How much damage does a level 10 paladin with a +4 strength modifier wielding a long sword deal to a skeleton with a critical hit using a 3rd level spell slot smite?
Now thats a lotta damage. But they do a lot of damage to a bandit with a +3 str mod and a 1st level smite on a normal hit as well.
Paladin (long sword and smite) vs. Bandit #1 = 18.5 (average damage)
Paladin (long sword) vs. Bandit #2 = 9.5 (average damage)
Ranger (rapier and hunter’s mark) vs. Bandit #1= 13
Ranger (rapier and hunter’s mark) vs. Bandit #2= 13
Bandits have 11 hit points
I notice this is an entirely different scenario, and there isn’t even a skeleton involved (other than the ones in the meatsacks). Are we going to go back and forth with everchanging encounters? The paladin’s still doing well enough here, particulary if bandit #2 attacks our heroic protagonist while his buddy is getting slaughtered.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
How much damage does a level 10 paladin with a +4 strength modifier wielding a long sword deal to a skeleton with a critical hit using a 3rd level spell slot smite?
Now thats a lotta damage. But they do a lot of damage to a bandit with a +3 str mod and a 1st level smite on a normal hit as well.
Paladin (long sword and smite) vs. Bandit #1 = 18.5 (average damage)
Paladin (long sword) vs. Bandit #2 = 9.5 (average damage)
Ranger (rapier and hunter’s mark) vs. Bandit #1= 13
Ranger (rapier and hunter’s mark) vs. Bandit #2= 13
Bandits have 11 hit points
I notice this is an entirely different scenario, and there isn’t even a skeleton involved (other than the ones in the meatsacks). Are we going to go back and forth with everchanging encounters? The paladin’s still doing well enough here, particulary if bandit #2 attacks our heroic protagonist while his buddy is getting slaughtered.
If we replace the bandits with skeletons, the outcome will be the same. I apologize for switching scenarios so abruptly. Fact number one: everyone loves a hero! Fact number two: the ranger can have the same number of hit points and only one less armor class than the paladin in these scenarios, so “slaughtered” is a bit of an overstatement.
How much damage does a level 10 paladin with a +4 strength modifier wielding a long sword deal to a skeleton with a critical hit using a 3rd level spell slot smite?
Now thats a lotta damage. But they do a lot of damage to a bandit with a +3 str mod and a 1st level smite on a normal hit as well.
Paladin (long sword and smite) vs. Bandit #1 = 18.5 (average damage)
Paladin (long sword) vs. Bandit #2 = 9.5 (average damage)
Ranger (rapier and hunter’s mark) vs. Bandit #1= 13
Ranger (rapier and hunter’s mark) vs. Bandit #2= 13
Bandits have 11 hit points
I notice this is an entirely different scenario, and there isn’t even a skeleton involved (other than the ones in the meatsacks). Are we going to go back and forth with everchanging encounters? The paladin’s still doing well enough here, particulary if bandit #2 attacks our heroic protagonist while his buddy is getting slaughtered.
If we replace the bandits with skeletons, the outcome will be the same. I apologize for switching scenarios so abruptly. Fact number one: everyone loves a hero! Fact number two: the ranger can have the same number of hit points and only one less armor class than the paladin in these scenarios, so “slaughtered” is a bit of an overstatement.
How much damage does a level 10 paladin with a +4 strength modifier wielding a long sword deal to a skeleton with a critical hit using a 3rd level spell slot smite?
Now thats a lotta damage. But they do a lot of damage to a bandit with a +3 str mod and a 1st level smite on a normal hit as well.
Paladin (long sword and smite) vs. Bandit #1 = 18.5 (average damage)
Paladin (long sword) vs. Bandit #2 = 9.5 (average damage)
Ranger (rapier and hunter’s mark) vs. Bandit #1= 13
Ranger (rapier and hunter’s mark) vs. Bandit #2= 13
Bandits have 11 hit points
I notice this is an entirely different scenario, and there isn’t even a skeleton involved (other than the ones in the meatsacks). Are we going to go back and forth with everchanging encounters? The paladin’s still doing well enough here, particulary if bandit #2 attacks our heroic protagonist while his buddy is getting slaughtered.
If we replace the bandits with skeletons, the outcome will be the same. I apologize for switching scenarios so abruptly. Fact number one: everyone loves a hero! Fact number two: the ranger can have the same number of hit points and only one less armor class than the paladin in these scenarios, so “slaughtered” is a bit of an overstatement.
Listen, no-one is saying the ranger can't do damage, but the class features are just lacklustre. Hide in plain sight? favoured enemy? natural explorer? They are....ok, but compared to Aura of protection, various channel divinities, lay on hands and divine smite, they just can't hold up.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Paladins are strong. Too strong? Maybe. Paladins are really strong at a table that does more of what a paladin is strong at. Why would anyone ever play a fighter instead of a paladin?! From a numbers perspective, I can’t imagine why. From a numbers perspective, why would anyone play a barbarian, monk, rogue, rangers, or fighter instead of a paladin? It’s silly! They can hit and heal! They have AC, saving throws, immunities, condition removal, are flashy and heroic! They have everything a good fantasy adventure is meant to be! Rangers are lame. Fighters are boring. Barbarians are simple. Monks are silly. Rogues are niche. Paladins are the top tier class, always and forever!
I love hide in plain sight! I’ll admit that I do interpret it with a bit more leniency than most folks. 1. Just like the lightfoot halfling and wood elf versions, a ranger can circumvent the general rule of being unseen to attempt to hide. 2. It is a two part ability. The camouflage takes a minute to prepare. And then, at some other point down the road, the ranger can try to hide. Played like that it’s great! Difficult terrain doesn’t slow their movement by this point, so they can do this while traveling. And overland travel in favored terrain they can stay alert and on watch while applying this camouflage. They are great in the wild without being in their favored terrain. They have the skills, stats, and spells to survive with the best of them. Being in their favored terrain makes them the best. Favored enemy (or favored creature, as I call it) is wonderful. They don’t have to be interacting with these types all the time. And many of the choices are types, like undead and fiend. But when they do, it’s great for the party.
If we replace the bandits with skeletons, the outcome will be the same. I apologize for switching scenarios so abruptly. Fact number one: everyone loves a hero! Fact number two: the ranger can have the same number of hit points and only one less armor class than the paladin in these scenarios, so “slaughtered” is a bit of an overstatement.
Apologies for the imprecise language. The buddy I was referring to would be bandit #1, who is suffering damage in excess of his total hit points either way. My oblique point would be that bandit #2 could be attacking the paladin/ranger, and if the latter force a concentration check which might mean Hunter's Mark disappears. I'll also point out Divine Favor, which would work as well as Hunter's Mark in this comparison if average damage is the parameter used.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
If we replace the bandits with skeletons, the outcome will be the same. I apologize for switching scenarios so abruptly. Fact number one: everyone loves a hero! Fact number two: the ranger can have the same number of hit points and only one less armor class than the paladin in these scenarios, so “slaughtered” is a bit of an overstatement.
Apologies for the imprecise language. The buddy I was referring to would be bandit #1, who is suffering damage in excess of his total hit points either way. My oblique point would be that bandit #2 could be attacking the paladin/ranger, and if the latter force a concentration check which might mean Hunter's Mark disappears. I'll also point out Divine Favor, which would work as well as Hunter's Mark in this comparison if average damage is the parameter used.
I agree with your points here. Funny thing that I never see anyone mention is how a paladin also has pretty respectable damage output with a long bow, exceeding the ranger after level 11. I’m really shocked that divine favor isn’t brought up more often. I guess it’s not as flashy as a big smite. This brings me back to rangers are the AoE focused martial. Their spells, and the hunter subclass, make them super at this.
Errata: Divine Favor has V and S components. Hunter’s Mark only has a V component. That’s the difference. I forgot. For a two handed weapon wielder (great sword, polearm, longbow, it’s no big deal, but for a shield user it’s tough.
Listen, no-one is saying the ranger can't do damage, but the class features are just lacklustre. Hide in plain sight? favoured enemy? natural explorer? They are....ok, but compared to Aura of protection, various channel divinities, lay on hands and divine smite, they just can't hold up.
Do I seriously have to post a copy of what I put up on the previous page? Because I will. I cover all of those ranger features pretty definitively.
And for anyone still complaining about damage output, don't let the martial weapon proficiency fool you. They're skirmishers. Their damage output regularly outpaces the rogue at all tiers of play.
I agree with your points here. Funny thing that I never see anyone mention is how a paladin also has pretty respectable damage output with a long bow, exceeding the ranger after level 11. I’m really shocked that divine favor isn’t brought up more often. I guess it’s not as flashy as a big smite. This brings me back to rangers are the AoE focused martial. Their spells, and the hunter subclass, make them super at this.
Don't take this as another jab at the Ranger class, but if I were to guess it's because tactically AoEs tend to be best suited for crowd control purposes while everyone else focuses fire on the single most dangerous enemy threatening the party. Circumstances obviously affect tactics, but usually it's best to tackle enemies one by one - burst damage - starting with whoever looks most likely to kill you given half a chance while expending the least amount of resources necessary to keep the rest off of you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Honestly the take away I've gotten from this thread and from discussions elsewhere is that Rangers aren't a heavy combat focus class, they are a heavy exploration focus class with their core base class features revolving around that pillar of the game and the subclasses add more damage/support options. They do pretty good damage in combat but that isn't all they are good for.
Grant it, I do have a few problems with how some of the core ranger functions work. Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer require you to have meta knowledge of the enemies you will be facing and the terrains you will be exploring in order to get the most out of them with no way of switching them out as you level in case you picked poorly. Primeval Awareness requiring a spell slot seems way too costly, it would have been better if it was a number of uses a day equal to Wisdom Modifier instead.
Outside of that though, I feel that the ranger is just as viable as any other class. It's just one that plays differently then many others and requires a bit of understanding to make the most of it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
We should just all agree that rangers aren’t underpowered, but paladins are overpowered.
I think paladins are pretty much where every class should be. Rangers are maybe a touch below that, depending on archetype and - as always - whatever the DM wants to do. I enjoy playing rangers just fine, the design issues with Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer are only minor annoyances.
Paladins take a huge hit if the campaign features no undead or fiends.
hahaha.....Hahahaha....ha...ha
Oh my god he is serious. I have played a paladin in any type of game you can think of, and they are insanely strong when fighting undead, and insanely strong when fighting anything else. Their smites are ludicrous, their Aura of protection is insane, they are probably the single best solo class in the game.
My good sir, I beg to differ
Yeah, I agree with you. I've seen paladins in campaigns with no undead or fiends. They are not bad in any of them. They're powerful in any campaign that lets them get into melee combat. Rangers are much more campaign dependent than any other class in the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
WotC have attempted fixes of the ranger class because an overwhelming outcry that it is weak, poorly designed, underpowered, etc. Many, I’d say most, players of the game think that. And honestly, for most players and their games at the table, the ranger is underpowered. Most tables I’ve seen (live and on screen) and been a player at can’t, won’t, or don’t like to do the part of the game that rangers are built for. Campaign dependent? Not really. A little. Classes that rely on short rests or long rests are underpowered if that type of rest is ignored. Paladins take a huge hit if the campaign features no undead or fiends. If the party is overloaded with potions and magic items that heal, clerics and such can be less valuable. Instead of campaign dependent, I think of rangers as incredibly thematic! When interacting with their favored terrains and favored creatures rangers are the focal point of knowledge, information, interaction, survival, and story. They are really strong. Specialized? Very much so. But getting advantage and/or expertise in multiple skills (many intelligence and most wisdom) gives them something that fighters and paladins will never have on their own. Can’t even dream of! Not even with a background. Levels 1-10 rangers, yes, even beast masters, easily keep up with fighters and paladins, I’m willing to argue exceeds them at many times, in the pure combat damage output arena. It’s what happens between the fights that makes a big difference. Paladins, high charisma and all, have the ability to be a social interaction leader in between combats, but they use 50% of their skill toolkit to do that. And with zero expertise. Fighters are flexible. No skill based stuff, but lots of ASIs so the potential is their if made intentional. The heavy armor thing is the next thing to talk about regarding in between fights. The game doesn’t support it much, and what it does support, most players ignore. But you can’t wear heavy armor all the time. Or wear a shield all the time. In the middle of the night or while traveling (ranger stuff 🤮) a battle starts NOT having a shield on or plate mail on! Now what?! Who would be able to spot the surprise attack? Several classes, ranger being one of them. I’m ranting now. My point is rangers have been complained about since the beginning. I would be very upset if either paladins or rangers were as powerful in martial combat as a fighters. VERY upset! They shouldn’t be. Fighters are 99% based on combat. It is what they do! I would be upset if rangers had as much nova combat potential as paladins, or as much parental protection of the party during combat potential. They shouldn’t. 80% of what paladins do is based on combat, spells included, nova damage, party protection, and fighting fiends and undead. Rangers are like 50% combat focused, at best. Hunters may hit 65%. But that other 50% is not enjoyed, cared about, used, or even known of to begin with by the majority of players. Rangers do what they do better than other classes and subclasses (I know the outlander background and scout rogue are favorite “replacements”, but neither of those even come close to replacing even just the abilities in favored terrain by itself ). AND they (rangers) can stand toe to toe, bow to bow, sword to sword, with the fighters, paladins, barbarians, rogues, and monks, more than hold their own, and in the right situations outshine them in combat.
Wow. And @Jounichi1983 was making fun of me for "ranting." At least I don't write huge seemingly-never-ending paragraphs filled with this kind of nonsense. Let's break this down into your points so this actually becomes readable.
"WotC have attempted fixes of the ranger class because an overwhelming outcry that it is weak, poorly designed, underpowered, etc. Many, I’d say most, players of the game think that." So, you say that most people in the game share an opinion, but that opinion is wrong, even though the company that designs official D&D 5e content seems to agree with them? That seems like a . . . unique position to take. The best analogy I can currently think of is a person who lives inside a house filled with black mold so long that they are no longer able to smell it, and ignore anyone else's attempts to alert them of the mold.
"Most tables I’ve seen (live and on screen) and been a player at can’t, won’t, or don’t like to do the part of the game that rangers are built for." What exactly do you think they're built for? They're obviously meant to be woodland trackers, explorers, and hunters, but since they often can't make any use out of their first 2 features, and frequently do less damage than Fighters or Paladins, they don't seem to be good at what they're built for.
"Campaign dependent? Not really. A little. Classes that rely on short rests or long rests are underpowered if that type of rest is ignored. Paladins take a huge hit if the campaign features no undead or fiends." Given the fact that their first 2 features (Favored Enemy and Natural Terrain) are very specific and easy to be accidentally made useless by a DM that isn't purposefully accommodating the ranger, they are very campaign dependent. Have you ever played as or with a paladin or fighter? They're not campaign dependent. Paladins get a boost when they are fighting fiends and undead, they still get to use their Divine Smite when not in a campaign with those creature types. Rangers literally cannot use Favored Enemy or Natural Explorer in a campaign where they are in the wrong terrain or with the wrong enemies.
"If the party is overloaded with potions and magic items that heal, clerics and such can be less valuable." Yeah, no. You obviously don't know what clerics are supposed to do in 5e. Though they can heal, that is not their purpose. They can be great characters even without any healing spells. Ever played a Light, Tempest, Death, Trickery, War, or Forge Domain Cleric? Healing Clerics are valuable even in a campaign that has a ton of healing items, as most of the attunement healing items require clerics for attuning to them, and giving a campaign more healing powers doesn't invalidate the Healing Cleric. That's like saying that any party that has a Wand of Magic Missiles doesn't need a Wizard anymore.
"Instead of campaign dependent, I think of rangers as incredibly thematic! When interacting with their favored terrains and favored creatures rangers are the focal point of knowledge, information, interaction, survival, and story. They are really strong. Specialized? Very much so. But getting advantage and/or expertise in multiple skills (many intelligence and most wisdom) gives them something that fighters and paladins will never have on their own. Can’t even dream of!" They don't get expertise in multiple skills, they get expertise on certain niche campaign dependent skills. You keep ignoring the fact that unless a DM tells the ranger character exactly who they'll be fighting in the campaign and where the campaign will take place, the Ranger character will very likely never make use out of either of their level 1 features anytime during the campaign.
"Levels 1-10 rangers, yes, even beast masters, easily keep up with fighters and paladins, I’m willing to argue exceeds them at many times, in the pure combat damage output arena. It’s what happens between the fights that makes a big difference. Paladins, high charisma and all, have the ability to be a social interaction leader in between combats, but they use 50% of their skill toolkit to do that. And with zero expertise. Fighters are flexible. No skill based stuff, but lots of ASIs so the potential is their if made intentional." Okay, lots to break down here. First, Paladins and Fighter are much more versatile when it comes to options for dealing lots of damage than rangers are. Paladins and Fighters can use Great Weapon Master, Glaives/Halberds, Polearm Master, Fighters can also use Crossbow Expert, Sharpshooter, and Dual Wielder, while Rangers are basically limited to Sharpshooter, maybe Crossbow Expert, and Hunter's Mark. Second, Paladins and their high charisma is at least equal in usefulness to the Ranger and their woodland and monster "expertise."
"The heavy armor thing is the next thing to talk about regarding in between fights. The game doesn’t support it much, and what it does support, most players ignore. But you can’t wear heavy armor all the time. Or wear a shield all the time. In the middle of the night or while traveling (ranger stuff 🤮) a battle starts NOT having a shield on or plate mail on! Now what?! Who would be able to spot the surprise attack?" Have you ever had the DM sneak attack the party in the middle of the night? Any party that doesn't have someone keeping watch is an idiotic party. Also, you can't wear medium armor all the time, either.
"My point is rangers have been complained about since the beginning. I would be very upset if either paladins or rangers were as powerful in martial combat as a fighters. VERY upset! They shouldn’t be. Fighters are 99% based on combat. It is what they do! I would be upset if rangers had as much nova combat potential as paladins, or as much parental protection of the party during combat potential. They shouldn’t. 80% of what paladins do is based on combat, spells included, nova damage, party protection, and fighting fiends and undead. Rangers are like 50% combat focused, at best. Hunters may hit 65%. But that other 50% is not enjoyed, cared about, used, or even known of to begin with by the majority of players. Rangers do what they do better than other classes and subclasses (I know the outlander background and scout rogue are favorite “replacements”, but neither of those even come close to replacing even just the abilities in favored terrain by itself ). AND they (rangers) can stand toe to toe, bow to bow, sword to sword, with the fighters, paladins, barbarians, rogues, and monks, more than hold their own, and in the right situations outshine them in combat." Rogues, Monks, Barbarians, Sorcerers, Warlocks, Artificers, and most other classes are mostly combat focused. Like I said earlier, you cannot balance combat abilities against non-combat abilities. Also, paladins are at least as good as fighters in combat. Paladins, Rangers, and other martial half-casters should focus on combat. It doesn't matter if they are "good" at tracking favored enemies or walking through their favored terrain. That doesn't balance them out with the other classes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
the ranger can have the same number of hit points and only one less armor class than the paladin in these scenarios, so “slaughtered” is a bit of an overstatement.
They "can have the same number of hit points" as a paladin if they are ranged rangers, but not if they're melee rangers using Standard Array. Like I said earlier, melee rangers have to focus on 4 ability scores. Paladins and Fighters also have more and quicker healing abilities and spells than Rangers, and healing equals more hit points.
We should just all agree that rangers aren’t underpowered, but paladins are overpowered.
No, paladins are balanced. Rangers are underpowered. In my experience, a Paladin is just as viable a character as a Wizard, Druid, or Cleric, whereas Rangers are not. Paladins are not overpowered, they're where all martial classes should be. They're good enough to be worth playing in place of the best spellcasters in the game, which is where every non-full caster should be.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Errata: Divine Favor has V and S components. Hunter’s Mark only has a V component. That’s the difference. I forgot. For a two handed weapon wielder (great sword, polearm, longbow, it’s no big deal, but for a shield user it’s tough.
Divine Favor having Verbal and Somatic components is no issue for two handed weapon wielders. They can just take one hand off their weapon to perform the somatic components, and then wield it again after casting the spell. It's not even a problem for paladins who use shields, because they can use their shield as a spellcasting focus.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Errata: Divine Favor has V and S components. Hunter’s Mark only has a V component. That’s the difference. I forgot. For a two handed weapon wielder (great sword, polearm, longbow, it’s no big deal, but for a shield user it’s tough.
Divine Favor having Verbal and Somatic components is no issue for two handed weapon wielders. They can just take one hand off their weapon to perform the somatic components, and then wield it again after casting the spell. It's not even a problem for paladins who use shields, because they can use their shield as a spellcasting focus.
Not the last part. Only if the spell has a M component.
Listen, no-one is saying the ranger can't do damage, but the class features are just lacklustre. Hide in plain sight? favoured enemy? natural explorer? They are....ok, but compared to Aura of protection, various channel divinities, lay on hands and divine smite, they just can't hold up.
Do I seriously have to post a copy of what I put up on the previous page? Because I will. I cover all of those ranger features pretty definitively.
And for anyone still complaining about damage output, don't let the martial weapon proficiency fool you. They're skirmishers. Their damage output regularly outpaces the rogue at all tiers of play.
Your post completely ignores the fact that the 1st level Ranger abilities hardly get any use unless a GM tailors the entire campaign around them.
If Favored Enemy instead gave those same benefits against all creature types and Natural Explorer applied equally to all terrain types simultaneously, then I'd agree with your argument.
When they instead apply 1/12 or less of possible enemies and 1/9th of possible terrain types (including all non-natural terrains as a single type), the amount of time they come into play is a very small percentage of the overall campaign career for a character. And, yes, you gain additional enemies and terrains as the character levels up, but the character never gets to a point where they have benefit of the ability even half the time (unless, as mentioned, the GM tailors the adventure around the player choices).
For comparison, imagine if Barbarian players had to select a terrain type, and that's the only terrain where they could Rage. Or, imagine if Paladins could only Smite against a single creature type.
For me, the main issue with the Ranger core abilities isn't that they are not combat related; it's that they are more restricted in when they can be used than any other class's core abilities. Revised Ranger had it correct when they did away with selecting a terrain type and gave Natural Explorer as a blanket benefit.
The current restrictive approach is, frankly, just indefensibly bad game design that is clinging to concepts that were created decades ago without meaningfully adjusting them to how the game has changed since that time.
Errata: Divine Favor has V and S components. Hunter’s Mark only has a V component. That’s the difference. I forgot. For a two handed weapon wielder (great sword, polearm, longbow, it’s no big deal, but for a shield user it’s tough.
Divine Favor having Verbal and Somatic components is no issue for two handed weapon wielders. They can just take one hand off their weapon to perform the somatic components, and then wield it again after casting the spell. It's not even a problem for paladins who use shields, because they can use their shield as a spellcasting focus.
Not the last part. Only if the spell has a M component.
That is a stupid rule that is not Rules as Intended, even if it is Rules as Written. Every DM that is aware of that quirky idiotic writing of those features should ignore that and play that feature as intended, not as it is currently written.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Errata: Divine Favor has V and S components. Hunter’s Mark only has a V component. That’s the difference. I forgot. For a two handed weapon wielder (great sword, polearm, longbow, it’s no big deal, but for a shield user it’s tough.
Divine Favor having Verbal and Somatic components is no issue for two handed weapon wielders. They can just take one hand off their weapon to perform the somatic components, and then wield it again after casting the spell. It's not even a problem for paladins who use shields, because they can use their shield as a spellcasting focus.
Not the last part. Only if the spell has a M component.
That is a stupid rule that is not Rules as Intended, even if it is Rules as Written. Every DM that is aware of that quirky idiotic writing of those features should ignore that and play that feature as intended, not as it is currently written.
I’m going to take exception to that. Why would a holy symbol replace verbal or somatic components?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I notice this is an entirely different scenario, and there isn’t even a skeleton involved (other than the ones in the meatsacks). Are we going to go back and forth with everchanging encounters? The paladin’s still doing well enough here, particulary if bandit #2 attacks our heroic protagonist while his buddy is getting slaughtered.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
If we replace the bandits with skeletons, the outcome will be the same. I apologize for switching scenarios so abruptly. Fact number one: everyone loves a hero! Fact number two: the ranger can have the same number of hit points and only one less armor class than the paladin in these scenarios, so “slaughtered” is a bit of an overstatement.
Listen, no-one is saying the ranger can't do damage, but the class features are just lacklustre. Hide in plain sight? favoured enemy? natural explorer? They are....ok, but compared to Aura of protection, various channel divinities, lay on hands and divine smite, they just can't hold up.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Paladins are strong. Too strong? Maybe. Paladins are really strong at a table that does more of what a paladin is strong at. Why would anyone ever play a fighter instead of a paladin?! From a numbers perspective, I can’t imagine why. From a numbers perspective, why would anyone play a barbarian, monk, rogue, rangers, or fighter instead of a paladin? It’s silly! They can hit and heal! They have AC, saving throws, immunities, condition removal, are flashy and heroic! They have everything a good fantasy adventure is meant to be! Rangers are lame. Fighters are boring. Barbarians are simple. Monks are silly. Rogues are niche. Paladins are the top tier class, always and forever!
I love hide in plain sight! I’ll admit that I do interpret it with a bit more leniency than most folks. 1. Just like the lightfoot halfling and wood elf versions, a ranger can circumvent the general rule of being unseen to attempt to hide. 2. It is a two part ability. The camouflage takes a minute to prepare. And then, at some other point down the road, the ranger can try to hide. Played like that it’s great! Difficult terrain doesn’t slow their movement by this point, so they can do this while traveling. And overland travel in favored terrain they can stay alert and on watch while applying this camouflage.
They are great in the wild without being in their favored terrain. They have the skills, stats, and spells to survive with the best of them. Being in their favored terrain makes them the best. Favored enemy (or favored creature, as I call it) is wonderful. They don’t have to be interacting with these types all the time. And many of the choices are types, like undead and fiend. But when they do, it’s great for the party.
Apologies for the imprecise language. The buddy I was referring to would be bandit #1, who is suffering damage in excess of his total hit points either way. My oblique point would be that bandit #2 could be attacking the paladin/ranger, and if the latter force a concentration check which might mean Hunter's Mark disappears. I'll also point out Divine Favor, which would work as well as Hunter's Mark in this comparison if average damage is the parameter used.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I agree with your points here. Funny thing that I never see anyone mention is how a paladin also has pretty respectable damage output with a long bow, exceeding the ranger after level 11. I’m really shocked that divine favor isn’t brought up more often. I guess it’s not as flashy as a big smite. This brings me back to rangers are the AoE focused martial. Their spells, and the hunter subclass, make them super at this.
Errata: Divine Favor has V and S components. Hunter’s Mark only has a V component. That’s the difference. I forgot. For a two handed weapon wielder (great sword, polearm, longbow, it’s no big deal, but for a shield user it’s tough.
Do I seriously have to post a copy of what I put up on the previous page? Because I will. I cover all of those ranger features pretty definitively.
And for anyone still complaining about damage output, don't let the martial weapon proficiency fool you. They're skirmishers. Their damage output regularly outpaces the rogue at all tiers of play.
Don't take this as another jab at the Ranger class, but if I were to guess it's because tactically AoEs tend to be best suited for crowd control purposes while everyone else focuses fire on the single most dangerous enemy threatening the party. Circumstances obviously affect tactics, but usually it's best to tackle enemies one by one - burst damage - starting with whoever looks most likely to kill you given half a chance while expending the least amount of resources necessary to keep the rest off of you.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
We should just all agree that rangers aren’t underpowered, but paladins are overpowered.
Honestly the take away I've gotten from this thread and from discussions elsewhere is that Rangers aren't a heavy combat focus class, they are a heavy exploration focus class with their core base class features revolving around that pillar of the game and the subclasses add more damage/support options. They do pretty good damage in combat but that isn't all they are good for.
Grant it, I do have a few problems with how some of the core ranger functions work. Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer require you to have meta knowledge of the enemies you will be facing and the terrains you will be exploring in order to get the most out of them with no way of switching them out as you level in case you picked poorly. Primeval Awareness requiring a spell slot seems way too costly, it would have been better if it was a number of uses a day equal to Wisdom Modifier instead.
Outside of that though, I feel that the ranger is just as viable as any other class. It's just one that plays differently then many others and requires a bit of understanding to make the most of it.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
I think paladins are pretty much where every class should be. Rangers are maybe a touch below that, depending on archetype and - as always - whatever the DM wants to do. I enjoy playing rangers just fine, the design issues with Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer are only minor annoyances.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Yeah, I agree with you. I've seen paladins in campaigns with no undead or fiends. They are not bad in any of them. They're powerful in any campaign that lets them get into melee combat. Rangers are much more campaign dependent than any other class in the game.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Wow. And @Jounichi1983 was making fun of me for "ranting." At least I don't write huge seemingly-never-ending paragraphs filled with this kind of nonsense. Let's break this down into your points so this actually becomes readable.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
They "can have the same number of hit points" as a paladin if they are ranged rangers, but not if they're melee rangers using Standard Array. Like I said earlier, melee rangers have to focus on 4 ability scores. Paladins and Fighters also have more and quicker healing abilities and spells than Rangers, and healing equals more hit points.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
No, paladins are balanced. Rangers are underpowered. In my experience, a Paladin is just as viable a character as a Wizard, Druid, or Cleric, whereas Rangers are not. Paladins are not overpowered, they're where all martial classes should be. They're good enough to be worth playing in place of the best spellcasters in the game, which is where every non-full caster should be.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Divine Favor having Verbal and Somatic components is no issue for two handed weapon wielders. They can just take one hand off their weapon to perform the somatic components, and then wield it again after casting the spell. It's not even a problem for paladins who use shields, because they can use their shield as a spellcasting focus.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Not the last part. Only if the spell has a M component.
Your post completely ignores the fact that the 1st level Ranger abilities hardly get any use unless a GM tailors the entire campaign around them.
If Favored Enemy instead gave those same benefits against all creature types and Natural Explorer applied equally to all terrain types simultaneously, then I'd agree with your argument.
When they instead apply 1/12 or less of possible enemies and 1/9th of possible terrain types (including all non-natural terrains as a single type), the amount of time they come into play is a very small percentage of the overall campaign career for a character. And, yes, you gain additional enemies and terrains as the character levels up, but the character never gets to a point where they have benefit of the ability even half the time (unless, as mentioned, the GM tailors the adventure around the player choices).
For comparison, imagine if Barbarian players had to select a terrain type, and that's the only terrain where they could Rage. Or, imagine if Paladins could only Smite against a single creature type.
For me, the main issue with the Ranger core abilities isn't that they are not combat related; it's that they are more restricted in when they can be used than any other class's core abilities. Revised Ranger had it correct when they did away with selecting a terrain type and gave Natural Explorer as a blanket benefit.
The current restrictive approach is, frankly, just indefensibly bad game design that is clinging to concepts that were created decades ago without meaningfully adjusting them to how the game has changed since that time.
That is a stupid rule that is not Rules as Intended, even if it is Rules as Written. Every DM that is aware of that quirky idiotic writing of those features should ignore that and play that feature as intended, not as it is currently written.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I’m going to take exception to that. Why would a holy symbol replace verbal or somatic components?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].