What makes them amazing in their element? I cannot think of any time that being able to track someone with advantage is better than having aura of protection. Not one. A paladin out of their element is better than a ranger out of their element, and is better than a ranger IN their element. Same with fighter. And Sorcerer. Wizard. Bard. Basically every class (bar some subclasses).
what makes them amazing in their element. I cannot think of any time that being able to track someone with advantage is better than having aura of protection. Not one.
Yes, exactly. Just compare them. Paladins get so many good, useful features, and at least 4 of the ranger's main class features are nearly completely useless in most campaigns (natural explorer, favored enemy, primeval awareness, and hide in plain sight), while also having comparatively bad features (land's stride compared to aura of protection or indomitable, vanish compared to cleansing touch or extra attack 2). It's just bad. Objectively, comparatively, truly bad.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
what makes them amazing in their element. I cannot think of any time that being able to track someone with advantage is better than having aura of protection. Not one.
Yes, exactly. Just compare them. Paladins get so many good, useful features, and at least 4 of the ranger's main class features are nearly completely useless in most campaigns (natural explorer, favored enemy, primeval awareness, and hide in plain sight), while also having comparatively bad features (land's stride compared to aura of protection or indomitable, vanish compared to cleansing touch or extra attack 2). It's just bad. Objectively, comparatively, truly bad.
I disagree. Not bad, just worse. I have used these features and gotten decent mileage out of them, but no-where near as much as a pally or a fighter. Even in an exploration adventure, I would pick a scout rogue, a dex barb, a druid, an arcane archer......anything but a ranger, because I know after a while it will get dull.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Also, no-one is saying the ranger is completely useless, objectively awful, and only doofuses play them. We are saying that compared to a lot of other classes, they are comparatively worse. Not bad, just....less good. I play rangers a lot, and you can have a lot of fun, but it often becomes hard to be useful, especially if there is a scout rogue in the party......
They're definitely not completely useless. The corpse of a dead ranger could be used as a paperweight . . .
Jokes aside, I have had plenty of rangers in my games, and know the rules of the system very well as having been a DM in this edition for over 3 years now. When compared to Paladins, Rogues (especially scouts or arcane tricksters), Fighters, and other classes, they are objectively awful. They are useful, but their usefulness isn't potent enough and doesn't come into play frequently enough. I definitely wouldn't call anyone who plays rangers doofuses, that's rude and uncalled for. If other players have fun playing rangers, I'm not going to insult them because constructive fun cannot be wrong or bad.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
what makes them amazing in their element. I cannot think of any time that being able to track someone with advantage is better than having aura of protection. Not one.
Yes, exactly. Just compare them. Paladins get so many good, useful features, and at least 4 of the ranger's main class features are nearly completely useless in most campaigns (natural explorer, favored enemy, primeval awareness, and hide in plain sight), while also having comparatively bad features (land's stride compared to aura of protection or indomitable, vanish compared to cleansing touch or extra attack 2). It's just bad. Objectively, comparatively, truly bad.
I disagree. Not bad, just worse. I have used these features and gotten decent mileage out of them, but no-where near as much as a pally or a fighter. Even in an exploration adventure, I would pick a scout rogue, a dex barb, a druid, an arcane archer......anything but a ranger, because I know after a while it will get dull.
To me (because I'm a pessimist) the definition of being worse than something is the same as being "comparatively bad." It's just like how in real life and D&D a fork is a bad weapon when compared to a longsword.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
What makes them amazing in their element? I cannot think of any time that being able to track someone with advantage is better than having aura of protection. Not one. A paladin out of their element is better than a ranger out of their element, and is better than a ranger IN their element. Same with fighter. And Sorcerer. Wizard. Bard. Basically every class (bar some subclasses).
Fighters and paladins are experts at combat. The paladin's typically higher charisma also means they have decent potential in the Social Interaction pillar. But fighters do only one thing well and that's hurting things. Their strengths lie in a different pillar of the game. And in games that feature combat more, they're going to increasingly see use.
Favored Enemy does far more than give a leg up in tracking a subject. It lets you learn languages and know the target's strengths, weaknesses, and habits. It's a source of information. Natural Explorer is so strong it practically trivializes the Exploration pillar if you bother to use the rules for being out in the wilderness. Land's Stride is a solid mobility buff, though those benefits are not also passed on to the Beast Master's Animal Companion. Hide in Plain Sight stacks with pass without trace and...have you seen the movie Predator? Now, picture Arnold Schwarzenegger in the finale. It's a strong and evocative class feature.
Yes, the ranger's strengths are largely situational. Players have a responsibility to seek out situations to take advantage of those strengths. And work with the DM behind the scenes to make sure they're not screwing you out of a chance to shine. Part of the DM's responsibility is to run a game for everyone at the table. And that means not gimping a particular class for whatever reason.
Make sure the barbarian has something to fight. Make sure the rogue can use their thieves' cant and tools. And make sure the ranger gets to use their favored enemy and terrains. It doesn't have to be all the time; every session. But it should be done within reason. A ranger might be discouraged by the urban sprawl of Waterdeep: Dragon Heist, but they knew what they were getting into in the first place. I was disappointed none of my players made one for Curse of Strahd, but they did alright. And I fully expect to see one for Rime of the Frostmaiden.
We should change the name of this thread to Are Rangers and Fighters Underpowered Compared to Paladins.
I think you're forgetting that Fighters get more ASIs than both Paladins or Rangers, get 3 extra attacks at level 11, and is the chassis for a vast array of multi-class options because of how useful their armor, weapon, and CON saving throw proficiencies are + Action Surge at level 2. These features are in demand in all manner of campaigns. A level 2 Ranger? Not so much unless wilderness survival is going to come up.
What makes them amazing in their element? I cannot think of any time that being able to track someone with advantage is better than having aura of protection. Not one. A paladin out of their element is better than a ranger out of their element, and is better than a ranger IN their element. Same with fighter. And Sorcerer. Wizard. Bard. Basically every class (bar some subclasses).
Fighters and paladins are experts at combat. The paladin's typically higher charisma also means they have decent potential in the Social Interaction pillar. But fighters do only one thing well and that's hurting things. Their strengths lie in a different pillar of the game. And in games that feature combat more, they're going to increasingly see use.
Favored Enemy does far more than give a leg up in tracking a subject. It lets you learn languages and know the target's strengths, weaknesses, and habits. It's a source of information. Natural Explorer is so strong it practically trivializes the Exploration pillar if you bother to use the rules for being out in the wilderness. Land's Stride is a solid mobility buff, though those benefits are not also passed on to the Beast Master's Animal Companion. Hide in Plain Sight stacks with pass without trace and...have you seen the movie Predator? Now, picture Arnold Schwarzenegger in the finale. It's a strong and evocative class feature.
Yes, the ranger's strengths are largely situational. Players have a responsibility to seek out situations to take advantage of those strengths. And work with the DM behind the scenes to make sure they're not screwing you out of a chance to shine. Part of the DM's responsibility is to run a game for everyone at the table. And that means not gimping a particular class for whatever reason.
Make sure the barbarian has something to fight. Make sure the rogue can use their thieves' cant and tools. And make sure the ranger gets to use their favored enemy and terrains. It doesn't have to be all the time; every session. But it should be done within reason. A ranger might be discouraged by the urban sprawl of Waterdeep: Dragon Heist, but they knew what they were getting into in the first place. I was disappointed none of my players made one for Curse of Strahd, but they did alright. And I fully expect to see one for Rime of the Frostmaiden.
Ok. So the ranger can shine in its element. But the paladin shines brighter in ITS element.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
I love all of this focus on paladin and to a lesser degree fighter. They are campaign dependent. What are they going to do in a mystery style campaign in which you go to jail if you get in fights.
I will concede to the devout followers of the mighty paladin that paladins do a lot in a lot of games that most people play. I will ask the same zealots why doesn’t everyone play just play paladins? Or at least paladins as the only martial class along with a wizard every now and then? If they are THAT undisputed, undeniable, and superior to all other martial classes, why does anyone in their right mind ever play a barbarian, rogue, monk, ranger, or fighter?
I love all of this focus on paladin and to a lesser degree fighter. They are campaign dependent. What are they going to do in a mystery style campaign in which you go to jail if you get in fights.
I will concede to the devout followers of the mighty paladin that paladins do a lot in a lot of games that most people play. I will ask the same zealots why doesn’t everyone play just play paladins? Or at least paladins as the only martial class along with a wizard every now and then? If they are THAT undisputed, undeniable, and superior to all other martial classes, why does anyone in their right mind ever play a barbarian, rogue, monk, ranger, or fighter?
Because being in your right mind doesn’t mean you have to be a powergamer.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I love all of this focus on paladin and to a lesser degree fighter. They are campaign dependent. What are they going to do in a mystery style campaign in which you go to jail if you get in fights.
I will concede to the devout followers of the mighty paladin that paladins do a lot in a lot of games that most people play. I will ask the same zealots why doesn’t everyone play just play paladins? Or at least paladins as the only martial class along with a wizard every now and then? If they are THAT undisputed, undeniable, and superior to all other martial classes, why does anyone in their right mind ever play a barbarian, rogue, monk, ranger, or fighter?
Because being in your right mind doesn’t mean you have to be a powergamer.
Not really in the spirit I was hoping for, but I’ll take it.
What makes them amazing in their element? I cannot think of any time that being able to track someone with advantage is better than having aura of protection. Not one. A paladin out of their element is better than a ranger out of their element, and is better than a ranger IN their element. Same with fighter. And Sorcerer. Wizard. Bard. Basically every class (bar some subclasses).
Fighters and paladins are experts at combat. The paladin's typically higher charisma also means they have decent potential in the Social Interaction pillar. But fighters do only one thing well and that's hurting things. Their strengths lie in a different pillar of the game. And in games that feature combat more, they're going to increasingly see use.
Favored Enemy does far more than give a leg up in tracking a subject. It lets you learn languages and know the target's strengths, weaknesses, and habits. It's a source of information. Natural Explorer is so strong it practically trivializes the Exploration pillar if you bother to use the rules for being out in the wilderness. Land's Stride is a solid mobility buff, though those benefits are not also passed on to the Beast Master's Animal Companion. Hide in Plain Sight stacks with pass without trace and...have you seen the movie Predator? Now, picture Arnold Schwarzenegger in the finale. It's a strong and evocative class feature.
Yes, the ranger's strengths are largely situational. Players have a responsibility to seek out situations to take advantage of those strengths. And work with the DM behind the scenes to make sure they're not screwing you out of a chance to shine. Part of the DM's responsibility is to run a game for everyone at the table. And that means not gimping a particular class for whatever reason.
Make sure the barbarian has something to fight. Make sure the rogue can use their thieves' cant and tools. And make sure the ranger gets to use their favored enemy and terrains. It doesn't have to be all the time; every session. But it should be done within reason. A ranger might be discouraged by the urban sprawl of Waterdeep: Dragon Heist, but they knew what they were getting into in the first place. I was disappointed none of my players made one for Curse of Strahd, but they did alright. And I fully expect to see one for Rime of the Frostmaiden.
Ok. So the ranger can shine in its element. But the paladin shines brighter in ITS element.
Jokes about radiant damage and shining brightly aside, I'm not sure that's an argument worth having. People like what they like, and that's fine. I like paladins, too, but I also think it's foolish to hold classes up to each other like that and say who's better. It's kind of like a "who's worthy to wield Mjolnir" argument. Pointless and doesn't ultimately matter.
The ranger's TWF with short swords and hunter's markbreaks even with a dueling paladin using a longsword and Improved Divine Smite (an 11th level feature) with a 1st-level slot once per turn. So does an 11th-level Beast Master with a wolf Animal Companion and longbow casting hail of thorns with a 1st-level slot once per turn. One class deals efficient, consistent damage while the other is more "bursty". And when a paladin wants to go "nova" and use smite spells along with regular smiting, which all gets doubled on a critical, then sure. But that's part of their design. They shine under very different circumstances and contribute to the party in different ways. It's like comparing apples to...not oranges but pineapples or grapefruit. Whether the paladin's contributions outside of combat are "better" than the ranger's...how do you even weigh that?
I love all of this focus on paladin and to a lesser degree fighter. They are campaign dependent. What are they going to do in a mystery style campaign in which you go to jail if you get in fights.
I will concede to the devout followers of the mighty paladin that paladins do a lot in a lot of games that most people play. I will ask the same zealots why doesn’t everyone play just play paladins? Or at least paladins as the only martial class along with a wizard every now and then? If they are THAT undisputed, undeniable, and superior to all other martial classes, why does anyone in their right mind ever play a barbarian, rogue, monk, ranger, or fighter?
Because being in your right mind doesn’t mean you have to be a powergamer.
Not really in the spirit I was hoping for, but I’ll take it.
Honestly, I don’t know what other spirit you were hoping for if you frame the argument that way. You’re basically asking why sane people wouldn’t completely ignore flavour for mechanical efficiency. The question certainly suggests the answer.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Lots of people talk about the favored terrain thing. And how circumstantial it is. Assuming, and I do, that just like creature types (aberrations, beasts, constructs, etc.) all natural environments fit into one of these listed environment types (arctic, coast, desert, forest, grassland, mountain, swamp, or underdark) and by level 10 a ranger has more than of a third of them under their belt, that by itself it pretty good. Most, if not all, published adventures don’t feature more than two or three natural environments (please fact check me on this). Some books even only feature one, or two maximum, natural environments. In any of these the ranger has access to their “ribbon ability” as much as 50%-100% of the time. The “ribbon ability0 that gives them as much potential skills with expertise as a rogue plus everything else that comes with it. But of course, all of that does NOTHING for combat.
The ranger's TWF with short swords and hunter's markbreaks even with a dueling paladin using a longsword and Improved Divine Smite (an 11th level feature) with a 1st-level slot once per turn.
Can I get some math for this? First round of this happening I get 18.5 + 2x[Dex mod] average damage for the ranger (using his bonus action and expending a spell slot for Hunter's Mark, and including Colossus Slayer) vs 27 + 2x[Str mod] for the paladin (using his bonus action and expending a spell slot for Divine Favour). Following rounds the ranger adds 2d6 + [Dex mod] to that with his bonus action, while the paladin activates Vow of Enmity. So, breaking even after 3-4 rounds, at a guess?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Lots of people talk about the favored terrain thing. And how circumstantial it is. Assuming, and I do, that just like creature types (aberrations, beasts, constructs, etc.) all natural environments fit into one of these listed environment types (arctic, coast, desert, forest, grassland, mountain, swamp, or underdark) and by level 10 a ranger has more than of a third of them under their belt, that by itself it pretty good. Most, if not all, published adventures don’t feature more than two or three natural environments (please fact check me on this). Some books even only feature one, or two maximum, natural environments. In any of these the ranger has access to their “ribbon ability” as much as 50%-100% of the time. The “ribbon ability0 that gives them as much potential skills with expertise as a rogue plus everything else that comes with it. But of course, all of that does NOTHING for combat.
We can go through them one at a time:
Tyranny of Dragons: Rangers arguably get some use out of grassland early on, but then spend a bunch of time in cities or the road through level 7 or 8. There are stopovers in swamps and mountains, but nothing special. It's a largely linear adventure with few branching options and I have a hard time seeing how a ranger would grow organically throughout it.
Princes of the Apocalypse: This largely takes place in and around the Dessarin Valley, so lots of grassland and hills, the latter of which technically isn't an option for rangers. A DM might let coast apply along the river.
Out of the Abyss: Underdark is obvious and will see lots of use. Other terrains largely won't matter.
Curse of Strahd The Svalich Wood dominates much of the landscape, so forest is a strong choice. There are also several mountains the party might scale and a swamp with a powerful enemy.
Storm King's Thunder: Also known as the Sword Coast GT. Arctic, forest, grassland, mountain, and swamp can all see strong use, depending on which of the three towns (Bryn Shander in Icewind Dail, Goldenfields near Waterdeep, and Triboar near the Dessarin Valley in the North) you start the main adventure in. A case could also be made for coast.
Tomb of Annihilation: Takes place almost entirely in Chult, a mountainous jungle peninsula. Coast, forest, and mountain will all see some use.
Rime of the Frostmaiden: Arctic is a no-brainer, and mountains eat up a large portion of the map as well. Some forest dots the landscape, so there's your third.
I'm hesitant to include the Starter Set or Essentials Kit because they either come with pregens or have included rules that don't include the ranger. But if you want to use the PHB, ranger would get some mileage out of selecting forest early on in the Essentials Kit. They can choose mountain, for Icespire Hold, if they want or, if the party is going to Leilon afterward, coast.
Tales from the Yawning Portal is just one dungeon crawl after another. Ghosts of Saltmarsh is...weird. A larger map of Oerth isn't included, and if you follow Forgotten Realms guidance it's near Leilon and the Mere of Dead Men. Coast seems like a safe bet, but beyond that, it's tough to say.
Lots of people talk about the favored terrain thing. And how circumstantial it is. Assuming, and I do, that just like creature types (aberrations, beasts, constructs, etc.) all natural environments fit into one of these listed environment types (arctic, coast, desert, forest, grassland, mountain, swamp, or underdark) and by level 10 a ranger has more than of a third of them under their belt, that by itself it pretty good. Most, if not all, published adventures don’t feature more than two or three natural environments (please fact check me on this). Some books even only feature one, or two maximum, natural environments. In any of these the ranger has access to their “ribbon ability” as much as 50%-100% of the time. The “ribbon ability0 that gives them as much potential skills with expertise as a rogue plus everything else that comes with it. But of course, all of that does NOTHING for combat.
It's not just being in applicable terrain or meeting the right type of enemies, it's also having to do something a ranger gets a bonus for. Difficult terrain not slowing the group down is only meaningful if there are time constraints. Not getting lost is only meaningful if there are no distinguishing landscape features to find your way with. Foraging advantages are only meaningful if you have to forage. Tracking doesn't come up all that often in published adventures (partially because if there's nobody in the party who can track it becomes a hard block). Languages can be useful, but the ones that are both uncommon enough that nobody will normally have them and common enough that they will come up in adventures are fairly limited in number. Information checks on enemies can be anywhere from extremely useful to pointless (and with commonly known enemies often get metagamed).
As with the ranger most of the time, it seems like a couple of you are making up scenarios and making strict interpretations of the abilities that limit the ranger. On purpose. Why eliminating rules that, that being gone, benefit the paladin.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
What makes them amazing in their element? I cannot think of any time that being able to track someone with advantage is better than having aura of protection. Not one. A paladin out of their element is better than a ranger out of their element, and is better than a ranger IN their element. Same with fighter. And Sorcerer. Wizard. Bard. Basically every class (bar some subclasses).
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Yes, exactly. Just compare them. Paladins get so many good, useful features, and at least 4 of the ranger's main class features are nearly completely useless in most campaigns (natural explorer, favored enemy, primeval awareness, and hide in plain sight), while also having comparatively bad features (land's stride compared to aura of protection or indomitable, vanish compared to cleansing touch or extra attack 2). It's just bad. Objectively, comparatively, truly bad.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I disagree. Not bad, just worse. I have used these features and gotten decent mileage out of them, but no-where near as much as a pally or a fighter. Even in an exploration adventure, I would pick a scout rogue, a dex barb, a druid, an arcane archer......anything but a ranger, because I know after a while it will get dull.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
They're definitely not completely useless. The corpse of a dead ranger could be used as a paperweight . . .
Jokes aside, I have had plenty of rangers in my games, and know the rules of the system very well as having been a DM in this edition for over 3 years now. When compared to Paladins, Rogues (especially scouts or arcane tricksters), Fighters, and other classes, they are objectively awful. They are useful, but their usefulness isn't potent enough and doesn't come into play frequently enough. I definitely wouldn't call anyone who plays rangers doofuses, that's rude and uncalled for. If other players have fun playing rangers, I'm not going to insult them because constructive fun cannot be wrong or bad.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
To me (because I'm a pessimist) the definition of being worse than something is the same as being "comparatively bad." It's just like how in real life and D&D a fork is a bad weapon when compared to a longsword.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Fighters and paladins are experts at combat. The paladin's typically higher charisma also means they have decent potential in the Social Interaction pillar. But fighters do only one thing well and that's hurting things. Their strengths lie in a different pillar of the game. And in games that feature combat more, they're going to increasingly see use.
Favored Enemy does far more than give a leg up in tracking a subject. It lets you learn languages and know the target's strengths, weaknesses, and habits. It's a source of information. Natural Explorer is so strong it practically trivializes the Exploration pillar if you bother to use the rules for being out in the wilderness. Land's Stride is a solid mobility buff, though those benefits are not also passed on to the Beast Master's Animal Companion. Hide in Plain Sight stacks with pass without trace and...have you seen the movie Predator? Now, picture Arnold Schwarzenegger in the finale. It's a strong and evocative class feature.
Yes, the ranger's strengths are largely situational. Players have a responsibility to seek out situations to take advantage of those strengths. And work with the DM behind the scenes to make sure they're not screwing you out of a chance to shine. Part of the DM's responsibility is to run a game for everyone at the table. And that means not gimping a particular class for whatever reason.
Make sure the barbarian has something to fight. Make sure the rogue can use their thieves' cant and tools. And make sure the ranger gets to use their favored enemy and terrains. It doesn't have to be all the time; every session. But it should be done within reason. A ranger might be discouraged by the urban sprawl of Waterdeep: Dragon Heist, but they knew what they were getting into in the first place. I was disappointed none of my players made one for Curse of Strahd, but they did alright. And I fully expect to see one for Rime of the Frostmaiden.
I think you're forgetting that Fighters get more ASIs than both Paladins or Rangers, get 3 extra attacks at level 11, and is the chassis for a vast array of multi-class options because of how useful their armor, weapon, and CON saving throw proficiencies are + Action Surge at level 2. These features are in demand in all manner of campaigns. A level 2 Ranger? Not so much unless wilderness survival is going to come up.
Ok. So the ranger can shine in its element. But the paladin shines brighter in ITS element.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Actually giving a ranger the choice to take “urban” makes for a great time. Like in WD:DH for example.
I love all of this focus on paladin and to a lesser degree fighter. They are campaign dependent. What are they going to do in a mystery style campaign in which you go to jail if you get in fights.
I will concede to the devout followers of the mighty paladin that paladins do a lot in a lot of games that most people play. I will ask the same zealots why doesn’t everyone play just play paladins? Or at least paladins as the only martial class along with a wizard every now and then? If they are THAT undisputed, undeniable, and superior to all other martial classes, why does anyone in their right mind ever play a barbarian, rogue, monk, ranger, or fighter?
Because being in your right mind doesn’t mean you have to be a powergamer.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Not really in the spirit I was hoping for, but I’ll take it.
Jokes about radiant damage and shining brightly aside, I'm not sure that's an argument worth having. People like what they like, and that's fine. I like paladins, too, but I also think it's foolish to hold classes up to each other like that and say who's better. It's kind of like a "who's worthy to wield Mjolnir" argument. Pointless and doesn't ultimately matter.
The ranger's TWF with short swords and hunter's mark breaks even with a dueling paladin using a longsword and Improved Divine Smite (an 11th level feature) with a 1st-level slot once per turn. So does an 11th-level Beast Master with a wolf Animal Companion and longbow casting hail of thorns with a 1st-level slot once per turn. One class deals efficient, consistent damage while the other is more "bursty". And when a paladin wants to go "nova" and use smite spells along with regular smiting, which all gets doubled on a critical, then sure. But that's part of their design. They shine under very different circumstances and contribute to the party in different ways. It's like comparing apples to...not oranges but pineapples or grapefruit. Whether the paladin's contributions outside of combat are "better" than the ranger's...how do you even weigh that?
Honestly, I don’t know what other spirit you were hoping for if you frame the argument that way. You’re basically asking why sane people wouldn’t completely ignore flavour for mechanical efficiency. The question certainly suggests the answer.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I think it should be an option for the druid's Circle of the Land, too. The "urban jungle" and all that Jazz.
Lots of people talk about the favored terrain thing. And how circumstantial it is. Assuming, and I do, that just like creature types (aberrations, beasts, constructs, etc.) all natural environments fit into one of these listed environment types (arctic, coast, desert, forest, grassland, mountain, swamp, or underdark) and by level 10 a ranger has more than of a third of them under their belt, that by itself it pretty good. Most, if not all, published adventures don’t feature more than two or three natural environments (please fact check me on this). Some books even only feature one, or two maximum, natural environments. In any of these the ranger has access to their “ribbon ability” as much as 50%-100% of the time. The “ribbon ability0 that gives them as much potential skills with expertise as a rogue plus everything else that comes with it. But of course, all of that does NOTHING for combat.
Can I get some math for this? First round of this happening I get 18.5 + 2x[Dex mod] average damage for the ranger (using his bonus action and expending a spell slot for Hunter's Mark, and including Colossus Slayer) vs 27 + 2x[Str mod] for the paladin (using his bonus action and expending a spell slot for Divine Favour). Following rounds the ranger adds 2d6 + [Dex mod] to that with his bonus action, while the paladin activates Vow of Enmity. So, breaking even after 3-4 rounds, at a guess?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
We can go through them one at a time:
I'm hesitant to include the Starter Set or Essentials Kit because they either come with pregens or have included rules that don't include the ranger. But if you want to use the PHB, ranger would get some mileage out of selecting forest early on in the Essentials Kit. They can choose mountain, for Icespire Hold, if they want or, if the party is going to Leilon afterward, coast.
Tales from the Yawning Portal is just one dungeon crawl after another. Ghosts of Saltmarsh is...weird. A larger map of Oerth isn't included, and if you follow Forgotten Realms guidance it's near Leilon and the Mere of Dead Men. Coast seems like a safe bet, but beyond that, it's tough to say.
It's not just being in applicable terrain or meeting the right type of enemies, it's also having to do something a ranger gets a bonus for. Difficult terrain not slowing the group down is only meaningful if there are time constraints. Not getting lost is only meaningful if there are no distinguishing landscape features to find your way with. Foraging advantages are only meaningful if you have to forage. Tracking doesn't come up all that often in published adventures (partially because if there's nobody in the party who can track it becomes a hard block). Languages can be useful, but the ones that are both uncommon enough that nobody will normally have them and common enough that they will come up in adventures are fairly limited in number. Information checks on enemies can be anywhere from extremely useful to pointless (and with commonly known enemies often get metagamed).
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
As with the ranger most of the time, it seems like a couple of you are making up scenarios and making strict interpretations of the abilities that limit the ranger. On purpose. Why eliminating rules that, that being gone, benefit the paladin.