You keep wanting to compare the ranger to other classes, but that's foolish. You wouldn't compare a cleric and druid and ask yourself, "Now, why would I ever play a druid?" I mean, the cleric is guaranteed more spells, has no restriction on metal armor, and can even wear heavy armor and martial weapons. It's just so superior! What you keep ignoring is that each class is designed with a certain goal in mind. Every mechanic you see is there in service of a story. Some, like druids, lean more heavily into their story than others. When you say the ranger is underpowered, you shouldn't be comparing it to other classes. None of the classes are designed to be equal to one another. Instead, you should ask if the class does a bad job of living up to the fantasy.
It's not foolish. There are people who come onto DDB and ask that very question. Fortunately, in the case of Druids, there are some very good reasons to play a Druid, Wildshape, a variety of control spells, and great summoning spells among them.
So it IS fair to compare the Ranger, as a half-caster/half fighter class to similar part-caster, part-fighter classes, like, hmmmmm, the Paladin maybe? Or say, the Eldritch Knight? This is why the usefulness of taking the Warcaster feat is relevant because other part-caster, part-fighter classes are also likely to benefit somewhat from that feat. Yet for some reason, Rangers get no cantrips and at melee range beyond level 5, are a good deal more vulnerable to concentration saving throws than Paladins.
As to the point about solutions, either create a feat that Rangers can better benefit in place of Warcaster, give Rangers a few cantrips, or give Rangers an automatic boost to concentration saves similar to what they did with War Mages. The solutions exist, but WotC hasn't implemented any of them.
For clarification on the concentration save issue, I made those arguments back in post 96, 99, and 101. I will not be quoting them here to save space.
I think that a few of these may be addressed in Tasha's. If the concentration free hunter's mark or even just the free hunter's mark X times a rest makes it in, then that will address the concentration issue. I think I also saw something that would give druid cantrips to Rangers, though I think that was a fighting style. I don't think that the cantrips are necessary for a Ranger, but there are plenty of ways to get a cantrip or two, including High Elf for a Booming Blade. There are plenty of ways to to deal with the concentration effects but they usually include skimping on Wisdom with feats which is a heavier draw with a strength build than a dex build.
LOL! Don't yell at me about ranger danger. I'm on the "pro ranger" side of the debate. You're still talking about single target damage. What's the math on a beast master and wolf with a hail of thorns or lighting arrow hitting 3 or 4 targets?! BIG!!! Hunter 5/Rogue 15 is just a...straightforward way of getting some DPR.
I deliberately kept the comparisons as simple as possible to remove as many variables as I could. Both had a maxed attack attribute and used a single, 5th-level spell to augment their damage potential.
All I did was point out your assessment was dead wrong.
You may not "want" to do those things but to be an honest comparison you have to do the work (that many others have already conveniently done) and prove that its as good as you say. A lot of these are not White Room builds as you say as they use class features and spells much like you have suggested for the ranger. Overall they just destroy ranger on DPR.
The simple way of looking at it is that Ranger does not offer a lot of ways to keep up with these higher damage potential builds. I have the firm belief they were never meant to be a top damage dealer as they were suppose to have more out of combat utility than the classes that do (Fighter, Barbarian, etc...) but in play they just do not. I wish they did but here we are.
Overall while I enjoy Rangers to some extent, particularly Gloomstalker, they are kind of a failure as a class for their design intent. They are the most adjusted/homebrewed/"fixed" class and its not even close.
First off, there's a reason why I ensured the paladin and ranger in my example had the same chance to hit. It was to remove enemy AC from the equation.
Second, I deliberately did not choose to include Feats. Again, They are another variable. No one needs to use feats to be better at combat. They're for whatever you want to be good at. These are, specifically, not optimized builds.
Third, I also didn't include archetypes so as to compare the base abilities of the class. I made an exception for the Beast Master because it is so maligned and because it so radically changes the numbers.
Fourth, whether anyone can reliably gain advantage is not up to the class/player alone. Party composition is a huge factor that no amount of spreadsheets can account for.
Fifth, the ranger is not a failure of design. You may not be able to down the Tarrasque in one round with a Crossbow, Hand (God, I hate that syntax), but they're good at their job. As I stated before, the ranger is best-suited to controlling the battlefield and dealing with multiple, smaller threats.
LOL! Don't yell at me about ranger danger. I'm on the "pro ranger" side of the debate. You're still talking about single target damage. What's the math on a beast master and wolf with a hail of thorns or lighting arrow hitting 3 or 4 targets?! BIG!!! Hunter 5/Rogue 15 is just a...straightforward way of getting some DPR.
I deliberately kept the comparisons as simple as possible to remove as many variables as I could. Both had a maxed attack attribute and used a single, 5th-level spell to augment their damage potential.
All I did was point out your assessment was dead wrong.
You may not "want" to do those things but to be an honest comparison you have to do the work (that many others have already conveniently done) and prove that its as good as you say. A lot of these are not White Room builds as you say as they use class features and spells much like you have suggested for the ranger. Overall they just destroy ranger on DPR.
The simple way of looking at it is that Ranger does not offer a lot of ways to keep up with these higher damage potential builds. I have the firm belief they were never meant to be a top damage dealer as they were suppose to have more out of combat utility than the classes that do (Fighter, Barbarian, etc...) but in play they just do not. I wish they did but here we are.
Overall while I enjoy Rangers to some extent, particularly Gloomstalker, they are kind of a failure as a class for their design intent. They are the most adjusted/homebrewed/"fixed" class and its not even close.
Alright. I’ll look at those spreadsheets tomorrow. But anyone that tells me “the fighter does better damage than __________” is silly because a fighter damned well better do damage. If these are dealing with smite crits or sneak attack crits, I’m out because that is silly. Other than the barbarian who else has a way to get advantage on their attacks? Beast master, wizard, and who? No feats, no multiclass, and a ranger does damage with the beat of them. We’re talking a point or two of damage difference. Against more than one target and the ranger pulls to the lead.
LOL! Don't yell at me about ranger danger. I'm on the "pro ranger" side of the debate. You're still talking about single target damage. What's the math on a beast master and wolf with a hail of thorns or lighting arrow hitting 3 or 4 targets?! BIG!!! Hunter 5/Rogue 15 is just a...straightforward way of getting some DPR.
I deliberately kept the comparisons as simple as possible to remove as many variables as I could. Both had a maxed attack attribute and used a single, 5th-level spell to augment their damage potential.
All I did was point out your assessment was dead wrong.
You may not "want" to do those things but to be an honest comparison you have to do the work (that many others have already conveniently done) and prove that its as good as you say. A lot of these are not White Room builds as you say as they use class features and spells much like you have suggested for the ranger. Overall they just destroy ranger on DPR.
The simple way of looking at it is that Ranger does not offer a lot of ways to keep up with these higher damage potential builds. I have the firm belief they were never meant to be a top damage dealer as they were suppose to have more out of combat utility than the classes that do (Fighter, Barbarian, etc...) but in play they just do not. I wish they did but here we are.
Overall while I enjoy Rangers to some extent, particularly Gloomstalker, they are kind of a failure as a class for their design intent. They are the most adjusted/homebrewed/"fixed" class and its not even close.
First off, there's a reason why I ensured the paladin and ranger in my example had the same chance to hit. It was to remove enemy AC from the equation.
Second, I deliberately did not choose to include Feats. Again, They are another variable. No one needs to use feats to be better at combat. They're for whatever you want to be good at. These are, specifically, not optimized builds.
Third, I also didn't include archetypes so as to compare the base abilities of the class. I made an exception for the Beast Master because it is so maligned and because it so radically changes the numbers.
Fourth, whether anyone can reliably gain advantage is not up to the class/player alone. Party composition is a huge factor that no amount of spreadsheets can account for.
Fifth, the ranger is not a failure of design. You may not be able to down the Tarrasque in one round with a Crossbow, Hand (God, I hate that syntax), but they're good at their job. As I stated before, the ranger is best-suited to controlling the battlefield and dealing with multiple, smaller threats.
all of these points are incredibly flawed and I can't even begin to explain why. please watch literally any YouTube video on DPR and find out why not including AC feats or any other kind of ability is just inherently wrong.
Into your point about Ranger not being a failure... I guess the vast majority of the fan base disagrees with you so there's that.
Alright. I’ll look at those spreadsheets tomorrow. But anyone that tells me “the fighter does better damage than __________” is silly because a fighter damned well better do damage. If these are dealing with smite crits or sneak attack crits, I’m out because that is silly. Other than the barbarian who else has a way to get advantage on their attacks? Beast master, wizard, and who? No feats, no multiclass, and a ranger does damage with the beat of them. We’re talking a point or two of damage difference. Against more than one target and the ranger pulls to the lead.
Alright. I’ll look at those spreadsheets tomorrow. But anyone that tells me “the fighter does better damage than __________” is silly because a fighter damned well better do damage. If these are dealing with smite crits or sneak attack crits, I’m out because that is silly. Other than the barbarian who else has a way to get advantage on their attacks? Beast master, wizard, and who? No feats, no multiclass, and a ranger does damage with the beat of them. We’re talking a point or two of damage difference. Against more than one target and the ranger pulls to the lead.
I think Cleric and Bard?
Also you don't need advantage you can just have things like precision attack. Fighters can get a reasonable amount of advantage just by using trip attack. There's literally a fighter subclass that allows you to get advantage in all your attacks.
paladins have a channel Divinity that allows them to get advantage on all attacks against one creature.
Hexblade can get Shadow of Moil which allows them to get advantage in their attacks.
Alright. I’ll look at those spreadsheets tomorrow. But anyone that tells me “the fighter does better damage than __________” is silly because a fighter damned well better do damage. If these are dealing with smite crits or sneak attack crits, I’m out because that is silly. Other than the barbarian who else has a way to get advantage on their attacks? Beast master, wizard, and who? No feats, no multiclass, and a ranger does damage with the beat of them. We’re talking a point or two of damage difference. Against more than one target and the ranger pulls to the lead.
I think Cleric and Bard?
Also you don't need advantage you can just have things like precision attack. Fighters can get a reasonable amount of advantage just by using trip attack. There's literally a fighter subclass that allows you to get advantage in all your attacks.
paladins have a channel Divinity that allows them to get advantage on all attacks against one creature.
Hexblade can get Shadow of Moil which allows them to get advantage in their attacks.
LOL! Don't yell at me about ranger danger. I'm on the "pro ranger" side of the debate. You're still talking about single target damage. What's the math on a beast master and wolf with a hail of thorns or lighting arrow hitting 3 or 4 targets?! BIG!!! Hunter 5/Rogue 15 is just a...straightforward way of getting some DPR.
I deliberately kept the comparisons as simple as possible to remove as many variables as I could. Both had a maxed attack attribute and used a single, 5th-level spell to augment their damage potential.
All I did was point out your assessment was dead wrong.
You may not "want" to do those things but to be an honest comparison you have to do the work (that many others have already conveniently done) and prove that its as good as you say. A lot of these are not White Room builds as you say as they use class features and spells much like you have suggested for the ranger. Overall they just destroy ranger on DPR.
The simple way of looking at it is that Ranger does not offer a lot of ways to keep up with these higher damage potential builds. I have the firm belief they were never meant to be a top damage dealer as they were suppose to have more out of combat utility than the classes that do (Fighter, Barbarian, etc...) but in play they just do not. I wish they did but here we are.
Overall while I enjoy Rangers to some extent, particularly Gloomstalker, they are kind of a failure as a class for their design intent. They are the most adjusted/homebrewed/"fixed" class and its not even close.
First off, there's a reason why I ensured the paladin and ranger in my example had the same chance to hit. It was to remove enemy AC from the equation.
Second, I deliberately did not choose to include Feats. Again, They are another variable. No one needs to use feats to be better at combat. They're for whatever you want to be good at. These are, specifically, not optimized builds.
Third, I also didn't include archetypes so as to compare the base abilities of the class. I made an exception for the Beast Master because it is so maligned and because it so radically changes the numbers.
Fourth, whether anyone can reliably gain advantage is not up to the class/player alone. Party composition is a huge factor that no amount of spreadsheets can account for.
Fifth, the ranger is not a failure of design. You may not be able to down the Tarrasque in one round with a Crossbow, Hand (God, I hate that syntax), but they're good at their job. As I stated before, the ranger is best-suited to controlling the battlefield and dealing with multiple, smaller threats.
all of these points are incredibly flawed and I can't even begin to explain why. please watch literally any YouTube video on DPR and find out why not including AC feats or any other kind of ability is just inherently wrong.
Into your point about Ranger not being a failure... I guess the vast majority of the fan base disagrees with you so there's that.
Most people in the fan base are new or power gamers.
Alright. I’ll look at those spreadsheets tomorrow. But anyone that tells me “the fighter does better damage than __________” is silly because a fighter damned well better do damage. If these are dealing with smite crits or sneak attack crits, I’m out because that is silly. Other than the barbarian who else has a way to get advantage on their attacks? Beast master, wizard, and who? No feats, no multiclass, and a ranger does damage with the beat of them. We’re talking a point or two of damage difference. Against more than one target and the ranger pulls to the lead.
I think Cleric and Bard?
Also you don't need advantage you can just have things like precision attack. Fighters can get a reasonable amount of advantage just by using trip attack. There's literally a fighter subclass that allows you to get advantage in all your attacks.
paladins have a channel Divinity that allows them to get advantage on all attacks against one creature.
Hexblade can get Shadow of Moil which allows them to get advantage in their attacks.
Alright. I’ll look at those spreadsheets tomorrow. But anyone that tells me “the fighter does better damage than __________” is silly because a fighter damned well better do damage. If these are dealing with smite crits or sneak attack crits, I’m out because that is silly. Other than the barbarian who else has a way to get advantage on their attacks? Beast master, wizard, and who? No feats, no multiclass, and a ranger does damage with the beat of them. We’re talking a point or two of damage difference. Against more than one target and the ranger pulls to the lead.
I think Cleric and Bard?
Also you don't need advantage you can just have things like precision attack. Fighters can get a reasonable amount of advantage just by using trip attack. There's literally a fighter subclass that allows you to get advantage in all your attacks.
paladins have a channel Divinity that allows them to get advantage on all attacks against one creature.
Hexblade can get Shadow of Moil which allows them to get advantage in their attacks.
LOL! Don't yell at me about ranger danger. I'm on the "pro ranger" side of the debate. You're still talking about single target damage. What's the math on a beast master and wolf with a hail of thorns or lighting arrow hitting 3 or 4 targets?! BIG!!! Hunter 5/Rogue 15 is just a...straightforward way of getting some DPR.
I deliberately kept the comparisons as simple as possible to remove as many variables as I could. Both had a maxed attack attribute and used a single, 5th-level spell to augment their damage potential.
All I did was point out your assessment was dead wrong.
You may not "want" to do those things but to be an honest comparison you have to do the work (that many others have already conveniently done) and prove that its as good as you say. A lot of these are not White Room builds as you say as they use class features and spells much like you have suggested for the ranger. Overall they just destroy ranger on DPR.
The simple way of looking at it is that Ranger does not offer a lot of ways to keep up with these higher damage potential builds. I have the firm belief they were never meant to be a top damage dealer as they were suppose to have more out of combat utility than the classes that do (Fighter, Barbarian, etc...) but in play they just do not. I wish they did but here we are.
Overall while I enjoy Rangers to some extent, particularly Gloomstalker, they are kind of a failure as a class for their design intent. They are the most adjusted/homebrewed/"fixed" class and its not even close.
First off, there's a reason why I ensured the paladin and ranger in my example had the same chance to hit. It was to remove enemy AC from the equation.
Second, I deliberately did not choose to include Feats. Again, They are another variable. No one needs to use feats to be better at combat. They're for whatever you want to be good at. These are, specifically, not optimized builds.
Third, I also didn't include archetypes so as to compare the base abilities of the class. I made an exception for the Beast Master because it is so maligned and because it so radically changes the numbers.
Fourth, whether anyone can reliably gain advantage is not up to the class/player alone. Party composition is a huge factor that no amount of spreadsheets can account for.
Fifth, the ranger is not a failure of design. You may not be able to down the Tarrasque in one round with a Crossbow, Hand (God, I hate that syntax), but they're good at their job. As I stated before, the ranger is best-suited to controlling the battlefield and dealing with multiple, smaller threats.
all of these points are incredibly flawed and I can't even begin to explain why. please watch literally any YouTube video on DPR and find out why not including AC feats or any other kind of ability is just inherently wrong.
Into your point about Ranger not being a failure... I guess the vast majority of the fan base disagrees with you so there's that.
I think this is where we have a fundamental disconnect. I'm comparing the base class and treating this as a scientific experiment to see how the chassis are comparable. You're trying to give a lecture on game-breaking builds that use optional rules. Not only do I find that unproductive, but I find it unfun.
Alright. I’ll look at those spreadsheets tomorrow. But anyone that tells me “the fighter does better damage than __________” is silly because a fighter damned well better do damage. If these are dealing with smite crits or sneak attack crits, I’m out because that is silly. Other than the barbarian who else has a way to get advantage on their attacks? Beast master, wizard, and who? No feats, no multiclass, and a ranger does damage with the beat of them. We’re talking a point or two of damage difference. Against more than one target and the ranger pulls to the lead.
I think Cleric and Bard?
Also you don't need advantage you can just have things like precision attack. Fighters can get a reasonable amount of advantage just by using trip attack. There's literally a fighter subclass that allows you to get advantage in all your attacks.
paladins have a channel Divinity that allows them to get advantage on all attacks against one creature.
Hexblade can get Shadow of Moil which allows them to get advantage in their attacks.
Beast master does too.
How?
Beast master 7 for one. There might be more depending on what beast you go with. Wolves can prone a creature, for example.
Jounichi1983, player agency driven RAW power gamers are everywhere it would seem. This is why I keep an ancient red dragon mini and stat block on me all the time. She’s a regularly occurring NPC named “Britches”. Sometimes players think they get to big for her.
all of these points are incredibly flawed and I can't even begin to explain why. please watch literally any YouTube video on DPR and find out why not including AC feats or any other kind of ability is just inherently wrong.
Into your point about Ranger not being a failure... I guess the vast majority of the fan base disagrees with you so there's that.
Feats are only relevant in a comparison against classes that can take more of them; Paladins and Rangers get the same number of Ability Score Increases, so can have the same number of feats in total, you only want to consider feats when comparing against Fighter or Rogue since they can take more, or in a game without feats, can max their key scores earlier.
If you go with a Paladin and Ranger equipped as closely as possible, they can benefit from the same feats, if you go for different builds then of course they're going to take different feats, but it only makes the comparison a lot harder (especially if one them takes Actor because their character is an amateur, but gifted, thespian).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
all of these points are incredibly flawed and I can't even begin to explain why. please watch literally any YouTube video on DPR and find out why not including AC feats or any other kind of ability is just inherently wrong.
Into your point about Ranger not being a failure... I guess the vast majority of the fan base disagrees with you so there's that.
Feats are only relevant in a comparison against classes that can take more of them; Paladins and Rangers get the same number of Ability Score Increases, so can have the same number of feats in total, you only want to consider feats when comparing against Fighter or Rogue since they can take more, or in a game without feats, can max their key scores earlier.
If you go with a Paladin and Ranger equipped as closely as possible, they can benefit from the same feats, if you go for different builds then of course they're going to take different feats, but it only makes the comparison a lot harder (especially if one them takes Actor because their character is an amateur, but gifted, thespian).
Alright. I’ll look at those spreadsheets tomorrow. But anyone that tells me “the fighter does better damage than __________” is silly because a fighter damned well better do damage. If these are dealing with smite crits or sneak attack crits, I’m out because that is silly. Other than the barbarian who else has a way to get advantage on their attacks? Beast master, wizard, and who? No feats, no multiclass, and a ranger does damage with the beat of them. We’re talking a point or two of damage difference. Against more than one target and the ranger pulls to the lead.
I think Cleric and Bard?
Also you don't need advantage you can just have things like precision attack. Fighters can get a reasonable amount of advantage just by using trip attack. There's literally a fighter subclass that allows you to get advantage in all your attacks.
paladins have a channel Divinity that allows them to get advantage on all attacks against one creature.
Hexblade can get Shadow of Moil which allows them to get advantage in their attacks.
Beast master does too.
How?
Beast master 7 for one. There might be more depending on what beast you go with. Wolves can prone a creature, for example.
Help action is one attack. The other mentioned features provide ADV for all attacks.
Prone is a fair one but you give up an attack for the wolf to prone so it's moot.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think that a few of these may be addressed in Tasha's. If the concentration free hunter's mark or even just the free hunter's mark X times a rest makes it in, then that will address the concentration issue. I think I also saw something that would give druid cantrips to Rangers, though I think that was a fighting style. I don't think that the cantrips are necessary for a Ranger, but there are plenty of ways to get a cantrip or two, including High Elf for a Booming Blade. There are plenty of ways to to deal with the concentration effects but they usually include skimping on Wisdom with feats which is a heavier draw with a strength build than a dex build.
First off, there's a reason why I ensured the paladin and ranger in my example had the same chance to hit. It was to remove enemy AC from the equation.
Second, I deliberately did not choose to include Feats. Again, They are another variable. No one needs to use feats to be better at combat. They're for whatever you want to be good at. These are, specifically, not optimized builds.
Third, I also didn't include archetypes so as to compare the base abilities of the class. I made an exception for the Beast Master because it is so maligned and because it so radically changes the numbers.
Fourth, whether anyone can reliably gain advantage is not up to the class/player alone. Party composition is a huge factor that no amount of spreadsheets can account for.
Fifth, the ranger is not a failure of design. You may not be able to down the Tarrasque in one round with a Crossbow, Hand (God, I hate that syntax), but they're good at their job. As I stated before, the ranger is best-suited to controlling the battlefield and dealing with multiple, smaller threats.
Alright. I’ll look at those spreadsheets tomorrow. But anyone that tells me “the fighter does better damage than __________” is silly because a fighter damned well better do damage. If these are dealing with smite crits or sneak attack crits, I’m out because that is silly. Other than the barbarian who else has a way to get advantage on their attacks? Beast master, wizard, and who? No feats, no multiclass, and a ranger does damage with the beat of them. We’re talking a point or two of damage difference. Against more than one target and the ranger pulls to the lead.
all of these points are incredibly flawed and I can't even begin to explain why. please watch literally any YouTube video on DPR and find out why not including AC feats or any other kind of ability is just inherently wrong.
Into your point about Ranger not being a failure... I guess the vast majority of the fan base disagrees with you so there's that.
I think Cleric and Bard?
: Systems Online : Nikoli_Goodfellow Homebrew : My WIP Homebrew Class :
(\_/)
( u u)
o/ \🥛🍪 Hey, take care of yourself alright?
Also you don't need advantage you can just have things like precision attack. Fighters can get a reasonable amount of advantage just by using trip attack. There's literally a fighter subclass that allows you to get advantage in all your attacks.
paladins have a channel Divinity that allows them to get advantage on all attacks against one creature.
Hexblade can get Shadow of Moil which allows them to get advantage in their attacks.
Beast master does too.
Most people in the fan base are new or power gamers.
How?
Yes, you stated that already...
: Systems Online : Nikoli_Goodfellow Homebrew : My WIP Homebrew Class :
(\_/)
( u u)
o/ \🥛🍪 Hey, take care of yourself alright?
I think this is where we have a fundamental disconnect. I'm comparing the base class and treating this as a scientific experiment to see how the chassis are comparable. You're trying to give a lecture on game-breaking builds that use optional rules. Not only do I find that unproductive, but I find it unfun.
You're going to have to let this go.
: Systems Online : Nikoli_Goodfellow Homebrew : My WIP Homebrew Class :
(\_/)
( u u)
o/ \🥛🍪 Hey, take care of yourself alright?
Beast master can use level 7 for the help action.
Feats are an optional rule. Feats up the damage of a character. Build damage dealers without feats. Compare. Add the feats. Compare.
Multiclassing is an optional rule.
Show straight ranger with straight fighter, paladin, rogue, whatever.
I’ll look at your spreadsheets tomorrow, I promise.
You do that....
I would love to see how many tables treat MC and Feats as "optional".
They literally are optional. Nobody is required to take a feat. Multiclassing and Variant Human are things the DM can, but doesn't have to, allow.
Beast master 7 for one. There might be more depending on what beast you go with. Wolves can prone a creature, for example.
Jounichi1983, player agency driven RAW power gamers are everywhere it would seem. This is why I keep an ancient red dragon mini and stat block on me all the time. She’s a regularly occurring NPC named “Britches”. Sometimes players think they get to big for her.
Feats are only relevant in a comparison against classes that can take more of them; Paladins and Rangers get the same number of Ability Score Increases, so can have the same number of feats in total, you only want to consider feats when comparing against Fighter or Rogue since they can take more, or in a game without feats, can max their key scores earlier.
If you go with a Paladin and Ranger equipped as closely as possible, they can benefit from the same feats, if you go for different builds then of course they're going to take different feats, but it only makes the comparison a lot harder (especially if one them takes Actor because their character is an amateur, but gifted, thespian).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Uh never has that been a thing.
Help action is one attack. The other mentioned features provide ADV for all attacks.
Prone is a fair one but you give up an attack for the wolf to prone so it's moot.