The ranger would be good if every other class wasn't better. Give me a class that is worse in a GENERAL scenario, not a ranger tailored game(Not a subclass, but a class in general), and we can talk.
Fighter.
Incorrect. What makes the fighter worse? Is it being better at a diversity of weapons and fighting types? Is it the heavy armor? How about action surge or second wind? Fighters are way better than rangers at general scenarios.
The ranger would be good if every other class wasn't better. Give me a class that is worse in a GENERAL scenario, not a ranger tailored game(Not a subclass, but a class in general), and we can talk.
Fighter.
Incorrect. What makes the fighter worse? Is it being better at a diversity of weapons and fighting types? Is it the heavy armor? How about action surge or second wind? Fighters are way better than rangers at general scenarios.
OMG. Take a chill pill.
Maybe don't make one word claims that are completely incorrect. I wasn't being angry, just proving you wrong. You need to learn the difference between hostility and disagreeing/rebuttal.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
The ranger would be good if every other class wasn't better. Give me a class that is worse in a GENERAL scenario, not a ranger tailored game(Not a subclass, but a class in general), and we can talk.
Fighter.
Incorrect. What makes the fighter worse? Is it being better at a diversity of weapons and fighting types? Is it the heavy armor? How about action surge or second wind? Fighters are way better than rangers at general scenarios.
OMG. Take a chill pill.
Maybe don't make one word claims that are completely incorrect. I wasn't being angry, just proving you wrong. You need to learn the difference between hostility and disagreeing/rebuttal.
I’m sorry. They said general scenario. A ranger has more skills, spells, and the “ability” to use many different weapons and armor. A fighter hits things. I think a ranger is better than a fighter in almost all other scenarios other than combat.
The ranger would be good if every other class wasn't better. Give me a class that is worse in a GENERAL scenario, not a ranger tailored game(Not a subclass, but a class in general), and we can talk.
Fighter.
Incorrect. What makes the fighter worse? Is it being better at a diversity of weapons and fighting types? Is it the heavy armor? How about action surge or second wind? Fighters are way better than rangers at general scenarios.
OMG. Take a chill pill.
Maybe don't make one word claims that are completely incorrect. I wasn't being angry, just proving you wrong. You need to learn the difference between hostility and disagreeing/rebuttal.
I’m sorry. They said general scenario. A ranger has more skills, spells, and the “ability” to use many different weapons and armor. A fighter hits things. I think a ranger is better than a fighter in almost all other scenarios other than combat.
I’m not discounting magic, but fighters can easily afford to spend an ASI on Skilled. Rangers can too, but it’s a more significant investment. The Guild Artisan, Noble or Outlander backgrounds can also round out a Fighter’s skill proficiency selection pretty well, and if that Fighter wants to be good at social stuff he can relatively easily pump his Cha (a Ranger will likely want to bring up his Wis if he wants to mechanically support his survival skills and gets significantly fewer ASIs). Rangers certainly have a head start, but I’m not sure that’s really all that meaningful once the entire charsheet’s filled out and the PCs have maybe a couple of levels under their belt.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The ranger would be good if every other class wasn't better. Give me a class that is worse in a GENERAL scenario, not a ranger tailored game(Not a subclass, but a class in general), and we can talk.
Fighter.
Incorrect. What makes the fighter worse? Is it being better at a diversity of weapons and fighting types? Is it the heavy armor? How about action surge or second wind? Fighters are way better than rangers at general scenarios.
OMG. Take a chill pill.
Maybe don't make one word claims that are completely incorrect. I wasn't being angry, just proving you wrong. You need to learn the difference between hostility and disagreeing/rebuttal.
I’m sorry. They said general scenario. A ranger has more skills, spells, and the “ability” to use many different weapons and armor. A fighter hits things. I think a ranger is better than a fighter in almost all other scenarios other than combat.
Fighters get one less skill, that's not enough to make Rangers suddenly the vastly superior class in general situations. Their skill lists are actually fairly similar. A fighter hits things, but doesn't only do that or have to only do that. Their hitting things well doesn't take away from roleplay. They have better healing than rangers, but only on themselves, and don't have to use their Action Surge to hit things. A ranger does not do better at the fighter at "all other scenarios other than combat" in 5e. Even if they did, combat is more important than those other scenarios, because it's the one that happens to determine if you live or die most often.
The ranger would be good if every other class wasn't better. Give me a class that is worse in a GENERAL scenario, not a ranger tailored game(Not a subclass, but a class in general), and we can talk.
Fighter.
Incorrect. What makes the fighter worse? Is it being better at a diversity of weapons and fighting types? Is it the heavy armor? How about action surge or second wind? Fighters are way better than rangers at general scenarios.
OMG. Take a chill pill.
Maybe don't make one word claims that are completely incorrect. I wasn't being angry, just proving you wrong. You need to learn the difference between hostility and disagreeing/rebuttal.
I’m sorry. They said general scenario. A ranger has more skills, spells, and the “ability” to use many different weapons and armor. A fighter hits things. I think a ranger is better than a fighter in almost all other scenarios other than combat.
Fighters get one less skill, that's not enough to make Rangers suddenly the vastly superior class in general situations. Their skill lists are actually fairly similar. A fighter hits things, but doesn't only do that or have to only do that. Their hitting things well doesn't take away from roleplay. They have better healing than rangers, but only on themselves, and don't have to use their Action Surge to hit things. A ranger does not do better at the fighter at "all other scenarios other than combat" in 5e. Even if they did, combat is more important than those other scenarios, because it's the one that happens to determine if you live or die most often.
Okay, let's talk about monks, then. Here's the 3 pillars of gameplay:
Combat
Roleplay
Exploration
So, monks are good in combat. They do have a lower hit dice, but their AC can be just as good or better than a Ranger's, which can often make up for this (not always, but often). They almost always get a bonus action attack, can move quickly across the battlefield, and are better in situations where they have no weapons or armor than a ranger would be (which are rare to happen, but the disparity in that scenario is mentionable). Though they do have a period of play where they are lackluster (mid-levels of play), they are never awful at combat, especially with certain subclasses. They often don't have to be in melee combat as well, with Sun Soul, Four Elements, and Kensei Monks. They're at least good, and often better, in combat than monks, especially as their Ki come back on a short rest, while a ranger without spell slots is basically screwed until they take a long rest.
In Roleplay, this is a subjective matter. Different players will be more creative with either class. Neither is more or less open to roleplay, so this doesn't really have a way to rank who is better. However, monks are more open to have higher Charisma, as they only require Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom, while rangers need Dexterity, Constitution, Wisdom, Intelligence if they want to be good with Nature, and Strength if they want to be Strength based. Rangers typically need to be more MAD than monks do.
In Exploration, the clear winner is the Ranger, but only if they're in their favored terrain. If not, they're at least tied. Monks having speed increases which can help them be very scouts, especially if they have a flying speed from their race. Especially with later features that make them immune to certain hazards of exploration (disease, poison), and being able to cast Astral Projection and become invisible.
First one isn't a class, so that's not really a valid thing to say. They're unbalanced, but that's a whataboutism. That's like saying "there's no way sugar can be unhealthy for you, because bleach is poison!"
Second, we have covered that paladins are better at combat, they are better at roleplay, and rangers are often better at exploration. Overall, paladins are better at general play than rangers.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I really like rangers, and have been saying how good they are, but yes, they are slightly weaker than fighter, and a lot weaker than paladin. The thing that annoys me I that people are saying things like "ranger is by far the weakest class". They are weak, but not "by far", and sometimes they can be better than 2 other weak classes, monk and barbarian.
I really like rangers, and have been saying how good they are, but yes, they are slightly weaker than fighter, and a lot weaker than paladin. The thing that annoys me I that people are saying things like "ranger is by far the weakest class". They are weak, but not "by far", and sometimes they can be better than 2 other bad classes, monk and barbarian.
I really like rangers, and have been saying how good they are, but yes, they are slightly weaker than fighter, and a lot weaker than paladin. The thing that annoys me I that people are saying things like "ranger is by far the weakest class". They are weak, but not "by far", and sometimes they can be better than 2 other weak classes, monk and barbarian.
I don't think anyone here has said that they are far weaker than every other class. And, they are not better than monks or barbarians. Barbarians have a ton of hit points, almost always deal more damage, and often have higher AC. Also, I addressed monks above.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Third_Sundering, we’ll never see eye to eye on this. We are playing, and have played, different games. You’re claims are based on your personal experience at the table, predetermined biases, and preferences of play style. Mine too.
In Roleplay, this is a subjective matter. Different players will be more creative with either class. Neither is more or less open to roleplay, so this doesn't really have a way to rank who is better. However, monks are more open to have higher Charisma, as they only require Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom, while rangers need Dexterity, Constitution, Wisdom, Intelligence if they want to be good with Nature, and Strength if they want to be Strength based. Rangers typically need to be more MAD than monks do.
In Exploration, the clear winner is the Ranger, but only if they're in their favored terrain. If not, they're at least tied. Monks having speed increases which can help them be very scouts, especially if they have a flying speed from their race. Especially with later features that make them immune to certain hazards of exploration (disease, poison), and being able to cast Astral Projection and become invisible.
I think this is a little disingenuous. You’re disregarding the ranger’s magic in both these pillars, for one. For another, the Cha issue is kind of moot, if we’re talking 4th stat in both cases - if the ranger decides to beef up his Int checks a bit, that’s no better or worse than the monk going for some Cha. However, the ranger has an extra skill proficiency and his choices are well set up to allow him to cluster Int skills if he wants to. If the monk wants Cha skills, they’ll all have to come from his background. A ranger could quite easily pick up both Investigation and Perception for instance, which is the go-to combo for finding stuff. If the monk wants to go out of his standard proficiencies with his two choices his either choosing to rely on proficiency bonus alone or arguably he’ll want some points in Int too. Rangers don’t need to spread out their stats more, but they probably get more out of it if they do. As for exploration, monks don’t have Perception, Investigation, or Survival unless they pick them up outside their class benefits, and as said above they don’t have magic - which in case of the Ranger includes healing , a party stealth buff, location spells, sight enhancing spells and water-based movement spells among other things. The ranger wins out over the monk in any case, I think.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I really like rangers, and have been saying how good they are, but yes, they are slightly weaker than fighter, and a lot weaker than paladin. The thing that annoys me I that people are saying things like "ranger is by far the weakest class". They are weak, but not "by far", and sometimes they can be better than 2 other weak classes, monk and barbarian.
I don't think anyone here has said that they are far weaker than every other class. And, they are not better than monks or barbarians. Barbarians have a ton of hit points, almost always deal more damage, and often have higher AC. Also, I addressed monks above.
key word there was sometimes. i agree that overall, monk and barbarian are more powerful, but there are times, in battle or not, where the ranger really shines.
In Roleplay, this is a subjective matter. Different players will be more creative with either class. Neither is more or less open to roleplay, so this doesn't really have a way to rank who is better. However, monks are more open to have higher Charisma, as they only require Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom, while rangers need Dexterity, Constitution, Wisdom, Intelligence if they want to be good with Nature, and Strength if they want to be Strength based. Rangers typically need to be more MAD than monks do.
In Exploration, the clear winner is the Ranger, but only if they're in their favored terrain. If not, they're at least tied. Monks having speed increases which can help them be very scouts, especially if they have a flying speed from their race. Especially with later features that make them immune to certain hazards of exploration (disease, poison), and being able to cast Astral Projection and become invisible.
I think this is a little disingenuous. You’re disregarding the ranger’s magic in both these pillars, for one. For another, the Cha issue is kind of moot, if we’re talking 4th stat in both cases - if the ranger decides to beef up his Int checks a bit, that’s no better or worse than the monk going for some Cha. However, the ranger has an extra skill proficiency and his choices are well set up to allow him to cluster Int skills if he wants to. If the monk wants Cha skills, they’ll all have to come from his background. A ranger could quite easily pick up both Investigation and Perception for instance, which is the go-to combo for finding stuff. If the monk wants to go out of his standard proficiencies with his two choices his either choosing to rely on proficiency bonus alone or arguably he’ll want some points in Int too. Rangers don’t need to spread out their stats more, but they probably get more out of it if they do. As for exploration, monks don’t have Perception, Investigation, or Survival unless they pick them up outside their class benefits, and as said above they don’t have magic - which in case of the Ranger includes healing , a party stealth buff, location spells, sight enhancing spells and water-based movement spells among other things. The ranger wins out over the monk in any case, I think.
Why is roleplaying even a subject for discussion? That's entirely on the player. No class is any better or worse than others at roleplaying.
In Roleplay, this is a subjective matter. Different players will be more creative with either class. Neither is more or less open to roleplay, so this doesn't really have a way to rank who is better. However, monks are more open to have higher Charisma, as they only require Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom, while rangers need Dexterity, Constitution, Wisdom, Intelligence if they want to be good with Nature, and Strength if they want to be Strength based. Rangers typically need to be more MAD than monks do.
In Exploration, the clear winner is the Ranger, but only if they're in their favored terrain. If not, they're at least tied. Monks having speed increases which can help them be very scouts, especially if they have a flying speed from their race. Especially with later features that make them immune to certain hazards of exploration (disease, poison), and being able to cast Astral Projection and become invisible.
I think this is a little disingenuous. You’re disregarding the ranger’s magic in both these pillars, for one. For another, the Cha issue is kind of moot, if we’re talking 4th stat in both cases - if the ranger decides to beef up his Int checks a bit, that’s no better or worse than the monk going for some Cha. However, the ranger has an extra skill proficiency and his choices are well set up to allow him to cluster Int skills if he wants to. If the monk wants Cha skills, they’ll all have to come from his background. A ranger could quite easily pick up both Investigation and Perception for instance, which is the go-to combo for finding stuff. If the monk wants to go out of his standard proficiencies with his two choices his either choosing to rely on proficiency bonus alone or arguably he’ll want some points in Int too. Rangers don’t need to spread out their stats more, but they probably get more out of it if they do. As for exploration, monks don’t have Perception, Investigation, or Survival unless they pick them up outside their class benefits, and as said above they don’t have magic - which in case of the Ranger includes healing , a party stealth buff, location spells, sight enhancing spells and water-based movement spells among other things. The ranger wins out over the monk in any case, I think.
Why is roleplaying even a subject for discussion? That's entirely on the player. No class is any better or worse than others at roleplaying.
I went with having relevant qualities in different areas of expertise other than your main one, beyond what your average "I don't care about this one way or the other" character could do, for this. That actually matters in terms of how effective a class would be in a random campaign with a broad array of challenges to deal with. I suspect it was meant as a reference to the three pillars of adventure, though the second one is technically "social interaction". I suppose we could lump things like investigative skills, thievery, being knowledgeable and whatnot under Exploration, but then the Ranger definitely blows the Monk out of the water in that department even more.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Oh, it's clear some people only value combat (which every class can do, so they're graded solely on DPR) and roleplaying (which everyone should be doing anyway).
You and I were going back and forth over a 1st-level feature. And, honestly, I felt like you were just complaining about, and trying to invalidate, yet another tool that rangers have to deal with those challenges. A tool no one else has that might even save the party some money or time. This is not a bad thing in of itself, and I still find it weird that people would complain about that. The classes shouldn't be compared to each other on a feature-to-feature basis. They're not all designed to do the same thing.
And when people try to tear down classes or features, it's because they don't value what those classes and features bring to the game. And it's fine to like and dislike different aspects of the game. More power to you and yours. But that doesn't mean something is "bad" or "underpowered".
It's different. We shouldn't be obsessing over "the other".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
OMG. Take a chill pill.
Maybe don't make one word claims that are completely incorrect. I wasn't being angry, just proving you wrong. You need to learn the difference between hostility and disagreeing/rebuttal.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I’m sorry. They said general scenario. A ranger has more skills, spells, and the “ability” to use many different weapons and armor. A fighter hits things. I think a ranger is better than a fighter in almost all other scenarios other than combat.
I’m not discounting magic, but fighters can easily afford to spend an ASI on Skilled. Rangers can too, but it’s a more significant investment. The Guild Artisan, Noble or Outlander backgrounds can also round out a Fighter’s skill proficiency selection pretty well, and if that Fighter wants to be good at social stuff he can relatively easily pump his Cha (a Ranger will likely want to bring up his Wis if he wants to mechanically support his survival skills and gets significantly fewer ASIs). Rangers certainly have a head start, but I’m not sure that’s really all that meaningful once the entire charsheet’s filled out and the PCs have maybe a couple of levels under their belt.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Fighters get one less skill, that's not enough to make Rangers suddenly the vastly superior class in general situations. Their skill lists are actually fairly similar. A fighter hits things, but doesn't only do that or have to only do that. Their hitting things well doesn't take away from roleplay. They have better healing than rangers, but only on themselves, and don't have to use their Action Surge to hit things. A ranger does not do better at the fighter at "all other scenarios other than combat" in 5e. Even if they did, combat is more important than those other scenarios, because it's the one that happens to determine if you live or die most often.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Ok. Monk.
Hey! That’s my pick. Get your own!
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
LOL! Ok. Wild magic sorcerer. No, wait! Paladin!
Okay, let's talk about monks, then. Here's the 3 pillars of gameplay:
So, monks are good in combat. They do have a lower hit dice, but their AC can be just as good or better than a Ranger's, which can often make up for this (not always, but often). They almost always get a bonus action attack, can move quickly across the battlefield, and are better in situations where they have no weapons or armor than a ranger would be (which are rare to happen, but the disparity in that scenario is mentionable). Though they do have a period of play where they are lackluster (mid-levels of play), they are never awful at combat, especially with certain subclasses. They often don't have to be in melee combat as well, with Sun Soul, Four Elements, and Kensei Monks. They're at least good, and often better, in combat than monks, especially as their Ki come back on a short rest, while a ranger without spell slots is basically screwed until they take a long rest.
In Roleplay, this is a subjective matter. Different players will be more creative with either class. Neither is more or less open to roleplay, so this doesn't really have a way to rank who is better. However, monks are more open to have higher Charisma, as they only require Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom, while rangers need Dexterity, Constitution, Wisdom, Intelligence if they want to be good with Nature, and Strength if they want to be Strength based. Rangers typically need to be more MAD than monks do.
In Exploration, the clear winner is the Ranger, but only if they're in their favored terrain. If not, they're at least tied. Monks having speed increases which can help them be very scouts, especially if they have a flying speed from their race. Especially with later features that make them immune to certain hazards of exploration (disease, poison), and being able to cast Astral Projection and become invisible.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
First one isn't a class, so that's not really a valid thing to say. They're unbalanced, but that's a whataboutism. That's like saying "there's no way sugar can be unhealthy for you, because bleach is poison!"
Second, we have covered that paladins are better at combat, they are better at roleplay, and rangers are often better at exploration. Overall, paladins are better at general play than rangers.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I really like rangers, and have been saying how good they are, but yes, they are slightly weaker than fighter, and a lot weaker than paladin. The thing that annoys me I that people are saying things like "ranger is by far the weakest class". They are weak, but not "by far", and sometimes they can be better than 2 other weak classes, monk and barbarian.
I am an average mathematics enjoyer.
>Extended Signature<
There's no such thing as a bad class.
I ment weak. I like to play barbarian, and I know other people like to play monks.
I am an average mathematics enjoyer.
>Extended Signature<
I don't think anyone here has said that they are far weaker than every other class. And, they are not better than monks or barbarians. Barbarians have a ton of hit points, almost always deal more damage, and often have higher AC. Also, I addressed monks above.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Third_Sundering, we’ll never see eye to eye on this. We are playing, and have played, different games. You’re claims are based on your personal experience at the table, predetermined biases, and preferences of play style. Mine too.
I think this is a little disingenuous. You’re disregarding the ranger’s magic in both these pillars, for one. For another, the Cha issue is kind of moot, if we’re talking 4th stat in both cases - if the ranger decides to beef up his Int checks a bit, that’s no better or worse than the monk going for some Cha. However, the ranger has an extra skill proficiency and his choices are well set up to allow him to cluster Int skills if he wants to. If the monk wants Cha skills, they’ll all have to come from his background. A ranger could quite easily pick up both Investigation and Perception for instance, which is the go-to combo for finding stuff. If the monk wants to go out of his standard proficiencies with his two choices his either choosing to rely on proficiency bonus alone or arguably he’ll want some points in Int too. Rangers don’t need to spread out their stats more, but they probably get more out of it if they do. As for exploration, monks don’t have Perception, Investigation, or Survival unless they pick them up outside their class benefits, and as said above they don’t have magic - which in case of the Ranger includes healing , a party stealth buff, location spells, sight enhancing spells and water-based movement spells among other things. The ranger wins out over the monk in any case, I think.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
key word there was sometimes. i agree that overall, monk and barbarian are more powerful, but there are times, in battle or not, where the ranger really shines.
I am an average mathematics enjoyer.
>Extended Signature<
Why is roleplaying even a subject for discussion? That's entirely on the player. No class is any better or worse than others at roleplaying.
I went with having relevant qualities in different areas of expertise other than your main one, beyond what your average "I don't care about this one way or the other" character could do, for this. That actually matters in terms of how effective a class would be in a random campaign with a broad array of challenges to deal with. I suspect it was meant as a reference to the three pillars of adventure, though the second one is technically "social interaction". I suppose we could lump things like investigative skills, thievery, being knowledgeable and whatnot under Exploration, but then the Ranger definitely blows the Monk out of the water in that department even more.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Oh, it's clear some people only value combat (which every class can do, so they're graded solely on DPR) and roleplaying (which everyone should be doing anyway).
You and I were going back and forth over a 1st-level feature. And, honestly, I felt like you were just complaining about, and trying to invalidate, yet another tool that rangers have to deal with those challenges. A tool no one else has that might even save the party some money or time. This is not a bad thing in of itself, and I still find it weird that people would complain about that. The classes shouldn't be compared to each other on a feature-to-feature basis. They're not all designed to do the same thing.
And when people try to tear down classes or features, it's because they don't value what those classes and features bring to the game. And it's fine to like and dislike different aspects of the game. More power to you and yours. But that doesn't mean something is "bad" or "underpowered".
It's different. We shouldn't be obsessing over "the other".