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.
The help action is one attack sure, but it can be repeated every round that the beast survives. Assuming that the beast is left to Dodge and AoE threats are prioritized by the Ranger, that should be a significant amount of time. If the DM allocates resources to clear the beast after, that's value added by removing the allocation of those resources from the party. If the DM does have to allocate resources to taking out a beast, does that not validate the beast Master subclass by saying that the beast has to be taken care of or the party will roll the encounter?
Commanding the beast to help does take a bonus action, but Beast Master isn't bonus action intensive likely only competing with Hunter's Mark. TWF is another possible point there, but tactics will often demand changes and TWF is often panned as a bad choice for Rangers. Further, Help can give advantage to any party member, not just the Ranger.
Shadow of Moil comes online at 7th level and is limited to 2 casts per short rest until 11th, competes with Hex or other spells during that time and is a concentration spell. Resources allocated against the pet can be allocated against the warlock just as easily.
Trip attack and other maneuvers come online sooner, but are limited to 4 per rest until 7th and 15th and compete with each other. More can be added after 15th level.
Fighting Spirit is 3 times per long rest, possibly gaining more after 10th and is contingent upon initiative rolls to accomplish.
Paladin gets 1 Channel Divinty per rest.
As for the wolf proning taking an action, so does grappling and grappling doesn't come with damage without taking a feat unless I'm missing something. The wolf also has pack tactics to give it advantage on its attacks if another ally is within 5 feet of its target, like a barbarian, fighter, paladin, etc. Having the wolf prone a creature and following it up with the second attack and a bonus attack is nice.
Other beasts exist that also have grapples. The number of available beasts means that there are a variety of ways that you can affect the outcome of an encounter.
This is also ignoring the damage that the Ranger enables through it's use of spells, being able to harass enemy spell casters effectively by themselves, and other effects (effects that fighter and paladin can duplicate but don't often take advantage of when they are focusing so much on damage. The scale of those effects is often more limited than Rangers can provide as well).
This doesn't do a good job of explaining any criteria, but I'd imagine that single target damage, lack of tactics to be effective, and high survivability all played a factor. It also doesn't say what the break down is, who took the survey, or anything like that. If the numbers in the tiers area are representative of percentages, then the statistical significance of the data is meaningless. If they're actual numbers, then it looks like about a hundred people took the survey. That's not a bad number and could be significant, but it's not necessarily representative if the data was gathered in the same place. Thus, a Power Gamers Anonymous meeting would be a poor representation of the community at large. It would be much better if they had identified some of that information to allow us to weigh in on the validity of the data.
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).
Uh never has that been a thing.
Never has anyone taken the Actor feat? That's just not true.
If you're talking about something else, I think some clarification is in order.
I'm talking about not being able to compare builds because they don't get the same amount of feats... It's asinine.
So then why are you saying it? I certainly didn't.
My point was very simple; if you're comparing two classes with the same access to feats and ability to use them, then comparing them based on those feats is redundant, so why do it? It only creates more work for yourself with the ultimate conclusion that if two classes that do around the same damage take the same feats, then they'll still do around the same damage, so you haven't changed anything, meaning you gained nothing by examining feats.
The only time that feats make a real major difference is if two classes can take advantage of wildly different feats (which for Rangers vs Paladins isn't the case if you're looking at equivalent builds, and if you're comparing GWM Paladin to Sharpshooter Ranger they'll still be broadly the same), or if you're comparing classes that can take different numbers of feats, in which case you should assume the one that can take more, probably will, so you only need to consider that difference (i.e- a Fighter might have two more feats, a Rogue might have one, or they'll make faster progress on ability scores).
Also, I'm not sure why there is suddenly so much insistence on access to advantage? Advantage on attacks as a Channel Divinity feature is not available to all Paladins; it only establishes that one particular oath (two including current UA) can be especially good, some of the time (as a Channel Divinity can only be used once per short rest, and the ability has to actually work), meanwhile if you extend beyond into spells then Rangers have plenty of options for ensnaring enemies as well if they need to gain advantage by themselves. But if you really want advantage on your party's attacks then neither Paladin or Ranger are the ideal way to get it, for that you really want a full caster in the party who'll have access to better options sooner.
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.
There is no real reason to go beyond Ranger 5 ever.
I actually think that Ranger is decent in Tier 1 but drops off HARD after that.
Ranger 5 then Rogue X is so much better.
For damage output, you are like 1,000% correct. But some of my favorite things about ranger are 3rd level spells, hide in plain sight, and, depending on your subclass, the level 11 ability. But I hear you and agree. If you want to sneak, be quick, and shoot things for lots of damage, ranger/rogue is awesome sauce! Hunter/Moon Druid is really fun. And Beast Master/Druid and/or Cleric too. Actually a strength based melee Hunter/Barbarian is really fun!
For damage output, that's 1000% false. A ranger can, consistently, keep up with paladins who aren't using their Divine Smite. Paladins can, of course, use it for "burst damage". But this burns through another limited and precious resource that could go toward spells. Once they reach Tier 4 (17th level and higher), the gap grows even larger.
A paladin with max Strength, a Greatsword with the accompanying fighting style, and an upcast Elemental Weapon is attacking twice with +13 to hit for an average of 18 (2d6+5+1.33+2d4) per swing. Their total, assuming both attacks land, is 38 damage. A ranger with max Dexterity, a Longbow with the accompanying fighting style, and Swift Quiver is attacking 4 times with +13 to hit for an average of 9 (1d8+5) per arrow. Because of how fractions work, this averages out to 38 damage. So both are expending a single 5th-level spell slot and are more or less going toe-to-toe. The single, biggest difference is the paladin's attacks are guaranteed to be magical.
But rangers can even exceed paladins. If the very same ranger above is a Beast Master with a Wolf, then their DPR shoots up to 54: 28 (3d8+15) from the longbow and 26 (4d4+16) from the bites. The paladin must expend a 2nd-level spell slot for a +18 (4d8) damage Improved Divine Smite once per round just to keep up. And the wolf still brings other perks, like Pack Tactics and the ability to knock enemies [condition[Prone[/item].
Technically, the paladin can pump out more damage per turn. But it's inefficient and not suited for every encounter. Some rangers can, and do, fall a little behind in DPR during Tier 2 play. But once they ding level 11, they're right back in it. So, if your concern is DPR, then you need to look at the level of campaign you're likely to play in. A ranger with TWF is competitive up until Tier-4 when 5th-level spells become available*. That will get you through any hardcover module. Beast Masters, if you don't mind lagging behind for a while, really come into their own in Tier 3. But they're not built for pure DPR. It's a controller archetype.
*Initially forgot about Steel Wind Strike. With it, a TWF ranger needs to only hit 3 enemies. Start round 2 by casting Hunter's Mark and attacking twice. The bonus action attack has to wait until round 3, but they're dealing an average of 53 damage. Rangers are phenomenal at dealing with multiple threats. Better than almost any other martial class.
You are not using real DPR measures here and I can't take most of it at face value because of this.
And I would believe you more. Honestly some Rangers can keep up (Hunter does fine) but most especially Beast Master are terrible terrible damage options. The fact your beast dies you lose everything have to spend 8 hours to get it back is unforgivingly terrible.
Ranger isn't even in the top ten for damage builds. Its usually beat out because of two things:
1. No sustainable way to get ADV
2. No mitigating features to increase chances to hit (Channel Divinity, Reckless Attack, Precision Attack, etc...)
They also suffer from the aformentioned CON save problem with their biggest damage dealer augment Hunters Mark and have to use a BA to move the mark meaning they cannot even benefit from the BA attack from Handcrossbow CBE meta.
Overall they are fine...but no where near the top end.
I'm going to open a can of worms here and say my eyes started to roll around in my head when I opened these pages. Either I'm too dumb to understand them or I don't care. These are figuring feats and multiclassing into white room ideal situations where all that matters is single target damage over a few rounds. No multiple enemies. No environmental situations. No enemy factors beyond AC. No resource management. No team interaction. No DM encounter balance. These "characters" are built to do damage. In a game where doing damage is NOT 90% of the game they would be "weak" in the sense their contribution to the game is very limited by a pinpoint focus. In a game that is 90% about dealing damage a DM would make adjustments to the balance of the combat encounters and essentially nullify all of this min/maxing. In the one page with premade builds I didn't see a hunter ranger attempt. Sad, because hunter rangers are a great chassis for big damage builds, especially when feats and multiclasses are included. Pop some numbers for a strength based, hunter ranger, wielding a great sword or glaive, multiclassed with fighter or barbarian and see what comes out the other end. Plug in the numbers for a hunter ranger with a long bow, sharpshooter, multiclassed with any combination of rogue or fighter and see what's cooking. Try doing a long bow paladin build or crossbow barbarian build and see how short they come up in the damage department. Try building a strength based rogue build and see if they hold their own. Compare ALL OF THEM to a sorcerer with 2 level in warlock quickening eldritch blast with hex and agonizing blast and we can all cry. Fighter should and always will do crazy martial damage easy. They had better. That's what they do. Paladins and barbarians are built for melee ONLY combat, and they suffer outside of that. Rangers are ideal at ranged combat, and don't stand as well as others toe to toe defensively in melee, but they can do it from a damage output perspective.
I see. It's the spell concentration as it applies to a ranger compared to a paladin that gets the big buff to saving throw's.
Well, I hope one thing we can all agree on is a ranger is mechanically, and perhaps thematically, suited to be "a person with a bow" in the party. They are kind of doing an injustice to themselves and the party taking up a melee role exclusively. Many of their best spells and abilities enhance upon and even rely on using a ranged weapon or at least a thrown weapon. Paladins are the opposite. Three of their strongest abilities (lay on hands, divine smite, and auras) become much less effective if the take up ranged weapon combat exclusively. The paladin class serves themselves and the party best by being "a person up front with a melee weapon". I see similar situations with rogues and barbarians. Fighters can be built powerfully either way. Again, fighters are very flexible. I really don't have have too much of a problem with this arrangement. If everyone can do everything then classes are all just ribbon abilities. Rangers would benefit from a boost to saving throws, but paladins REQUIRE them. Paladins would benefit from spells that enhance ranged attacks, but rangers REQUIRE them.
This is an opinion that is not supported by the fact that Rangers get Two Weapon Fighting and the Dueling Fighting styles. Rangers also get spells that are primarily for melee use, like Steel Wind Strike, Ensnaring Strike, and Zephyr Strike. IOW, Rangers are supposed to be very effective for melee if the player wants them to be. I don't see why they should be taking a feat that is half useless to them to stay effective.
Rangers have that precious d10 hit die and proficiency with martial weapons, but I think they have more in common with, say, melee bards (Colleges of Swords and Valor) and warlocks (Pack of the Blade). The ranger has always been this weird tri-part druid/fighter/rogue; a red-headed stepchild with an identity crisis. It walks not just a fine line, but a weird one.
As you have just said yourself, the base Ranger is the red-headed stepchild with an identity crisis. Even you acknowledge that the class design is not cohesive compared to most other classes.
And THEN you just acknowledged that Ranger spells don't go well with "reaction to cast a spell" against a creature moving away from the Ranger portion of Warcaster. This is definitely not a good design. A player who wants to build a good melee Ranger should be able to build one to be just as effective, overall, as a melee Paladin minus smite nova-ing. Or a melee Eldritch Knight, which is also a part caster/part weapon-specialist. These are fair comparisons.
I see. It's the spell concentration as it applies to a ranger compared to a paladin that gets the big buff to saving throw's.
Well, I hope one thing we can all agree on is a ranger is mechanically, and perhaps thematically, suited to be "a person with a bow" in the party. They are kind of doing an injustice to themselves and the party taking up a melee role exclusively. Many of their best spells and abilities enhance upon and even rely on using a ranged weapon or at least a thrown weapon. Paladins are the opposite. Three of their strongest abilities (lay on hands, divine smite, and auras) become much less effective if the take up ranged weapon combat exclusively. The paladin class serves themselves and the party best by being "a person up front with a melee weapon". I see similar situations with rogues and barbarians. Fighters can be built powerfully either way. Again, fighters are very flexible. I really don't have have too much of a problem with this arrangement. If everyone can do everything then classes are all just ribbon abilities. Rangers would benefit from a boost to saving throws, but paladins REQUIRE them. Paladins would benefit from spells that enhance ranged attacks, but rangers REQUIRE them.
This is an opinion that is not supported by the fact that Rangers get Two Weapon Fighting and the Dueling Fighting styles. Rangers also get spells that are primarily for melee use, like Steel Wind Strike, Ensnaring Strike, and Zephyr Strike. IOW, Rangers are supposed to be very effective for melee if the player wants them to be. I don't see why they should be taking a feat that is half useless to them to stay effective.
Of the three of those, none actually require a melee weapon attack. Ensnaring Strike and Zephyr Strike can be equally useful with ranged weapons, as they only require a weapon attack. Steel Wind Strike makes spell attacks and ends within melee, so it encourages melee combat but isn't limited to that style of play.
This is an opinion that is not supported by the fact that Rangers get Two Weapon Fighting and the Dueling Fighting styles. Rangers also get spells that are primarily for melee use, like Steel Wind Strike, Ensnaring Strike, and Zephyr Strike. IOW, Rangers are supposed to be very effective for melee if the player wants them to be. I don't see why they should be taking a feat that is half useless to them to stay effective.
Of the three of those, none actually require a melee weapon attack. Ensnaring Strike and Zephyr Strike can be equally useful with ranged weapons, as they only require a weapon attack. Steel Wind Strike makes spell attacks and ends within melee, so it encourages melee combat but isn't limited to that style of play.
My point is that these are spells that are generally more useful for a melee character than a ranged character. Also you just ignored the Fighting Style portion of my comment.
This is an opinion that is not supported by the fact that Rangers get Two Weapon Fighting and the Dueling Fighting styles. Rangers also get spells that are primarily for melee use, like Steel Wind Strike, Ensnaring Strike, and Zephyr Strike. IOW, Rangers are supposed to be very effective for melee if the player wants them to be. I don't see why they should be taking a feat that is half useless to them to stay effective.
Of the three of those, none actually require a melee weapon attack. Ensnaring Strike and Zephyr Strike can be equally useful with ranged weapons, as they only require a weapon attack. Steel Wind Strike makes spell attacks and ends within melee, so it encourages melee combat but isn't limited to that style of play.
My point is that these are spells that are generally more useful for a melee character than a ranged character. Also you just ignored the Fighting Style portion of my comment.
I see. It's the spell concentration as it applies to a ranger compared to a paladin that gets the big buff to saving throw's.
Well, I hope one thing we can all agree on is a ranger is mechanically, and perhaps thematically, suited to be "a person with a bow" in the party. They are kind of doing an injustice to themselves and the party taking up a melee role exclusively. Many of their best spells and abilities enhance upon and even rely on using a ranged weapon or at least a thrown weapon. Paladins are the opposite. Three of their strongest abilities (lay on hands, divine smite, and auras) become much less effective if the take up ranged weapon combat exclusively. The paladin class serves themselves and the party best by being "a person up front with a melee weapon". I see similar situations with rogues and barbarians. Fighters can be built powerfully either way. Again, fighters are very flexible. I really don't have have too much of a problem with this arrangement. If everyone can do everything then classes are all just ribbon abilities. Rangers would benefit from a boost to saving throws, but paladins REQUIRE them. Paladins would benefit from spells that enhance ranged attacks, but rangers REQUIRE them.
This is an opinion that is not supported by the fact that Rangers get Two Weapon Fighting and the Dueling Fighting styles. Rangers also get spells that are primarily for melee use, like Steel Wind Strike, Ensnaring Strike, and Zephyr Strike. IOW, Rangers are supposed to be very effective for melee if the player wants them to be. I don't see why they should be taking a feat that is half useless to them to stay effective.
Oh sure! In fact, a single weapon “dueling” ranger is my favorite. My intent was: ranger melee < ranger bow and paladin bow < paladin melee.
Meanwhile, nobody has addressed the concentration problem for melee Rangers I mentioned several pages back (even though I also noted some ways to fix this) while everybody admits that, RAW, Hide in Plain Sight is practically worthless for a 10th level ability (compare it to other class' 10th level abilities) and there's a bunch of other situational or DM-specific abilties at levels 1 to 3 while still arguing the base Ranger is as well designed as every other class. Ummmm, yeah, but no.
I mentioned the problem in my wall of text on page 20, though I didn't see your specific complaints about it.
Sorry,, I missed your post b/c of the walls of text that did not address my issues with the class.
RE: Hunter's Mark. That's a complex issue, one that I don't want to spend too much space on. However, HMark is THE spell that's supposed to keep Ranger DPR up in comparison to other combat-centric classes. HMark is large part of the reason why maintaining concentration is important to Rangers. (Though there are plenty of other great candidates for concentration, like Conjure Animals and Grasping Vine.) Frankly, I think the devs are considering increasing the # of HMark slots and/or getting rid of concentration requirement for this spell for the very reason that they don't want to deal with the concentration/Warcaster sub-optimacy (new word) of melee Rangers directly. Changing Ranger concentration or creating a new feat that works with Rangers' lack of cantrips seems to make more sense to me b/c I agree that multi-classing Ranger with a few Warlock levels can be OP once concentration-free version of HMark is mixed with Hex.
Rangers have that precious d10 hit die and proficiency with martial weapons, but I think they have more in common with, say, melee bards (Colleges of Swords and Valor) and warlocks (Pack of the Blade). The ranger has always been this weird tri-part druid/fighter/rogue; a red-headed stepchild with an identity crisis. It walks not just a fine line, but a weird one.
As you have just said yourself, the base Ranger is the red-headed stepchild with an identity crisis. Even you acknowledge that the class design is not cohesive compared to most other classes.
And THEN you just acknowledged that Ranger spells don't go well with "reaction to cast a spell" against a creature moving away from the Ranger portion of Warcaster. This is definitely not a good design. A player who wants to build a good melee Ranger should be able to build one to be just as effective, overall, as a melee Paladin minus smite nova-ing. Or a melee Eldritch Knight, which is also a part caster/part weapon-specialist. These are fair comparisons.
Oh, God, the formatting. What did you do?
And, look, you may not think this is good design, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree. How many paladin spells are viable? For crying out loud, you mention what I wrote about but you don't include the text. Which means you're trying to obfuscate context, so here it is for people to look at again.
Not every class is going to get full use out of a feat like War Caster, and that's okay. A wizard might only see use in 2/3 because not many fight with multiple melee weapons; or any melee weapons. A wizard could even take Crossbow Expert just to ignore 1/2 and 3/4 cover with their ranged spell attacks. If someone else were to take Shield Master, they, too, might only see strong use in 2/3 of its perks. How many characters, do you think, have both a high Strength (Athletics) score and proficiency with Dexterity saving throws with a decent modifier? I can make a character that does, or eventually would, but it's pretty niche.
So, both the ranger and wizard typically the same number of benefits out of War Caster; even if they're not the same benefits. This isn't bad design. War Caster isn't mandatory. It's a choice. More than that, it's an optional rule the DM doesn't even have to allow.
And whether any of us think the design of ranger isn't "cohesive" is beside the point. The ranger has always been a skirmisher mix of druid, fighter, and rogue. And this design can trace its roots all the way back to when the ranger first became its own thing in AD&D 2nd edition. At issue is whether or not the design, as awkward as it might seem, actually works and is "underpowered" as the thread title asks.
Having said that, a melee ranger as-is can absolutely compete with a paladin who isn't "nova smiting." Sans feats and magical equipment, a ranger with TWF is keeping up with or outpacing a GWF paladin throughout most tiers. Though usually a little behind the ranger, the paladin has the advantage of magical damage and a higher chance of hitting their target. Paladins don't really pull ahead until they use an upcast Elemental Weapon, but that's a 5th-level slot up against a 1st-level slot for Hunter's Mark. And this pattern repeats itself if both rely on the Dueling style.
And when I say the paladin pulls ahead, I mean they deal an average of 3-4 DPR more.
This is an opinion that is not supported by the fact that Rangers get Two Weapon Fighting and the Dueling Fighting styles. Rangers also get spells that are primarily for melee use, like Steel Wind Strike, Ensnaring Strike, and Zephyr Strike. IOW, Rangers are supposed to be very effective for melee if the player wants them to be. I don't see why they should be taking a feat that is half useless to them to stay effective.
Of the three of those, none actually require a melee weapon attack. Ensnaring Strike and Zephyr Strike can be equally useful with ranged weapons, as they only require a weapon attack. Steel Wind Strike makes spell attacks and ends within melee, so it encourages melee combat but isn't limited to that style of play.
My point is that these are spells that are generally more useful for a melee character than a ranged character. Also you just ignored the Fighting Style portion of my comment.
What is so awesome about Great Weapon Fighting Style? You can change reroll a 1 or a 2 and must take the new roll. That leads to a (3.5, 3.5, 3, 4, 5, 6)×2 average or a (6.5, 6.5, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) average or a (5.5, 5.5, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) average. Sure that could go from 1 or 2 damage to 10 or 12 damage, but it's much more likely to be an average increase of less than 2 points of damage. It's not a prerequisite to getting GWM feat. I'd rather take defensive fighting style for a 5% better chance to avoid damage, or take dueling or two weapon fighting style for better damage bonuses and/or better defense. Outside of Nova capabilities, Ranger is within 2 average points of damage assuming Paladin takes Great Weapon Fighting and neither uses a spell and assuming that they're specced as close as possible. If the Ranger takes more dex to max out their AC than the Paladin takes, the Ranger will have better dex saves. That's offset at 6 when Paladin gets Aura of Protection. Paladin will have better Wis saves, but Ranger doesn't have to make use of Charisma or intelligence meaning that the drop off isn't as big even after 6th level. And if you really want to drop dex that much, Human Variant Heavily Armored gives you heavy armor proficiency at 1st level.
Leaving off EK (subclass), Fighter can pull away from either Paladin or Ranger after 11th level but Paladin can pull even with nova damage and Ranger can pull even by going to AOE builds before considering subclasses. Fighter won't give you as much out of combat utility as either Paladin or Ranger, though subclasses can help them pull even while the half casters get more utility or more combat (or both).
I'm not sure why Rangers are being boohooed about not having cantrips but Paladins get a pass there (Warcaster isn't as necessary for Paladins, oh no Rangers can't use a spell to get scaling damage on an OA. YMMV on that depending on DMs pushing OAs, which means it's just as dependent on usefulness as all of the Ranger abilities that keep getting panned).
Incidentally, I read through the Ranger intro and I didn't see anything that specifically said that Rangers had to use strength for melee (the closest is that some rangers will focus on strength instead of dexterity for two weapon fighting). I don't recall who brought that up but going Strength just to put the Ranger at more of a disadvantage, particularly when demanding Wisdom for Foe Slayer is disingenuous. While strength Rangers can be a thing and they can be effective, a dex Ranger is going to be more effective in melee while still retaining more of its Ranger identity skill effectiveness.
The simple fact of the matter just might be that Ranger isn't for you. It's certainly not ideal for power gamers because it has too many things that power gamers undervalue (versatility building components) and not enough of what they overvalue (specialization building components, especially single target abilities that stack on each other) when compared to something like fighter. I look at it and I don't think that Ranger lacks in comparison unless your looking strictly at single target spikey damage. Otherwise, your deltas will be within a few points on average. This doesn't mean that it's underpowered, it just means that it's power base differs from what you're looking for. If you want your Ranger to play more like a Fighter, then play a Fighter. If you buff the Ranger so that it can compete in single target nova damage with Fighter and Paladin, then everyone will complain about how it's pointless to be a fighter or Paladin when you can do the same stuff with a Ranger and still do Ranger things, too. And if I can do single target spikey damage and stack that onto a build that has good AoE damage, then why are the other players even there, especially when I can set up traps, stealth in to position, Hide in Plain Sight, then spring my spikey damage traps on a group of enemies and whittle the numbers down before they have a chance to even have a turn?
This is an opinion that is not supported by the fact that Rangers get Two Weapon Fighting and the Dueling Fighting styles. Rangers also get spells that are primarily for melee use, like Steel Wind Strike, Ensnaring Strike, and Zephyr Strike. IOW, Rangers are supposed to be very effective for melee if the player wants them to be. I don't see why they should be taking a feat that is half useless to them to stay effective.
Of the three of those, none actually require a melee weapon attack. Ensnaring Strike and Zephyr Strike can be equally useful with ranged weapons, as they only require a weapon attack. Steel Wind Strike makes spell attacks and ends within melee, so it encourages melee combat but isn't limited to that style of play.
My point is that these are spells that are generally more useful for a melee character than a ranged character. Also you just ignored the Fighting Style portion of my comment.
One thing about Steel Wind Strike that favors Song of Blues reading of it being a melee spell is that the material component has to be a melee weapon costing at least 1 sp. The flourishes have to be made with the melee weapon per the spell description.
I disagree with Ensnaring Strike and Zephyr Strike being more useful on a melee character, they just fulfill different rolls or are equally effective. Ensnaring Strike is an awesome anti caster spell, particularly if the caster doesn't have friends close who are available to free them. Being able to force a DC 10 con save through concentration while attacking from ranged is arguably more effective than on a melee character and being able to break LoS with a caster and force them to waste actions trying to get free is lovely.
Zephyr Strike changes from a infiltration and escape spell to an escape and clear spell for ranged users. Getting to disengage, dash, and attack for a ranged character is a lovely thing.
This is an opinion that is not supported by the fact that Rangers get Two Weapon Fighting and the Dueling Fighting styles. Rangers also get spells that are primarily for melee use, like Steel Wind Strike, Ensnaring Strike, and Zephyr Strike. IOW, Rangers are supposed to be very effective for melee if the player wants them to be. I don't see why they should be taking a feat that is half useless to them to stay effective.
Of the three of those, none actually require a melee weapon attack. Ensnaring Strike and Zephyr Strike can be equally useful with ranged weapons, as they only require a weapon attack. Steel Wind Strike makes spell attacks and ends within melee, so it encourages melee combat but isn't limited to that style of play.
My point is that these are spells that are generally more useful for a melee character than a ranged character. Also you just ignored the Fighting Style portion of my comment.
Your point fails to stand because two of those spells are equally effective whether engaged in melee or at range. Heck, a beast master ranger can cast Ensnaring Strike and affect two targets with both their bow and their Animal Companion's natural weapons; allowing them to leave two targets restrained for the price of one 1st-level spell slot. For that matter, they could also cast Conjure Barrage and pull off a feat of spell-twinning that no sorcerer could ever hope to reproduce. (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/06/12/spell-range-self/)
I wasn't even going to bother with the fighting styles because...why bother? I've said more about them that's been quoted in this thread. I know how effective their respective styles are. If you remove smiting from the equation, rangers are competitive with paladins in every tier of play. It doesn't matter if the paladin uses Divine Favor, Magic Weapon, or Elemental Weapon. The paladin can't consistently outpace the ranger until 17th level, and even then the ranger doesn't have to use a spell slot to keep up.
And if they're both using a single 5th-level spell slot (an upcast Elemental Weapon and Swift Quiver, respectively), the ranger can absolutely blow the paladin out of the water. The paladin has to spend a 2nd-level slot for a 4d8 improved divine smite once per round just to keep up with a beast master with a longbow and a wolf. And that's without any feats.
The ranger might not be as durable as a fighter or paladin as they're stuck in, at best, medium armor, but they don't need to be. They're not designed to be shiny tanks. They're skirmishers.
And THEN you just acknowledged that Ranger spells don't go well with "reaction to cast a spell" against a creature moving away from the Ranger portion of Warcaster. This is definitely not a good design. A player who wants to build a good melee Ranger should be able to build one to be just as effective, overall, as a melee Paladin minus smite nova-ing. Or a melee Eldritch Knight, which is also a part caster/part weapon-specialist. These are fair comparisons.
Emphasis has been added to the standard set forth by the person I was responding to. If you want to keep arguing with me, you're barking up the wrong tree.
And THEN you just acknowledged that Ranger spells don't go well with "reaction to cast a spell" against a creature moving away from the Ranger portion of Warcaster. This is definitely not a good design. A player who wants to build a good melee Ranger should be able to build one to be just as effective, overall, as a melee Paladin minus smite nova-ing. Or a melee Eldritch Knight, which is also a part caster/part weapon-specialist. These are fair comparisons.
Emphasis has been added to the standard set forth by the person I was responding to. If you want to keep arguing with me, you're barking up the wrong tree.
Oh yeah I am saying its a stupid argument either way and honestly Ranger is terrible without its spell casting. At least paladin doesn't rely on Concentration checks to keep up its DPR over the day. Anywho I am unsubscribed from this thread as of now as its obvious that the delusion runs strong here....CFV FTW!
Lets remove the major ability from Paladin and say its a fair comparison!
The delusion here is so bad its sad....good luck to you all and I look forward to the CFV which will hopefully fix Ranger!
Smiting is a limited resource and lines up with Ranger AoE abilities. Improved Divine Smite is fine to apply since it adds 1d8 radiant damage to all melee attacks at 11th level. Base Ranger doesn't have anything to match that single target if we are assuming that a Paladin is using Divine Favor to counter most of Hunter's Mark. If they aren't, then Paladin goes up an average point of damage as opposed to down an average point of damage. A Ranger relies on the subclass for an 11th level bump, since that's all it gets at 11th level is archetype features.
Smiting itself is 2d8 damage for a first level spell up to 5d8 damage for a 4th or greater. Tack an extra 1d8 onto it if it's against an undead.
A Ranger can match that by casting Hail of Thorns for 1d10 on a failed save against 2 creatures or half as much against 4 creatures that all save. It bumps up by 1d10 per spell level. The maximum number of creatures it can hit is 9 (the creature and the 8 squares around it) unless there are also flying creatures within 5 ft above the creature (pushing it to a max of 18). "But it's not single target damage!" Why discount AOE when you complain about discounting Smites?
Jounichi1983, we should also mention that magic weapon and elemental weapon specifically say a non-magical weapon. So that is kind of a fly in the ointment at these levels for any martial.
Once again the ranger's "power" in combat alongside their fighter, paladin, rogue, and barbarian brethren comes from their spell list. Since the recent posts are focusing in on tier 4 of play here are some of my favorite!
Conjure animals (yes I know "the DM decides" and all that) is either a bunch of help actions (great for partywide buffing), a "wall of fur" (great for defense and tanking), or claws and fangs (non-magical damage, but damage none the less). If enemies hit the animals then that's like free hit points for the party! Levels 17, 18, 19, and 20 the ranger can conjure twice as many! (I know the druid can do this earlier, but we aren't comparing what a ranger can do next to a full spellcaster, we are comparing what a ranger can do next to another marital class).
Swift quiver is big damage output, and a beast master trades one of their bow attacks for the beat's full (magical) two attacks, which is 26 (2d4 + 2 +6)*2 for a wolf at levels 17+ just for the wolf.
Conjure volley seems...WAY more useful than destructive wave.
I always come back to hail of thorns. xd10 seems like not very much, but it's an AoE so your looking for double or triple targets when you use it, it's a very tight AoE which is important much of the time to pinpoint areas to avoid hitting your buddies, it's a bonus action so your other damage (including the beast again!) still takes place, and it's area of effect is dependent on the initial target, meaning a large creature could hit more secondary targets! Same for lightning arrow.
I know many folks don't like foe slayer but, man, if you are calculating damage to-hit ratios, it is AMAZING! It makes sure you hit when you need to (all of these spells that trigger on a hit) and if you hit without it than its free damage.
Fog cloud is wonderful. Greater invisibility on one PC is great. But a 5th level fog cloud is a 100 foot radius of "no effects or spells that require the target to be seen will work now". Defensively, for a martial character, this is off the charts good.
Find greater steed will always be my most hated perk the paladin gets. (sigh) How I wish the ranger had something like this. Not the beast master, all rangers, with a good permanent conjure spell like find steed and find greater steed. Even if it was just more like find familiar. I know some folks do this kind of thing instead of a beast master, and I like the idea, but it's different.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The help action is one attack sure, but it can be repeated every round that the beast survives. Assuming that the beast is left to Dodge and AoE threats are prioritized by the Ranger, that should be a significant amount of time. If the DM allocates resources to clear the beast after, that's value added by removing the allocation of those resources from the party. If the DM does have to allocate resources to taking out a beast, does that not validate the beast Master subclass by saying that the beast has to be taken care of or the party will roll the encounter?
Commanding the beast to help does take a bonus action, but Beast Master isn't bonus action intensive likely only competing with Hunter's Mark. TWF is another possible point there, but tactics will often demand changes and TWF is often panned as a bad choice for Rangers. Further, Help can give advantage to any party member, not just the Ranger.
Shadow of Moil comes online at 7th level and is limited to 2 casts per short rest until 11th, competes with Hex or other spells during that time and is a concentration spell. Resources allocated against the pet can be allocated against the warlock just as easily.
Trip attack and other maneuvers come online sooner, but are limited to 4 per rest until 7th and 15th and compete with each other. More can be added after 15th level.
Fighting Spirit is 3 times per long rest, possibly gaining more after 10th and is contingent upon initiative rolls to accomplish.
Paladin gets 1 Channel Divinty per rest.
As for the wolf proning taking an action, so does grappling and grappling doesn't come with damage without taking a feat unless I'm missing something. The wolf also has pack tactics to give it advantage on its attacks if another ally is within 5 feet of its target, like a barbarian, fighter, paladin, etc. Having the wolf prone a creature and following it up with the second attack and a bonus attack is nice.
Other beasts exist that also have grapples. The number of available beasts means that there are a variety of ways that you can affect the outcome of an encounter.
This is also ignoring the damage that the Ranger enables through it's use of spells, being able to harass enemy spell casters effectively by themselves, and other effects (effects that fighter and paladin can duplicate but don't often take advantage of when they are focusing so much on damage. The scale of those effects is often more limited than Rangers can provide as well).
This doesn't do a good job of explaining any criteria, but I'd imagine that single target damage, lack of tactics to be effective, and high survivability all played a factor. It also doesn't say what the break down is, who took the survey, or anything like that. If the numbers in the tiers area are representative of percentages, then the statistical significance of the data is meaningless. If they're actual numbers, then it looks like about a hundred people took the survey. That's not a bad number and could be significant, but it's not necessarily representative if the data was gathered in the same place. Thus, a Power Gamers Anonymous meeting would be a poor representation of the community at large. It would be much better if they had identified some of that information to allow us to weigh in on the validity of the data.
So then why are you saying it? I certainly didn't.
My point was very simple; if you're comparing two classes with the same access to feats and ability to use them, then comparing them based on those feats is redundant, so why do it? It only creates more work for yourself with the ultimate conclusion that if two classes that do around the same damage take the same feats, then they'll still do around the same damage, so you haven't changed anything, meaning you gained nothing by examining feats.
The only time that feats make a real major difference is if two classes can take advantage of wildly different feats (which for Rangers vs Paladins isn't the case if you're looking at equivalent builds, and if you're comparing GWM Paladin to Sharpshooter Ranger they'll still be broadly the same), or if you're comparing classes that can take different numbers of feats, in which case you should assume the one that can take more, probably will, so you only need to consider that difference (i.e- a Fighter might have two more feats, a Rogue might have one, or they'll make faster progress on ability scores).
Also, I'm not sure why there is suddenly so much insistence on access to advantage? Advantage on attacks as a Channel Divinity feature is not available to all Paladins; it only establishes that one particular oath (two including current UA) can be especially good, some of the time (as a Channel Divinity can only be used once per short rest, and the ability has to actually work), meanwhile if you extend beyond into spells then Rangers have plenty of options for ensnaring enemies as well if they need to gain advantage by themselves. But if you really want advantage on your party's attacks then neither Paladin or Ranger are the ideal way to get it, for that you really want a full caster in the party who'll have access to better options sooner.
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.
I'm going to open a can of worms here and say my eyes started to roll around in my head when I opened these pages. Either I'm too dumb to understand them or I don't care. These are figuring feats and multiclassing into white room ideal situations where all that matters is single target damage over a few rounds. No multiple enemies. No environmental situations. No enemy factors beyond AC. No resource management. No team interaction. No DM encounter balance. These "characters" are built to do damage. In a game where doing damage is NOT 90% of the game they would be "weak" in the sense their contribution to the game is very limited by a pinpoint focus. In a game that is 90% about dealing damage a DM would make adjustments to the balance of the combat encounters and essentially nullify all of this min/maxing. In the one page with premade builds I didn't see a hunter ranger attempt. Sad, because hunter rangers are a great chassis for big damage builds, especially when feats and multiclasses are included. Pop some numbers for a strength based, hunter ranger, wielding a great sword or glaive, multiclassed with fighter or barbarian and see what comes out the other end. Plug in the numbers for a hunter ranger with a long bow, sharpshooter, multiclassed with any combination of rogue or fighter and see what's cooking. Try doing a long bow paladin build or crossbow barbarian build and see how short they come up in the damage department. Try building a strength based rogue build and see if they hold their own. Compare ALL OF THEM to a sorcerer with 2 level in warlock quickening eldritch blast with hex and agonizing blast and we can all cry. Fighter should and always will do crazy martial damage easy. They had better. That's what they do. Paladins and barbarians are built for melee ONLY combat, and they suffer outside of that. Rangers are ideal at ranged combat, and don't stand as well as others toe to toe defensively in melee, but they can do it from a damage output perspective.
This is an opinion that is not supported by the fact that Rangers get Two Weapon Fighting and the Dueling Fighting styles. Rangers also get spells that are primarily for melee use, like Steel Wind Strike, Ensnaring Strike, and Zephyr Strike. IOW, Rangers are supposed to be very effective for melee if the player wants them to be. I don't see why they should be taking a feat that is half useless to them to stay effective.
As you have just said yourself, the base Ranger is the red-headed stepchild with an identity crisis. Even you acknowledge that the class design is not cohesive compared to most other classes.
And THEN you just acknowledged that Ranger spells don't go well with "reaction to cast a spell" against a creature moving away from the Ranger portion of Warcaster. This is definitely not a good design. A player who wants to build a good melee Ranger should be able to build one to be just as effective, overall, as a melee Paladin minus smite nova-ing. Or a melee Eldritch Knight, which is also a part caster/part weapon-specialist. These are fair comparisons.
Of the three of those, none actually require a melee weapon attack. Ensnaring Strike and Zephyr Strike can be equally useful with ranged weapons, as they only require a weapon attack. Steel Wind Strike makes spell attacks and ends within melee, so it encourages melee combat but isn't limited to that style of play.
My point is that these are spells that are generally more useful for a melee character than a ranged character. Also you just ignored the Fighting Style portion of my comment.
they can be good for both ranged or melee.
I am an average mathematics enjoyer.
>Extended Signature<
Oh sure! In fact, a single weapon “dueling” ranger is my favorite. My intent was: ranger melee < ranger bow and paladin bow < paladin melee.
Sorry,, I missed your post b/c of the walls of text that did not address my issues with the class.
RE: Hunter's Mark. That's a complex issue, one that I don't want to spend too much space on. However, HMark is THE spell that's supposed to keep Ranger DPR up in comparison to other combat-centric classes. HMark is large part of the reason why maintaining concentration is important to Rangers. (Though there are plenty of other great candidates for concentration, like Conjure Animals and Grasping Vine.) Frankly, I think the devs are considering increasing the # of HMark slots and/or getting rid of concentration requirement for this spell for the very reason that they don't want to deal with the concentration/Warcaster sub-optimacy (new word) of melee Rangers directly. Changing Ranger concentration or creating a new feat that works with Rangers' lack of cantrips seems to make more sense to me b/c I agree that multi-classing Ranger with a few Warlock levels can be OP once concentration-free version of HMark is mixed with Hex.
Oh, God, the formatting. What did you do?
And, look, you may not think this is good design, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree. How many paladin spells are viable? For crying out loud, you mention what I wrote about but you don't include the text. Which means you're trying to obfuscate context, so here it is for people to look at again.
So, both the ranger and wizard typically the same number of benefits out of War Caster; even if they're not the same benefits. This isn't bad design. War Caster isn't mandatory. It's a choice. More than that, it's an optional rule the DM doesn't even have to allow.
And whether any of us think the design of ranger isn't "cohesive" is beside the point. The ranger has always been a skirmisher mix of druid, fighter, and rogue. And this design can trace its roots all the way back to when the ranger first became its own thing in AD&D 2nd edition. At issue is whether or not the design, as awkward as it might seem, actually works and is "underpowered" as the thread title asks.
Having said that, a melee ranger as-is can absolutely compete with a paladin who isn't "nova smiting." Sans feats and magical equipment, a ranger with TWF is keeping up with or outpacing a GWF paladin throughout most tiers. Though usually a little behind the ranger, the paladin has the advantage of magical damage and a higher chance of hitting their target. Paladins don't really pull ahead until they use an upcast Elemental Weapon, but that's a 5th-level slot up against a 1st-level slot for Hunter's Mark. And this pattern repeats itself if both rely on the Dueling style.
And when I say the paladin pulls ahead, I mean they deal an average of 3-4 DPR more.
What is so awesome about Great Weapon Fighting Style? You can change reroll a 1 or a 2 and must take the new roll. That leads to a (3.5, 3.5, 3, 4, 5, 6)×2 average or a (6.5, 6.5, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) average or a (5.5, 5.5, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) average. Sure that could go from 1 or 2 damage to 10 or 12 damage, but it's much more likely to be an average increase of less than 2 points of damage. It's not a prerequisite to getting GWM feat. I'd rather take defensive fighting style for a 5% better chance to avoid damage, or take dueling or two weapon fighting style for better damage bonuses and/or better defense. Outside of Nova capabilities, Ranger is within 2 average points of damage assuming Paladin takes Great Weapon Fighting and neither uses a spell and assuming that they're specced as close as possible. If the Ranger takes more dex to max out their AC than the Paladin takes, the Ranger will have better dex saves. That's offset at 6 when Paladin gets Aura of Protection. Paladin will have better Wis saves, but Ranger doesn't have to make use of Charisma or intelligence meaning that the drop off isn't as big even after 6th level. And if you really want to drop dex that much, Human Variant Heavily Armored gives you heavy armor proficiency at 1st level.
Leaving off EK (subclass), Fighter can pull away from either Paladin or Ranger after 11th level but Paladin can pull even with nova damage and Ranger can pull even by going to AOE builds before considering subclasses. Fighter won't give you as much out of combat utility as either Paladin or Ranger, though subclasses can help them pull even while the half casters get more utility or more combat (or both).
I'm not sure why Rangers are being boohooed about not having cantrips but Paladins get a pass there (Warcaster isn't as necessary for Paladins, oh no Rangers can't use a spell to get scaling damage on an OA. YMMV on that depending on DMs pushing OAs, which means it's just as dependent on usefulness as all of the Ranger abilities that keep getting panned).
Incidentally, I read through the Ranger intro and I didn't see anything that specifically said that Rangers had to use strength for melee (the closest is that some rangers will focus on strength instead of dexterity for two weapon fighting). I don't recall who brought that up but going Strength just to put the Ranger at more of a disadvantage, particularly when demanding Wisdom for Foe Slayer is disingenuous. While strength Rangers can be a thing and they can be effective, a dex Ranger is going to be more effective in melee while still retaining more of its Ranger identity skill effectiveness.
The simple fact of the matter just might be that Ranger isn't for you. It's certainly not ideal for power gamers because it has too many things that power gamers undervalue (versatility building components) and not enough of what they overvalue (specialization building components, especially single target abilities that stack on each other) when compared to something like fighter. I look at it and I don't think that Ranger lacks in comparison unless your looking strictly at single target spikey damage. Otherwise, your deltas will be within a few points on average. This doesn't mean that it's underpowered, it just means that it's power base differs from what you're looking for. If you want your Ranger to play more like a Fighter, then play a Fighter. If you buff the Ranger so that it can compete in single target nova damage with Fighter and Paladin, then everyone will complain about how it's pointless to be a fighter or Paladin when you can do the same stuff with a Ranger and still do Ranger things, too. And if I can do single target spikey damage and stack that onto a build that has good AoE damage, then why are the other players even there, especially when I can set up traps, stealth in to position, Hide in Plain Sight, then spring my spikey damage traps on a group of enemies and whittle the numbers down before they have a chance to even have a turn?
One thing about Steel Wind Strike that favors Song of Blues reading of it being a melee spell is that the material component has to be a melee weapon costing at least 1 sp. The flourishes have to be made with the melee weapon per the spell description.
I disagree with Ensnaring Strike and Zephyr Strike being more useful on a melee character, they just fulfill different rolls or are equally effective. Ensnaring Strike is an awesome anti caster spell, particularly if the caster doesn't have friends close who are available to free them. Being able to force a DC 10 con save through concentration while attacking from ranged is arguably more effective than on a melee character and being able to break LoS with a caster and force them to waste actions trying to get free is lovely.
Zephyr Strike changes from a infiltration and escape spell to an escape and clear spell for ranged users. Getting to disengage, dash, and attack for a ranged character is a lovely thing.
Your point fails to stand because two of those spells are equally effective whether engaged in melee or at range. Heck, a beast master ranger can cast Ensnaring Strike and affect two targets with both their bow and their Animal Companion's natural weapons; allowing them to leave two targets restrained for the price of one 1st-level spell slot. For that matter, they could also cast Conjure Barrage and pull off a feat of spell-twinning that no sorcerer could ever hope to reproduce. (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/06/12/spell-range-self/)
I wasn't even going to bother with the fighting styles because...why bother? I've said more about them that's been quoted in this thread. I know how effective their respective styles are. If you remove smiting from the equation, rangers are competitive with paladins in every tier of play. It doesn't matter if the paladin uses Divine Favor, Magic Weapon, or Elemental Weapon. The paladin can't consistently outpace the ranger until 17th level, and even then the ranger doesn't have to use a spell slot to keep up.
And if they're both using a single 5th-level spell slot (an upcast Elemental Weapon and Swift Quiver, respectively), the ranger can absolutely blow the paladin out of the water. The paladin has to spend a 2nd-level slot for a 4d8 improved divine smite once per round just to keep up with a beast master with a longbow and a wolf. And that's without any feats.
The ranger might not be as durable as a fighter or paladin as they're stuck in, at best, medium armor, but they don't need to be. They're not designed to be shiny tanks. They're skirmishers.
"If you remove smiting from the equation"
Lets remove the major ability from Paladin and say its a fair comparison!
The delusion here is so bad its sad....good luck to you all and I look forward to the CFV which will hopefully fix Ranger!
*AHEM*
Emphasis has been added to the standard set forth by the person I was responding to. If you want to keep arguing with me, you're barking up the wrong tree.
Oh yeah I am saying its a stupid argument either way and honestly Ranger is terrible without its spell casting. At least paladin doesn't rely on Concentration checks to keep up its DPR over the day. Anywho I am unsubscribed from this thread as of now as its obvious that the delusion runs strong here....CFV FTW!
Smiting is a limited resource and lines up with Ranger AoE abilities. Improved Divine Smite is fine to apply since it adds 1d8 radiant damage to all melee attacks at 11th level. Base Ranger doesn't have anything to match that single target if we are assuming that a Paladin is using Divine Favor to counter most of Hunter's Mark. If they aren't, then Paladin goes up an average point of damage as opposed to down an average point of damage. A Ranger relies on the subclass for an 11th level bump, since that's all it gets at 11th level is archetype features.
Smiting itself is 2d8 damage for a first level spell up to 5d8 damage for a 4th or greater. Tack an extra 1d8 onto it if it's against an undead.
A Ranger can match that by casting Hail of Thorns for 1d10 on a failed save against 2 creatures or half as much against 4 creatures that all save. It bumps up by 1d10 per spell level. The maximum number of creatures it can hit is 9 (the creature and the 8 squares around it) unless there are also flying creatures within 5 ft above the creature (pushing it to a max of 18). "But it's not single target damage!" Why discount AOE when you complain about discounting Smites?
Jounichi1983, we should also mention that magic weapon and elemental weapon specifically say a non-magical weapon. So that is kind of a fly in the ointment at these levels for any martial.
Once again the ranger's "power" in combat alongside their fighter, paladin, rogue, and barbarian brethren comes from their spell list. Since the recent posts are focusing in on tier 4 of play here are some of my favorite!
Conjure animals (yes I know "the DM decides" and all that) is either a bunch of help actions (great for partywide buffing), a "wall of fur" (great for defense and tanking), or claws and fangs (non-magical damage, but damage none the less). If enemies hit the animals then that's like free hit points for the party! Levels 17, 18, 19, and 20 the ranger can conjure twice as many! (I know the druid can do this earlier, but we aren't comparing what a ranger can do next to a full spellcaster, we are comparing what a ranger can do next to another marital class).
Swift quiver is big damage output, and a beast master trades one of their bow attacks for the beat's full (magical) two attacks, which is 26 (2d4 + 2 +6)*2 for a wolf at levels 17+ just for the wolf.
Conjure volley seems...WAY more useful than destructive wave.
I always come back to hail of thorns. xd10 seems like not very much, but it's an AoE so your looking for double or triple targets when you use it, it's a very tight AoE which is important much of the time to pinpoint areas to avoid hitting your buddies, it's a bonus action so your other damage (including the beast again!) still takes place, and it's area of effect is dependent on the initial target, meaning a large creature could hit more secondary targets! Same for lightning arrow.
I know many folks don't like foe slayer but, man, if you are calculating damage to-hit ratios, it is AMAZING! It makes sure you hit when you need to (all of these spells that trigger on a hit) and if you hit without it than its free damage.
Fog cloud is wonderful. Greater invisibility on one PC is great. But a 5th level fog cloud is a 100 foot radius of "no effects or spells that require the target to be seen will work now". Defensively, for a martial character, this is off the charts good.
Find greater steed will always be my most hated perk the paladin gets. (sigh) How I wish the ranger had something like this. Not the beast master, all rangers, with a good permanent conjure spell like find steed and find greater steed. Even if it was just more like find familiar. I know some folks do this kind of thing instead of a beast master, and I like the idea, but it's different.