Third_Sundering, we’ll never see eye to eye on this. We are playing, and have played, different games. You’re claims are based on your personal experience at the table, predetermined biases, and preferences of play style. Mine too.
My comparisons of how they are at different pillars of play are subjective and depend on the campaign. However, I do support my claims with examples and evidence, not just personal anecdotes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Third_Sundering, we’ll never see eye to eye on this. We are playing, and have played, different games. You’re claims are based on your personal experience at the table, predetermined biases, and preferences of play style. Mine too.
My comparisons of how they are at different pillars of play are subjective and depend on the campaign. However, I do support my claims with examples and evidence, not just personal anecdotes.
LEVEL 1: at level 1, fighters are far more powerful. they get a fighting style, more armor proficiency, and second wind, while ranger only gets favored enemy and Natural Explorer. favored enemy is barely useful, EVEN IF you are fighting your favored enemy, which is rare unless your DM tells you about whats coming ahead of time. Natural Explorer i better, but only if you are in you chosen terrain type, which, like before, is rare, unless your DM says what coming. clearly, fighter is better at level 1. | one point to fighter
LEVEL 2: this is where it gets more interesting. fighter gets action surge, which, is very good, even at high levels. ranger gets spell casting, and a fighting style. there fighting styles are more limited than fighters, and at level 2, but still helps a lot. the spell casting is very powerful though. action battle spells won't be very worth it, as you can just use your long bow or dual short swords, but bonus action, reaction, and utility spells will all help a LOT. hail of thorns increases you DPR while you have spells slots by 1d10, Zephyr Strike increases it by a d8, and give you greater mobility, and absorb elements protects you, and increases your DPR by a d6. this one is close, but i'll give it to ranger. | one point to ranger
LEVEL 3: starting here, they both have sub classes, so they is a lot more diverse, and it really depends on your subclass, but here goes (i cant get to every one, but still some):
beast master is pretty useless, and picking this, its a clear win for fighter. Hunter Prey for Hunter, IMO, is just OP. reaction attacks against anything large? YES PLEASE! double attack against different targets? of course i want that! d8 extra damage against everything except the swarm-y-est swarm? that is not as good but still op! as for gloom stalker, disguise self is very good, umberal sight can be good, especially for ambushing in the dark, and dread ambusher is a huge upgrade.
but fighter has good sub classes too. riposte and evasive foot work from battle master make you untouchable, lets you reaction attack with extra damage, although it is limited to the number of combat superiority dice you have. echo's fury from echo knight is basically a third level extra attack, and rallying cry from purple dragon knight can heal you entire team as a bonus action. this round is very close, and it really depends on what you choose, and how you use it. | 3 points to fighter, 2.5 points to ranger.
LEVEL 4: both just get an ability score increase, nothing here. | 1 point to ranger and fighter
LEVEL 5: both just get an extra attack. this seems like the same for both at first glance, but its not. with fighters action surge, this is a bigger improvement to them. buuuuuuut, if you choose collosis slayer, more extra d8s, and you will never have those times where the monster is full health so the 1d8 extra does nothing. | 1 point to fighter, 0.8 points to ranger.
LEVEL 6: at level 6, ranger gets an improvement to their level 1 features. basically useless. fighter on the other hand, gets their second ability score improvement, so very helpful. a clear win to fighter. | one point to fighter
conclusion: fighter beat ranger at 7 to 5.3 points. so, in the first 6 levels, it seems like fighter is better. but, not by a lot, and fighter is one of the most powerful martial classes. so although ranger is kinda weak, they are not super underpowered, just a little.
i hope that helped, it took me 45 minutes to write.
You think Beast Master is useless. No offense, but that pretty much invalidates any opinion you have. Nevermind the fallacy of trying to compare classes (or worse, their subclasses) when they're not meant to be held up to one another. The classes, by design, are not "equal". They're all designed to fill niches or archetypes.
Despite your efforts, it's abundantly clear you were only concerned with their combat potential. And, really, that's just a cheap shot. The fighter is supposed to be a master of combat. The ranger has strengths that lay elsewhere. But you don't care about those, so it appears weak.
i hope that helped, it took me 45 minutes to write.
You think Beast Master is useless. No offense, but that pretty much invalidates any opinion you have. Nevermind the fallacy of trying to compare classes (or worse, their subclasses) when they're not meant to be held up to one another. The classes, by design, are not "equal". They're all designed to fill niches or archetypes.
Despite your efforts, it's abundantly clear you were only concerned with their combat potential. And, really, that's just a cheap shot. The fighter is supposed to be a master of combat. The ranger has strengths that lay elsewhere. But you don't care about those, so it appears weak.
1. that is mostly, but not whole true
2. this was made not only on my opinion, but also as many resources i could find
3. dnd is only 25-60 percent combat (depending on the DM and the campaign), but the main thing that classes effect, is the combat.
i hope that helped, it took me 45 minutes to write.
You think Beast Master is useless. No offense, but that pretty much invalidates any opinion you have. Nevermind the fallacy of trying to compare classes (or worse, their subclasses) when they're not meant to be held up to one another. The classes, by design, are not "equal". They're all designed to fill niches or archetypes.
Despite your efforts, it's abundantly clear you were only concerned with their combat potential. And, really, that's just a cheap shot. The fighter is supposed to be a master of combat. The ranger has strengths that lay elsewhere. But you don't care about those, so it appears weak.
I like the Beastmaster. I don’t really like the Hunter. It’s mostly a conceptual thing - Hunters just feel like they get a bunch of fightery stuff, not huntery stuff, and Beastmasters actually get a beast. I like animal companions, so that’s a win. Nonetheless, it has to be said, the entirety of the Beastmaster archetype entry deals with using one in combat (which comes with a pretty hefty limitation) and it really is no more than a trained animal. The Beastmaster doesn’t even get spells that would allow the beast to be more like a companion or familiar. Mechanically, the whole thing is a bit of a dud. When playing a ranger I’ll pretty much always go with Horizon Walker or Beastmaster, but the latter definitely calls for more DM fiat in order to let the beast be a bit more than flavour.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
i hope that helped, it took me 45 minutes to write.
You think Beast Master is useless. No offense, but that pretty much invalidates any opinion you have. Nevermind the fallacy of trying to compare classes (or worse, their subclasses) when they're not meant to be held up to one another. The classes, by design, are not "equal". They're all designed to fill niches or archetypes.
Despite your efforts, it's abundantly clear you were only concerned with their combat potential. And, really, that's just a cheap shot. The fighter is supposed to be a master of combat. The ranger has strengths that lay elsewhere. But you don't care about those, so it appears weak.
I like the Beastmaster. I don’t really like the Hunter. It’s mostly a conceptual thing - Hunters just feel like they get a bunch of fightery stuff, not huntery stuff, and Beastmasters actually get a beast. I like animal companions, so that’s a win. Nonetheless, it has to be said, the entirety of the Beastmaster archetype entry deals with using one in combat (which comes with a pretty hefty limitation) and it really is no more than a trained animal. The Beastmaster doesn’t even get spells that would allow the beast to be more like a companion or familiar. Mechanically, the whole thing is a bit of a dud. When playing a ranger I’ll pretty much always go with Horizon Walker or Beastmaster, but the latter definitely calls for more DM fiat in order to let the beast be a bit more than flavour.
and i do agree that flavor wise, they are perfectly good, but mechanically, are just not up to scratch.
The biggest problem with the Beast Master is the dearth of possible Animal Companions in the PHB. It's a very tactical subclass that requires careful management, and it practically needs the Monster Manual to get the most out of it. I won't litigate it all here, again, but suffice it to say the Beast Master doesn't have trouble keeping up in the DPR department.
A paladin tries to hold to the highest standards of conduct, but even the most virtuous paladin is fallible. Sometimes the right path proves too demanding, sometimes a situation calls for the lesser of two evils, and sometimes the heat of emotion causes a paladin to transgress his or her oath.
A paladin who has broken a vow typically seeks absolution from a cleric who shares his or her faith or from another paladin of the same order. The paladin might spend an all-night vigil in prayer as a sign of penitence, or undertake a fast or similar act of self-denial. After a rite of confession and forgiveness, the paladin starts fresh.
If a paladin willfully violates his or her oath and shows no sign of repentance, the consequences can be more serious. At the DM’s discretion, an impenitent paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another, or perhaps to take the Oathbreaker paladin option that appears in the Dungeon Master’s Guide.
Average Damage with Sword (long sword, rapier, or short sword) in One Hand and Dueling Fighting Style (if available)
I thought we’d moved on from this DPR stuff, but if it’s still going on I want to point out a few things: action surges are limited by short rests, not encounters; unless a paladin thinks he can kill an opponent in a single round casting Divine Favour is better for DPR than using 1st level spell slots for Smite; the ranger’s Hunter’s Mark is limited by spell slots per long rest (and possible concentration checks); and sneak attacks are limited by circumstances. Baseline fighter should arguably account for their abundant ASIs as well. I get trying to keep it simple, but insofar as these comparisons have any value to begin with I’d say that value tanks quickly if only the most basic parameters are taken into account.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Average Damage with Sword (long sword, rapier, or short sword) in One Hand and Dueling Fighting Style (if available)
I thought we’d moved on from this DPR stuff, but if it’s still going on I want to point out a few things: action surges are limited by short rests, not encounters; unless a paladin thinks he can kill an opponent in a single round casting Divine Favour is better for DPR than using 1st level spell slots for Smite; the ranger’s Hunter’s Mark is limited by spell slots per long rest (and possible concentration checks); and sneak attacks are limited by circumstances. Baseline fighter should arguably account for their abundant ASIs as well. I get trying to keep it simple, but insofar as these comparisons have any value to begin with I’d say that value tanks quickly if only the most basic parameters are taken into account.
It's also impossible to account for everything. For example, Action Surge can be used to take another Attack action, to Dash, to Dodge, to Help, and so forth. That's why the most effective means is to strip away as many variables as possible. But since that also strips away so many things which make a class interesting and how it might play, you can hopefully see why it's so useless to try and compare classes to one another.
A paladin tries to hold to the highest standards of conduct, but even the most virtuous paladin is fallible. Sometimes the right path proves too demanding, sometimes a situation calls for the lesser of two evils, and sometimes the heat of emotion causes a paladin to transgress his or her oath.
A paladin who has broken a vow typically seeks absolution from a cleric who shares his or her faith or from another paladin of the same order. The paladin might spend an all-night vigil in prayer as a sign of penitence, or undertake a fast or similar act of self-denial. After a rite of confession and forgiveness, the paladin starts fresh.
If a paladin willfully violates his or her oath and shows no sign of repentance, the consequences can be more serious. At the DM’s discretion, an impenitent paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another, or perhaps to take the Oathbreaker paladin option that appears in the Dungeon Master’s Guide.
As a DM I hold warlocks, clerics, and paladins up to a higher standard of a LACK of personal freedom. Player agency is silly to me. You all love the paladin. Super! Part of the trade off for the "power of a paladin" is that power is a tool for the DM. I have twice before taken away the class levels of classes. One a warlock and the other a paladin. I'm sure I'll get lots of "I would pack up and leave the game" kind of responses, but this avoids a "have your cake and eat it too" kind of situation. Let's face it, those of you in this "discussion" on this thread that so aggressively defend the paladin and "debunk" the ranger wouldn't really play at a table with me anyhow.
Average Damage with Sword (long sword, rapier, or short sword) in One Hand and Dueling Fighting Style (if available)
I thought we’d moved on from this DPR stuff, but if it’s still going on I want to point out a few things: action surges are limited by short rests, not encounters; unless a paladin thinks he can kill an opponent in a single round casting Divine Favour is better for DPR than using 1st level spell slots for Smite; the ranger’s Hunter’s Mark is limited by spell slots per long rest (and possible concentration checks); and sneak attacks are limited by circumstances. Baseline fighter should arguably account for their abundant ASIs as well. I get trying to keep it simple, but insofar as these comparisons have any value to begin with I’d say that value tanks quickly if only the most basic parameters are taken into account.
I don't think we should continue this communication. "Stalemate" doesn't even begin to describe the situation.
The paladin class (save for the vengeance subclass) and rogue class (save for the assassin subclass) get little to nothing from their subclasses in the way of combat damage output. It's all built into the baseline class features. The fighter and ranger classes, however, get quite a lot of their combat "juice" from their subclasses. Comparing a baseline paladin's damage potential to a baseline fighter's damage potential makes me wonder why anyone would play a fighter over a paladin. Comparing a paladin subclass's damage potential to a fighter subclass's damage potential is a very different picture. The same for a ranger subclass's.
Third_Sundering, we’ll never see eye to eye on this. We are playing, and have played, different games. You’re claims are based on your personal experience at the table, predetermined biases, and preferences of play style. Mine too.
My comparisons of how they are at different pillars of play are subjective and depend on the campaign. However, I do support my claims with examples and evidence, not just personal anecdotes.
Can we try something? Can we try switching side on this discussion? You argue the benefits of the ranger, with examples and evidence, and I'll do the same with the paladin. Maybe you are just a better debater than I am.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My comparisons of how they are at different pillars of play are subjective and depend on the campaign. However, I do support my claims with examples and evidence, not just personal anecdotes.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
🤷♂️
i will compare to fighter a levels 1-6
LEVEL 1: at level 1, fighters are far more powerful. they get a fighting style, more armor proficiency, and second wind, while ranger only gets favored enemy and Natural Explorer. favored enemy is barely useful, EVEN IF you are fighting your favored enemy, which is rare unless your DM tells you about whats coming ahead of time. Natural Explorer i better, but only if you are in you chosen terrain type, which, like before, is rare, unless your DM says what coming. clearly, fighter is better at level 1. | one point to fighter
LEVEL 2: this is where it gets more interesting. fighter gets action surge, which, is very good, even at high levels. ranger gets spell casting, and a fighting style. there fighting styles are more limited than fighters, and at level 2, but still helps a lot. the spell casting is very powerful though. action battle spells won't be very worth it, as you can just use your long bow or dual short swords, but bonus action, reaction, and utility spells will all help a LOT. hail of thorns increases you DPR while you have spells slots by 1d10, Zephyr Strike increases it by a d8, and give you greater mobility, and absorb elements protects you, and increases your DPR by a d6. this one is close, but i'll give it to ranger. | one point to ranger
LEVEL 3: starting here, they both have sub classes, so they is a lot more diverse, and it really depends on your subclass, but here goes (i cant get to every one, but still some):
beast master is pretty useless, and picking this, its a clear win for fighter. Hunter Prey for Hunter, IMO, is just OP. reaction attacks against anything large? YES PLEASE! double attack against different targets? of course i want that! d8 extra damage against everything except the swarm-y-est swarm? that is not as good but still op! as for gloom stalker, disguise self is very good, umberal sight can be good, especially for ambushing in the dark, and dread ambusher is a huge upgrade.
but fighter has good sub classes too. riposte and evasive foot work from battle master make you untouchable, lets you reaction attack with extra damage, although it is limited to the number of combat superiority dice you have. echo's fury from echo knight is basically a third level extra attack, and rallying cry from purple dragon knight can heal you entire team as a bonus action. this round is very close, and it really depends on what you choose, and how you use it. | 3 points to fighter, 2.5 points to ranger.
LEVEL 4: both just get an ability score increase, nothing here. | 1 point to ranger and fighter
LEVEL 5: both just get an extra attack. this seems like the same for both at first glance, but its not. with fighters action surge, this is a bigger improvement to them. buuuuuuut, if you choose collosis slayer, more extra d8s, and you will never have those times where the monster is full health so the 1d8 extra does nothing. | 1 point to fighter, 0.8 points to ranger.
LEVEL 6: at level 6, ranger gets an improvement to their level 1 features. basically useless. fighter on the other hand, gets their second ability score improvement, so very helpful. a clear win to fighter. | one point to fighter
conclusion: fighter beat ranger at 7 to 5.3 points. so, in the first 6 levels, it seems like fighter is better. but, not by a lot, and fighter is one of the most powerful martial classes. so although ranger is kinda weak, they are not super underpowered, just a little.
I am an average mathematics enjoyer.
>Extended Signature<
i hope that helped, it took me 45 minutes to write.
I am an average mathematics enjoyer.
>Extended Signature<
You think Beast Master is useless. No offense, but that pretty much invalidates any opinion you have. Nevermind the fallacy of trying to compare classes (or worse, their subclasses) when they're not meant to be held up to one another. The classes, by design, are not "equal". They're all designed to fill niches or archetypes.
Despite your efforts, it's abundantly clear you were only concerned with their combat potential. And, really, that's just a cheap shot. The fighter is supposed to be a master of combat. The ranger has strengths that lay elsewhere. But you don't care about those, so it appears weak.
1. that is mostly, but not whole true
2. this was made not only on my opinion, but also as many resources i could find
3. dnd is only 25-60 percent combat (depending on the DM and the campaign), but the main thing that classes effect, is the combat.
I am an average mathematics enjoyer.
>Extended Signature<
I like the Beastmaster. I don’t really like the Hunter. It’s mostly a conceptual thing - Hunters just feel like they get a bunch of fightery stuff, not huntery stuff, and Beastmasters actually get a beast. I like animal companions, so that’s a win. Nonetheless, it has to be said, the entirety of the Beastmaster archetype entry deals with using one in combat (which comes with a pretty hefty limitation) and it really is no more than a trained animal. The Beastmaster doesn’t even get spells that would allow the beast to be more like a companion or familiar. Mechanically, the whole thing is a bit of a dud. When playing a ranger I’ll pretty much always go with Horizon Walker or Beastmaster, but the latter definitely calls for more DM fiat in order to let the beast be a bit more than flavour.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
and i do agree that flavor wise, they are perfectly good, but mechanically, are just not up to scratch.
I am an average mathematics enjoyer.
>Extended Signature<
The biggest problem with the Beast Master is the dearth of possible Animal Companions in the PHB. It's a very tactical subclass that requires careful management, and it practically needs the Monster Manual to get the most out of it. I won't litigate it all here, again, but suffice it to say the Beast Master doesn't have trouble keeping up in the DPR department.
Average Damage with Sword (long sword, rapier, or short sword) in One Hand and Dueling Fighting Style (if available)
Level 3
Baseline Fighter (1d8 + 2 + 3) + (1 action surge per encounter)
Baseline Paladin (1d8 + 2 + 3) + (6d8 smite per day)
Baseline Ranger (1d8 + 2 + 3 + 1d6)
Baseline Rogue (1d6 + 3 + 2d6)
Level 5
Baseline Fighter (1d8 + 2 + 4)*2 + (1 action surge per encounter)
Baseline Paladin (1d8 + 2 + 4)*2 + (14d8 smite per day)
Baseline Ranger (1d8 + 2 + 4 + 1d6)*2
Baseline Rogue (1d6 + 4 + 3d6)
Level 8
Baseline Fighter (1d8 + 2 + 5)*2 + (1 action surge per counter)
Baseline Paladin (1d8 + 2 + 5)*2 + (17d8 smite per day)
Baseline Ranger (1d8 + 2 + 5 + 1d6)*2
Baseline Rogue (1d6 + 5 + 4d6)
Level 10
Baseline Fighter (1d8 + 2 + 5)*2 + (1 action surge per encounter)
Baseline Paladin (1d8 + 2 + 5)*2 + (17d8 smite per day)
Baseline Ranger (1d8 + 2 + 5 + 1d6)*2
Baseline Rogue (1d6 + 5 + 5d6)
BREAKING YOUR OATH
A paladin tries to hold to the highest standards of conduct, but even the most virtuous paladin is fallible. Sometimes the right path proves too demanding, sometimes a situation calls for the lesser of two evils, and sometimes the heat of emotion causes a paladin to transgress his or her oath.
A paladin who has broken a vow typically seeks absolution from a cleric who shares his or her faith or from another paladin of the same order. The paladin might spend an all-night vigil in prayer as a sign of penitence, or undertake a fast or similar act of self-denial. After a rite of confession and forgiveness, the paladin starts fresh.
If a paladin willfully violates his or her oath and shows no sign of repentance, the consequences can be more serious. At the DM’s discretion, an impenitent paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another, or perhaps to take the Oathbreaker paladin option that appears in the Dungeon Master’s Guide.
I thought we’d moved on from this DPR stuff, but if it’s still going on I want to point out a few things: action surges are limited by short rests, not encounters; unless a paladin thinks he can kill an opponent in a single round casting Divine Favour is better for DPR than using 1st level spell slots for Smite; the ranger’s Hunter’s Mark is limited by spell slots per long rest (and possible concentration checks); and sneak attacks are limited by circumstances. Baseline fighter should arguably account for their abundant ASIs as well. I get trying to keep it simple, but insofar as these comparisons have any value to begin with I’d say that value tanks quickly if only the most basic parameters are taken into account.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It's also impossible to account for everything. For example, Action Surge can be used to take another Attack action, to Dash, to Dodge, to Help, and so forth. That's why the most effective means is to strip away as many variables as possible. But since that also strips away so many things which make a class interesting and how it might play, you can hopefully see why it's so useless to try and compare classes to one another.
https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/SRD-OGL_V5.1.pdf
I assume everyone here already had access to this information? Are you building up to a point?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
As a DM I hold warlocks, clerics, and paladins up to a higher standard of a LACK of personal freedom. Player agency is silly to me. You all love the paladin. Super! Part of the trade off for the "power of a paladin" is that power is a tool for the DM. I have twice before taken away the class levels of classes. One a warlock and the other a paladin. I'm sure I'll get lots of "I would pack up and leave the game" kind of responses, but this avoids a "have your cake and eat it too" kind of situation. Let's face it, those of you in this "discussion" on this thread that so aggressively defend the paladin and "debunk" the ranger wouldn't really play at a table with me anyhow.
Just something else to talk about. A different point of view. The old D&D Next playtest packets are REALLY interesting too!
I don't think we should continue this communication. "Stalemate" doesn't even begin to describe the situation.
The paladin class (save for the vengeance subclass) and rogue class (save for the assassin subclass) get little to nothing from their subclasses in the way of combat damage output. It's all built into the baseline class features. The fighter and ranger classes, however, get quite a lot of their combat "juice" from their subclasses. Comparing a baseline paladin's damage potential to a baseline fighter's damage potential makes me wonder why anyone would play a fighter over a paladin. Comparing a paladin subclass's damage potential to a fighter subclass's damage potential is a very different picture. The same for a ranger subclass's.
Can we try something? Can we try switching side on this discussion? You argue the benefits of the ranger, with examples and evidence, and I'll do the same with the paladin. Maybe you are just a better debater than I am.