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.
No one here is really better at debate than anyone else. There's even a strong point that none of this has been a proper debate, but I digress.
Virtually all examples and evidence given have been based on someone's personal experience, which by definition makes them anecdotal. @Third_Sundering is no exception to this. I have found many of their arguments specious and rooted in personal accounts, despite their claims of objectivity. Comparing hard math can be informative, but it won't make or break anyone's argument, either. The myriad class features aren't exactly intended to be held up to one another and compared on a 1:1 basis. Due to biases we all carry, some people will naturally weigh different features more heavily than others. And that's okay, so long as we recognize those biases and not talk past one another.
For what they're designed to do, rangers, as a class, are pretty damn good. They're arguably second-to-none, and they're pretty effective even when out of their element. Whether that's someone's cup of tea is another matter.
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.
I don't think I'm a better debater, I just choose the right side of the argument almost all of the time. If we were to switch sides and both vehemently debate as the devil's advocate in good faith, the argument would just be the same old discussion as before:
"Rangers are good! They only do less damage most of the time! They don't have to be in melee, which means they're getting hit less! Hunter's Mark is good at dealing damage!"
"Paladins are better! They do more damage most of the time, and can nova smite the face off of any BBEG. They do have to be in melee most of the time, but that's okay because they are very good at taking a hit and tanking. Paladins don't have to give up concentration to deal good damage."
"But Rangers get non-combat features! They're really good at exploration and tracking!"
"But Paladins get non-combat features, too. And, they don't have to be good at tracking down enemies, because that really doesn't happen in a campaign a ton."
"But when it does, they're really good at it!"
"Not really, only if they're in their favored terrain tracking down a favored enemy."
"Your forgot that they're good at it if they have Hunter's Mark cast on them! What about that?"
"If they allowed an enemy to survive after coming into the range of Hunter's Mark, that ranger is stupid and useless. What does it matter if you're able to find your enemies if you can't kill them?"
"Well, they get their features from subclasses, not the main class!"
"That doesn't make them any better. Subclasses of paladin allow for them to deal more damage, and all of them get battlefield control abilities."
"BuT RaNgEr'S aRe GoOd!!!"
That's basically how that would go, which has basically already happened. I'm not in the mood to repeat that, but with me as the Ranger's Advocate.
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.
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.
I don't think I'm a better debater, I just choose the right side of the argument almost all of the time. If we were to switch sides and both vehemently debate as the devil's advocate in good faith, the argument would just be the same old discussion as before:
"Rangers are good! They only do less damage most of the time! They don't have to be in melee, which means they're getting hit less! Hunter's Mark is good at dealing damage!"
"Paladins are better! They do more damage most of the time, and can nova smite the face off of any BBEG. They do have to be in melee most of the time, but that's okay because they are very good at taking a hit and tanking. Paladins don't have to give up concentration to deal good damage."
I don't think that's what FrankReynoldsGaryGygax was asking you do in the slightest; you haven't tried to look at it from the other side at all, you've just repeated your arguments all over again, from the same skewed and heavily biased perspective on what you think matters.
If all you care about is DPS, go play a MMORPG, or cut out the middle-man and just screw around in a spreadsheet or a calculator; what matters most for a class it whether it fits what character(s) you want to create, and whether it plays well at doing that. Rangers are intended for playing what are basically half fighter, half druids, and it's absolutely great for that. For a ranged half caster they beat a Paladin hands down, absolutely no contest, because Paladin features are very specifically short ranged; does that make Paladins bad? Of course it doesn't, because they're two very different classes suited to two very different things.
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.
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.
I don't think I'm a better debater, I just choose the right side of the argument almost all of the time. If we were to switch sides and both vehemently debate as the devil's advocate in good faith, the argument would just be the same old discussion as before:
"Rangers are good! They only do less damage most of the time! They don't have to be in melee, which means they're getting hit less! Hunter's Mark is good at dealing damage!"
"Paladins are better! They do more damage most of the time, and can nova smite the face off of any BBEG. They do have to be in melee most of the time, but that's okay because they are very good at taking a hit and tanking. Paladins don't have to give up concentration to deal good damage."
"But Rangers get non-combat features! They're really good at exploration and tracking!"
"But Paladins get non-combat features, too. And, they don't have to be good at tracking down enemies, because that really doesn't happen in a campaign a ton."
"But when it does, they're really good at it!"
"Not really, only if they're in their favored terrain tracking down a favored enemy."
"Your forgot that they're good at it if they have Hunter's Mark cast on them! What about that?"
"If they allowed an enemy to survive after coming into the range of Hunter's Mark, that ranger is stupid and useless. What does it matter if you're able to find your enemies if you can't kill them?"
"Well, they get their features from subclasses, not the main class!"
"That doesn't make them any better. Subclasses of paladin allow for them to deal more damage, and all of them get battlefield control abilities."
"BuT RaNgEr'S aRe GoOd!!!"
That's basically how that would go, which has basically already happened. I'm not in the mood to repeat that, but with me as the Ranger's Advocate.
I don't think that's what FrankReynoldsGaryGygax was asking you do in the slightest; you haven't tried to look at it from the other side at all, you've just repeated your arguments all over again, from the same skewed and heavily biased perspective on what you think matters.
I'm well aware that is not what they were asking for me to do, I was illustrating what would happen if we both argued in good faith as the devil's advocate. Also, if you want to blame me for being biased towards the better class mechanically, you're biased to the underpowered one.
If all you care about is DPS, go play a MMORPG, or cut out the middle-man and just screw around in a spreadsheet or a calculator; what matters most for a class it whether it fits what character(s) you want to create, and whether it plays well at doing that. Rangers are intended for playing what are basically half fighter, half druids, and it's absolutely great for that. For a ranged half caster they beat a Paladin hands down, absolutely no contest, because Paladin features are very specifically short ranged; does that make Paladins bad? Of course it doesn't, because they're two very different classes suited to two very different things.
I'm sorry, do you not understand the meaning of "underpowered?" One of the key parts of being underpowered in 5e is DPS, because if you can't carry your own weight as a martial class in 5e, you're underpowered. Also, we've already covered why many of their features are comparatively objectively bad (natural explorer, favored enemy, hide in plain sight, primal sense, etc). Of course a paladin loses at ranged combat, that's not their point. However, the point of the ranger is to be a good martial half-caster, and you cannot balance non-combat features against combat ones.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
THE RANGER CAN BE GOOD- Yes! THE PALADIN CAN BE GOOD- Also true! THE RANGER IS BETTER THAN THE PALADIN WHEN THE RANGER IS SHINING- Very true! THE PALADIN IS BETTER THAN THE RANGER WHEN THE RANGER IS SHINING- Also true!
here is what we believe (those who think the ranger is just a little worse than the average class):
THE PALADIN IS BETTER THAN THE RANGER NORMALLY: in your average joe situation, the paladin will usually be better. Let's say 70 percent of the time. THE RANGER IS WORSE WHEN IT IS SHINING THAN A PALADIN WHEN IT IS SHINING: A paladin going full nova on a lich is a lot better than a ranger who happens to be able to track in forests. THIS MEANS we think: a Pally performs at 100%, and a ranger performs at 70%, but both scores double in their element. A ranger in their element (140%) is better than a paladin normally (100%) but a paladin in their element (200%) beats all rangers.
The thing people don't seem to realize, is that it is totally fine to like one class, and not like another. I for one, hate druids, but I love warlocks. THIS IS FINE.
I hope this makes sense ;)
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.
Any player character could conceivably get an animal companion. The Beast Master subclass is just one of the few subclasses that utilizes a beast companion as a core part of it's subclass features. The others are Battle Smith Artificers and Chainlocks.
Right, But aren't rangers the only class that can start off with a beast companion?
Technically, no. They don't get it until level 3, and only as Beast Masters. Wizards, as well as Tome and Chain Warlocks can have a familiar. Artificers can have a Homunculus Servant, and Battle Smiths have Steel Defenders. In Tasha's, Wildfire druids get a Wildfire Spirit, and there are the Spirit Summoning Spells.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I mean, Rogues are my least favorite class while Sorcerers and Artificers are my favorite.
None of this is really pertaining to Rangers though.....
There being fans of every class pertains to the subject at hand. ;) So is the fact that for every class there are people who dislike it for one reason or other. I don’t think continuously debating the relative merits of the ranger class is going to carry us any further, so might as well confirm it’s all relative in the end anyway.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
No one here is really better at debate than anyone else. There's even a strong point that none of this has been a proper debate, but I digress.
Virtually all examples and evidence given have been based on someone's personal experience, which by definition makes them anecdotal. @Third_Sundering is no exception to this. I have found many of their arguments specious and rooted in personal accounts, despite their claims of objectivity. Comparing hard math can be informative, but it won't make or break anyone's argument, either. The myriad class features aren't exactly intended to be held up to one another and compared on a 1:1 basis. Due to biases we all carry, some people will naturally weigh different features more heavily than others. And that's okay, so long as we recognize those biases and not talk past one another.
For what they're designed to do, rangers, as a class, are pretty damn good. They're arguably second-to-none, and they're pretty effective even when out of their element. Whether that's someone's cup of tea is another matter.
I don't think I'm a better debater, I just choose the right side of the argument almost all of the time. If we were to switch sides and both vehemently debate as the devil's advocate in good faith, the argument would just be the same old discussion as before:
"Rangers are good! They only do less damage most of the time! They don't have to be in melee, which means they're getting hit less! Hunter's Mark is good at dealing damage!"
"Paladins are better! They do more damage most of the time, and can nova smite the face off of any BBEG. They do have to be in melee most of the time, but that's okay because they are very good at taking a hit and tanking. Paladins don't have to give up concentration to deal good damage."
"But Rangers get non-combat features! They're really good at exploration and tracking!"
"But Paladins get non-combat features, too. And, they don't have to be good at tracking down enemies, because that really doesn't happen in a campaign a ton."
"But when it does, they're really good at it!"
"Not really, only if they're in their favored terrain tracking down a favored enemy."
"Your forgot that they're good at it if they have Hunter's Mark cast on them! What about that?"
"If they allowed an enemy to survive after coming into the range of Hunter's Mark, that ranger is stupid and useless. What does it matter if you're able to find your enemies if you can't kill them?"
"Well, they get their features from subclasses, not the main class!"
"That doesn't make them any better. Subclasses of paladin allow for them to deal more damage, and all of them get battlefield control abilities."
"BuT RaNgEr'S aRe GoOd!!!"
That's basically how that would go, which has basically already happened. I'm not in the mood to repeat that, but with me as the Ranger's Advocate.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I don't think that's what FrankReynoldsGaryGygax was asking you do in the slightest; you haven't tried to look at it from the other side at all, you've just repeated your arguments all over again, from the same skewed and heavily biased perspective on what you think matters.
If all you care about is DPS, go play a MMORPG, or cut out the middle-man and just screw around in a spreadsheet or a calculator; what matters most for a class it whether it fits what character(s) you want to create, and whether it plays well at doing that. Rangers are intended for playing what are basically half fighter, half druids, and it's absolutely great for that. For a ranged half caster they beat a Paladin hands down, absolutely no contest, because Paladin features are very specifically short ranged; does that make Paladins bad? Of course it doesn't, because they're two very different classes suited to two very different things.
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.
(...sigh...)
I'm well aware that is not what they were asking for me to do, I was illustrating what would happen if we both argued in good faith as the devil's advocate. Also, if you want to blame me for being biased towards the better class mechanically, you're biased to the underpowered one.
I'm sorry, do you not understand the meaning of "underpowered?" One of the key parts of being underpowered in 5e is DPS, because if you can't carry your own weight as a martial class in 5e, you're underpowered. Also, we've already covered why many of their features are comparatively objectively bad (natural explorer, favored enemy, hide in plain sight, primal sense, etc). Of course a paladin loses at ranged combat, that's not their point. However, the point of the ranger is to be a good martial half-caster, and you cannot balance non-combat features against combat ones.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Here is what NO-ONE IS DEBATING:
THE RANGER CAN BE GOOD- Yes!
THE PALADIN CAN BE GOOD- Also true!
THE RANGER IS BETTER THAN THE PALADIN WHEN THE RANGER IS SHINING- Very true!
THE PALADIN IS BETTER THAN THE RANGER WHEN THE RANGER IS SHINING- Also true!
here is what we believe (those who think the ranger is just a little worse than the average class):
THE PALADIN IS BETTER THAN THE RANGER NORMALLY: in your average joe situation, the paladin will usually be better. Let's say 70 percent of the time.
THE RANGER IS WORSE WHEN IT IS SHINING THAN A PALADIN WHEN IT IS SHINING: A paladin going full nova on a lich is a lot better than a ranger who happens to be able to track in forests.
THIS MEANS we think: a Pally performs at 100%, and a ranger performs at 70%, but both scores double in their element. A ranger in their element (140%) is better than a paladin normally (100%) but a paladin in their element (200%) beats all rangers.
The thing people don't seem to realize, is that it is totally fine to like one class, and not like another. I for one, hate druids, but I love warlocks. THIS IS FINE.
I hope this makes sense ;)
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
You’re allowed to be wrong, and you definitely are. So, so very wrong.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I never said they were underpowered lol, I just don't enjoy druid mechanics lol :)
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
I don't hate druids, but I do prefer warlocks for roleplay and customization purposes.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
So, so very wrong. But it’s ok, I won’t hold it against you. ;)
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I mean, my opinion cannot be wrong just as much as it can't be right
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
WARLOCKS FOREVER!!!!!!
I am an average mathematics enjoyer.
>Extended Signature<
Erm Hrm. If I may state 1st level paldin/2nd level bard/17 level wizard
: Systems Online : Nikoli_Goodfellow Homebrew : My WIP Homebrew Class :
(\_/)
( u u)
o/ \🥛🍪 Hey, take care of yourself alright?
I mean, Rogues are my least favorite class while Sorcerers and Artificers are my favorite.
None of this is really pertaining to Rangers though.....
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
Right, But aren't rangers the only class that can start off with a beast companion?
: Systems Online : Nikoli_Goodfellow Homebrew : My WIP Homebrew Class :
(\_/)
( u u)
o/ \🥛🍪 Hey, take care of yourself alright?
uh... no?
I am an average mathematics enjoyer.
>Extended Signature<
literally any class with find familiar and artificers lol
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Any player character could conceivably get an animal companion. The Beast Master subclass is just one of the few subclasses that utilizes a beast companion as a core part of it's subclass features. The others are Battle Smith Artificers and Chainlocks.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
Technically, no. They don't get it until level 3, and only as Beast Masters. Wizards, as well as Tome and Chain Warlocks can have a familiar. Artificers can have a Homunculus Servant, and Battle Smiths have Steel Defenders. In Tasha's, Wildfire druids get a Wildfire Spirit, and there are the Spirit Summoning Spells.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
There being fans of every class pertains to the subject at hand. ;) So is the fact that for every class there are people who dislike it for one reason or other. I don’t think continuously debating the relative merits of the ranger class is going to carry us any further, so might as well confirm it’s all relative in the end anyway.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].