I would like to point out in most of my games. If a ranger has one or two spell slots they say they can can keep adventuring for the day. a Paladin, wizard, druid usually will start a debate about taking a long rest. Rangers seem to be better at longer adventuring days. Sometimes your just on the clock and they have out of combat backup to help the situation.
You're confusing monster killer with hunter. Hunting includes the search and pursuit (ie tracking, perception) as well as slaying. The Ranger gets numerous bonuses to the former as well as the latter. The only similar class would be the rogue.
Okay, that's fair. Tracking is certainly something the Ranger is more specifically suited for.
I think the identity crisis of the class is in part because of these themes, or rather, the ways that the developers chose to define them and how they should work in-game. Monster hunting and exploration don't require spell-casting. Spell casting may be useful, but not especially so unless your quarry are themselves capable of casting spells. However, none of the Ranger spells have anything specifically to do with fighting spellcasters. (No Counterspell or strong divination options, for instance.) And there isn't enough pop cultural precedent for Rangers as capable magic users since so many of the game references are inspired by Tolkien, whose Rangers used very little overt magic outside of magic items.
I found rangers to be decent at killing mages. between Silence and Fog cloud many spells are shut down. even more spells are at disadvantage in a fog. The mobility options tend to get you in close which the mages hate. At later levels the ranger Feral Senses was one of the few options to detect invisible enemies all the time. (Blind sight fighting style diminished this) To me ranger vs mage fights are actually kind of fun. not guaranteed for either side but the best tactics will win out.
A first level paladin smite does 2d8 of added damage. Each trigger of a ranger’s hunter’s mark does 1d6. So a ranger needs, what? One and a half or two rounds to get the same “value” out of their spell slot.
By levels 9 and up a paladin is using higher level spell slots for smites. At these same levels a ranger should be using hail of thorns, lightning arrow, spike growth, and conjure animals more than hunter’s mark for damage. All of these do more damage than a smite with the equivalent level spell slot. Rangers get more “bang for their buck” with a given spell slot than paladins. What’s the exchange? Smites are are “on demand” and paladins have auras and lay on hands.
Yep. I agree at low levels Warcaster is the better option just to maintain spells. Longterm Resilient is better, and for the most common Concentration check (10) it doesn't take all that long to be equal. In general to me its more of a question of whether you want the extra hit points and a broader use of the save, or the other warcaster abilities.
I have a character in a particular pickle. 15 con and was playing on getting Resilient at 4th level, but got an Amulet of Health (everyone in a 5 person party had a 14 or better). Now Resilient doesn't help as much (since one of the other casters in the party would then get the Amulet), but Warcaster becomes better. So I punted at 4th level and took something else.
I do find the obsession over how to make DC16+ concentration checks to be kind of silly. You just took 32+ damage to get that check. You got bigger fish to fry than maybe having to recast Hunter's Mark on your bonus action.
I would like to point out in most of my games. If a ranger has one or two spell slots they say they can can keep adventuring for the day. a Paladin, wizard, druid usually will start a debate about taking a long rest. Rangers seem to be better at longer adventuring days. Sometimes your just on the clock and they have out of combat backup to help the situation.
I have noticed this as well. Ranger can go all day. With Tasha's and Favored Foe they can go even longer. For the Ranger the core abilities keep you running longer.
I would like to point out in most of my games. If a ranger has one or two spell slots they say they can can keep adventuring for the day. a Paladin, wizard, druid usually will start a debate about taking a long rest. Rangers seem to be better at longer adventuring days. Sometimes your just on the clock and they have out of combat backup to help the situation.
I have noticed this as well. Ranger can go all day. With Tasha's and Favored Foe they can go even longer. For the Ranger the core abilities keep you running longer.
That's a matter of how spendy the character is with resources, and that often depends on the group.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I would like to point out in most of my games. If a ranger has one or two spell slots they say they can can keep adventuring for the day. a Paladin, wizard, druid usually will start a debate about taking a long rest. Rangers seem to be better at longer adventuring days. Sometimes your just on the clock and they have out of combat backup to help the situation.
I have noticed this as well. Ranger can go all day. With Tasha's and Favored Foe they can go even longer. For the Ranger the core abilities keep you running longer.
That's a matter of how spendy the character is with resources, and that often depends on the group.
The point is paladins tend to be spendy with their spell slots. Based on the number of combats paladins run out of steam a lot faster than a ranger will. My dm tends to mix up adventuring days so some days are one big baddy and some are long drawn out affairs. Pallly seems better at one Ranger at the other. This sounds like good design to me.
Running out slots is a lot more important at lower levels. The concentration issue also becomes less of a problem at higher levels because of more slots. Also as level increases the default damage options tend to change for the ranger due to availability and encounter design possibilities. (ie. higher # of enemies becomes more CR appropriate making AOE and PC # ofattacks bigger deals, or monster unique traits )
I would like to point out in most of my games. If a ranger has one or two spell slots they say they can can keep adventuring for the day. a Paladin, wizard, druid usually will start a debate about taking a long rest. Rangers seem to be better at longer adventuring days. Sometimes your just on the clock and they have out of combat backup to help the situation.
I have noticed this as well. Ranger can go all day. With Tasha's and Favored Foe they can go even longer. For the Ranger the core abilities keep you running longer.
That's a matter of how spendy the character is with resources, and that often depends on the group.
The point is paladins tend to be spendy with their spell slots.
I don't know that that's true. Most paladins I see played only smite when they think it's opportune, and are usually willing to go on if them spending their resources has allowed others to conserve theirs. Tanky paladins in particular contribute just fine in combat simply holding up enemies, they don't have to be racking up extreme damage all the time.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
But yet most ranger damage comparisons are by the paladins nova.
Not speaking for anyone but myself, I think most damage comparisons are pointless. The ranger isn't hurting for damage. I think that's clear enough to anyone looking at it objectively. And if that's true, comparing it further is nothing but a pissing contest. All classes, even the Fighter, bring more to the table than their damage output.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Rangers have more out of combat (social and exploration) use in their class abilities, subclass abilities, and spells then paladins do.
I think you underestimate the paladin, particularly their spell list, but ultimately this is just as pointless a comparison as trying to calculate respective damage outputs. Neither is hurting for out of combat usefulness. They're both better off in that regard than fighters or monks, arguably, and given how much use all classes can get out of an interesting background even those two don't have to have a problem in that regard either.
Telling people who are dissatisfied with a class that it's better at whatever than some other class is not much of an argument if you want to change their minds. It's certainly not any better than if those people express their personal experiences as an argument for the class being lacking. People are always going to have some reason or other not to enjoy particular classes, and even if that reason is mechanical that doesn't have to mean the class is mechanically bad.
We can certainly discuss mechanics we feel aren't up to snuff (obviously, looking at this thread and countless others), but there are always subjective and circumstantial components that the mechanics can't account for. Not every DM is equally good at handling exploration or social challenges. Not every module calls on them equally. Even creating opportunities to use out of combat abilities is usually fundamentally different from combat challenges. Combat you either engage or try to go around, and if engaged you win, lose or retreat. It's fairly granular in terms of outcome. Non-combat situations are usually more open-ended, and (good) DMs take care that even terrible failure out of combat doesn't prevent progress altogether - whatever door it closes and however many doors it closes, there should always be more doors.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
So all comparisons are pointless? Combat, social, and exploration? I don’t disagree with you there. I disagree and choose to defend when others say “Ranger bad.” on the internet.
So all comparisons are pointless? Combat, social, and exploration? I don’t disagree with you there. I disagree and choose to defend when others say “Ranger bad.” on the internet.
Not every comparison is pointless, but a lot of them are beyond serving to decide pissing contests. The main value is figuring out whether an aspect of a class clears the bar or not - by how much is not all that interesting unless it's excessive, and I don't think that to be the case for any class (potential anomalies due to highly specific interactions between mechanics notwithstanding). More on topic, class balance isn't determined by any one aspect of the class, and non-combat aspects are hard to quantify to begin with.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
So all comparisons are pointless? Combat, social, and exploration? I don’t disagree with you there. I disagree and choose to defend when others say “Ranger bad.” on the internet.
Not every comparison is pointless, but a lot of them are beyond serving to decide pissing contests. The main value is figuring out whether an aspect of a class clears the bar or not - by how much is not all that interesting unless it's excessive, and I don't think that to be the case for any class (potential anomalies due to highly specific interactions between mechanics notwithstanding). More on topic, class balance isn't determined by any one aspect of the class, and non-combat aspects are hard to quantify to begin with.
I think your last sentence wrapped up the ranger class very well.
Paladin seem to be more if a nova damage type, while ranger us more sustained damage
Being a nova damage type doesn't mean you have to go for nova damage all the time, or that damage is the only meaningful contribution you can make.
Exactly. Comparing paladin burst damage to a ranger's sustained damage (via Hunter Marks, the extra damage from subclass once per turn, etc) is an exercise doomed to failure. Kind of my point.
While I firmly believe that there is value in comparing the paladin to the ranger (and, perhaps now, the artificer) as half-casters, DPR is not a good comparison to make.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I would like to point out in most of my games. If a ranger has one or two spell slots they say they can can keep adventuring for the day. a Paladin, wizard, druid usually will start a debate about taking a long rest. Rangers seem to be better at longer adventuring days. Sometimes your just on the clock and they have out of combat backup to help the situation.
I found rangers to be decent at killing mages. between Silence and Fog cloud many spells are shut down. even more spells are at disadvantage in a fog. The mobility options tend to get you in close which the mages hate. At later levels the ranger Feral Senses was one of the few options to detect invisible enemies all the time. (Blind sight fighting style diminished this) To me ranger vs mage fights are actually kind of fun. not guaranteed for either side but the best tactics will win out.
A first level paladin smite does 2d8 of added damage. Each trigger of a ranger’s hunter’s mark does 1d6. So a ranger needs, what? One and a half or two rounds to get the same “value” out of their spell slot.
By levels 9 and up a paladin is using higher level spell slots for smites. At these same levels a ranger should be using hail of thorns, lightning arrow, spike growth, and conjure animals more than hunter’s mark for damage. All of these do more damage than a smite with the equivalent level spell slot. Rangers get more “bang for their buck” with a given spell slot than paladins. What’s the exchange? Smites are are “on demand” and paladins have auras and lay on hands.
Yep. I agree at low levels Warcaster is the better option just to maintain spells. Longterm Resilient is better, and for the most common Concentration check (10) it doesn't take all that long to be equal. In general to me its more of a question of whether you want the extra hit points and a broader use of the save, or the other warcaster abilities.
I have a character in a particular pickle. 15 con and was playing on getting Resilient at 4th level, but got an Amulet of Health (everyone in a 5 person party had a 14 or better). Now Resilient doesn't help as much (since one of the other casters in the party would then get the Amulet), but Warcaster becomes better. So I punted at 4th level and took something else.
I do find the obsession over how to make DC16+ concentration checks to be kind of silly. You just took 32+ damage to get that check. You got bigger fish to fry than maybe having to recast Hunter's Mark on your bonus action.
I have noticed this as well. Ranger can go all day. With Tasha's and Favored Foe they can go even longer. For the Ranger the core abilities keep you running longer.
That's a matter of how spendy the character is with resources, and that often depends on the group.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The point is paladins tend to be spendy with their spell slots. Based on the number of combats paladins run out of steam a lot faster than a ranger will. My dm tends to mix up adventuring days so some days are one big baddy and some are long drawn out affairs. Pallly seems better at one Ranger at the other. This sounds like good design to me.
Running out slots is a lot more important at lower levels. The concentration issue also becomes less of a problem at higher levels because of more slots. Also as level increases the default damage options tend to change for the ranger due to availability and encounter design possibilities. (ie. higher # of enemies becomes more CR appropriate making AOE and PC # ofattacks bigger deals, or monster unique traits )
I don't know that that's true. Most paladins I see played only smite when they think it's opportune, and are usually willing to go on if them spending their resources has allowed others to conserve theirs. Tanky paladins in particular contribute just fine in combat simply holding up enemies, they don't have to be racking up extreme damage all the time.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Paladin seem to be more if a nova damage type, while ranger us more sustained damage
Being a nova damage type doesn't mean you have to go for nova damage all the time, or that damage is the only meaningful contribution you can make.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
But yet most ranger damage comparisons are by the paladins nova.
Not speaking for anyone but myself, I think most damage comparisons are pointless. The ranger isn't hurting for damage. I think that's clear enough to anyone looking at it objectively. And if that's true, comparing it further is nothing but a pissing contest. All classes, even the Fighter, bring more to the table than their damage output.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Rangers have more out of combat (social and exploration) use in their class abilities, subclass abilities, and spells then paladins do.
I think you underestimate the paladin, particularly their spell list, but ultimately this is just as pointless a comparison as trying to calculate respective damage outputs. Neither is hurting for out of combat usefulness. They're both better off in that regard than fighters or monks, arguably, and given how much use all classes can get out of an interesting background even those two don't have to have a problem in that regard either.
Telling people who are dissatisfied with a class that it's better at whatever than some other class is not much of an argument if you want to change their minds. It's certainly not any better than if those people express their personal experiences as an argument for the class being lacking. People are always going to have some reason or other not to enjoy particular classes, and even if that reason is mechanical that doesn't have to mean the class is mechanically bad.
We can certainly discuss mechanics we feel aren't up to snuff (obviously, looking at this thread and countless others), but there are always subjective and circumstantial components that the mechanics can't account for. Not every DM is equally good at handling exploration or social challenges. Not every module calls on them equally. Even creating opportunities to use out of combat abilities is usually fundamentally different from combat challenges. Combat you either engage or try to go around, and if engaged you win, lose or retreat. It's fairly granular in terms of outcome. Non-combat situations are usually more open-ended, and (good) DMs take care that even terrible failure out of combat doesn't prevent progress altogether - whatever door it closes and however many doors it closes, there should always be more doors.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
So all comparisons are pointless? Combat, social, and exploration? I don’t disagree with you there. I disagree and choose to defend when others say “Ranger bad.” on the internet.
Not every comparison is pointless, but a lot of them are beyond serving to decide pissing contests. The main value is figuring out whether an aspect of a class clears the bar or not - by how much is not all that interesting unless it's excessive, and I don't think that to be the case for any class (potential anomalies due to highly specific interactions between mechanics notwithstanding). More on topic, class balance isn't determined by any one aspect of the class, and non-combat aspects are hard to quantify to begin with.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I think your last sentence wrapped up the ranger class very well.
Exactly. Comparing paladin burst damage to a ranger's sustained damage (via Hunter Marks, the extra damage from subclass once per turn, etc) is an exercise doomed to failure. Kind of my point.
While I firmly believe that there is value in comparing the paladin to the ranger (and, perhaps now, the artificer) as half-casters, DPR is not a good comparison to make.