is that you're comparing a full class/subclass to base class. Offering Hunter as comparable means that you can add an extra d8 damage with either colossus slayer or horde breaker (assuming the right conditions apply) which is enough to bring Hunter inline with EK getting cantrips, using Warcaster, and adding periodic OAs with Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade. The cantrips scale, but its not scaling so much that its blasting Ranger out of the park on a regular basis. Horde breaker can even crit, which the SCAGtrips and Colossus Slayer can't. Level 7 brings defensive options like disadvantage on OAs against the Ranger or multiattack defense increasing AC by 4 against all of a creatures subsequent attacks after a first attack.
Apparently, I was wrong about what level 14 was for a Ranger as Hunter 15 is what I was thinking was there. A choice between Evasion and Uncanny Dodge is nice, though even at 14 it would have been late and this is later.
I think we have to compare apples to apples when talking about roles in combat for different classes. Start simple and compare the fighter, paladin, and ranger all with swears and shield fighting style/combat role. Also, we should compare all baseline classes only. Or subclasses of choice. The beast master, for example plays very different from any other subclass, even other rangers. When comparing subclasses, the hunter should probably be used. Also levels 1-10 are VERY different from levels 11-20 for the martial classes. The conversation should probably be broken down into two subcategories as well. Then we have to look at what kind of damage we are talking about. Fighters, paladins, and rogues all deal superior big, single target, “nova” damage that the ranger can never hope to compete with. Rangers, especially hunter, can deal damage to multiple targets that fighters, paladins, and rogues can only dream of.
An interesting experiment, and one I welcome. Removing as many variables as possible is a good idea, but part of the allure is every subclass plays differently. Even here, fighters and rangers support both strength-based and dexterity-based attacking.
But, sure, each begins with 1 attack, the dueling fighting style, and a +2 modifier. As they gain extra attacks, the modifier increases by +1. Fighters have an initial advantage, but by 2nd level can be outpaced by the competition. By 5th-level, fighters are rolling 19 (1d8+3+2)*2 while paladins can add various smite spells (each adding +2d6 or more) and Divine Smite (+2d8) for powerful burst damage. Rangers can add a sustained 7 (1d6)*2 to each attack action for an hour, possibly including multiple encounters.
It's not until 11th-level, when fighters get a third attack, that we start to see ground being closed. They can deal 31 (1d8+4+2)*3 on average, assuming all three attacks hit. A paladin only swings twice for 21 (1d8+4+2)*2, but a single 1st-level Divine Smite adds 13 (3d8) radiant. This allows them to make up for missing a hit, and to outpace a fighter at the expense of a resource. Rangers, like paladins, deal an average of 21 (1d8+4+2)*2, but like before can also add their hunter's mark for 7 (2d6).
So, at 11th-level and no archetypes, we're looking at averages of 31 (fighter), 21-48 (paladin), and 21-28 (ranger). That's not terrible. Fighters are designed to do one thing well and that's it. The others have spellcasting which might be better served boosting damage or otherwise aiding the party.
I agree about comparing apples to apples, part of the reason that I brought in the Hunter comparisons (which helped me realize my mistake about level 14 abilities).
One of the nice things about Ranger in general is that they do have several AOE options that are more unique among martial characters. Many of them do cater to a ranged dexterity build, particularly with the base class options. However, there are options that pop up in the subclasses that do add to those options including melee options. Ranger subclasses seem to offer more damage options than Paladin (which needs less support there due to Divine Smite and improved Divine Smite) and about as many as Fighter. Fighter tends to add those bonuses as resource based (ie EK and Battlemaster) whereas Ranger likes conditional damage to limit the usage some.
Each class undoubtedly has its strengths which allows them to shine in different circumstances. I don't doubt that those who are saying that Ranger is worse don't belief it, but I think those differences are more subjective than they believe that they are. I'd wager that they could give a build that in a given circumstance would smoke a Ranger build in a similar circumstance, but the same Ranger build would smoke that same fighter or Paladin build in a different circumstance. Across a campaign, I'd wager that they could easily come out similarly.
Average Damage Using A Sword In One Hand (longsword or rapier)
Level 3:
Fighter 9.5
Paladin 9.5
Ranger 13
Level 5:
Fighter 21
Paladin 21
Ranger 28
Level 8:
Fighter 23
Paladin 23
Ranger 30
Level 10:
Fighter 23
Paladin 23
Ranger 30
Rangers can use shields and medium armor so their armor class is 1 point less than a fighter or paladin.
Average Damage Using A Great Sword
Level 3:
Fighter 11
Paladin 11
Ranger 13.5
Level 5:
Fighter 24
Paladin 24
Ranger 29
Level 8:
Fighter 26
Paladin 26
Ranger 31
Level 10:
Fighter 26
Paladin 26
Ranger 31
If a ranger forgoes a shield they have a free hand to occasionally chuck a dagger with their free hand to trigger restraining strike, hail of thorns, lightning arrow, etc.
Fighters can action surge and paladins can smite ( you using resources of course) for spikey nova damage against a single target. Rangers get massive damage boosts against many targets exceeding the total output of either a fighter or paladin if enough targets are present (do the math of a hail of thorns against 3 targets compared to a smite of the same spell a lot level). Hunter rangers pump up the average damage output quite a bit and add heaps of mobile defense options as well.
Why did you only do to level 10? Why did you do a level 8 and level 10? Here's a better way to show this, as a general ranger, general paladin, and general fighter's average damage, no subclass features, assuming a +3 in their main stat at level 1, +4 at level 5, and +5 at level 11, all with Dueling Fighting Style:
Level 1:
Fighter 9.5
Paladin 9.5
Ranger 9.5
Level 5:
Fighter 21
Paladin 21
Ranger 28 (Hunter's Mark, requiring concentration, bonus actions, and spell slots to do this)
Level 11:
Fighter 34.5 (Extra Attack 2 gives this)
Paladin 32 (Improved Divine Smite gives this)
Ranger 30
Level 20
Fighter 46 (Extra Attack 3 gives this)
Paladin 32
Ranger 30 (+wisdom modifier once a turn if you use Foe Slayer)
Those numbers are correct and not misleading, like what you were saying they were. You technically didn't tell a lie about it, but lied by omission. This isn't even counting the subclasses and nova features that paladins and fighters get, with Action Surge, Divine Smite, Smite Spells, Superiority Dice, and so on. Rangers do get some nova powers that can help with this DPR, but not nearly as many as Paladins and Fighters, and they're not nearly as good.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
They can use medium armor, but their AC will be bad comparatively. Assuming that a Fighter or Paladin gets Plate Armor eventually, they get a base AC with a shield of 20, while the Ranger is limited to Half-Plate, with an AC of 19, or 20 by giving a feat to Medium Armor Master and a DEX of 16. They are also much more MAD than Paladins or Fighters, which is strictly worse.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
It’s all baseline stuff, like a warlock with hex and agonizing blast. We could present the numbers a thousand different ways.