You know what, this conversation is going nowhere. At this point, it's just frustrated people online screaming at each other about something that really does not matter at all. If you think rangers aren't underpowered and should receive no changes, go ahead continuing to nerf your characters with crappy abilities. If you think rangers are underpowered, just use the class feature variants when they come out in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything next month (assuming they keep most of the stuff from the UA).
See you all around, of course excluding those who I have put on my ignore list due to this discussion.
It's "going nowhere" because you ignore everything that doesn't agree with you and just repost your opinion over and over again; you've very pointedly ignored my post where I comprehensively addressed your position, I will note. That is why the "conversation" is "going nowhere", because people who hate on classes and sub-classes don't seem to actually want a conversation, they just want everyone to accept that they're right, when they're not.
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.
You know what, this conversation is going nowhere. At this point, it's just frustrated people online screaming at each other about something that really does not matter at all. If you think rangers aren't underpowered and should receive no changes, go ahead continuing to nerf your characters with crappy abilities. If you think rangers are underpowered, just use the class feature variants when they come out in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything next month (assuming they keep most of the stuff from the UA).
See you all around, of course excluding those who I have put on my ignore list due to this discussion.
It's "going nowhere" because you ignore everything that doesn't agree with you and just repost your opinion over and over again; you've very pointedly ignored my post where I comprehensively addressed your position, I will note. That is why the "conversation" is "going nowhere", because people who hate on classes and sub-classes don't seem to actually want a conversation, they just want everyone to accept that they're right, when they're not.
You know what, this conversation is going nowhere. At this point, it's just frustrated people online screaming at each other about something that really does not matter at all. If you think rangers aren't underpowered and should receive no changes, go ahead continuing to nerf your characters with crappy abilities. If you think rangers are underpowered, just use the class feature variants when they come out in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything next month (assuming they keep most of the stuff from the UA).
See you all around, of course excluding those who I have put on my ignore list due to this discussion.
It's "going nowhere" because you ignore everything that doesn't agree with you and just repost your opinion over and over again; you've very pointedly ignored my post where I comprehensively addressed your position, I will note. That is why the "conversation" is "going nowhere", because people who hate on classes and sub-classes don't seem to actually want a conversation, they just want everyone to accept that they're right, when they're not.
Meanwhile, nobody has addressed the concentration problem for melee Rangers I mentioned several pages back (even though I also noted some ways to fix this) while everybody admits that, RAW, Hide in Plain Sight is practically worthless for a 10th level ability (compare it to other class' 10th level abilities) and there's a bunch of other situational or DM-specific abilties at levels 1 to 3 while still arguing the base Ranger is as well designed as every other class. Ummmm, yeah, but no.
Meanwhile, nobody has addressed the concentration problem for melee Rangers I mentioned several pages back (even though I also noted some ways to fix this) while everybody admits that, RAW, Hide in Plain Sight is practically worthless for a 10th level ability (compare it to other class' 10th level abilities) and there's a bunch of other situational or DM-specific abilties at levels 1 to 3 while still arguing the base Ranger is as well designed as every other class. Ummmm, yeah, but no.
Levels 1-10, with hunter's mark, rangers put out damage that exceeds that of a fighter under the right circumstances (long bow, single handed weapon). Past that they have very ways to up their damage. That CFV UA is trying the no concentration hunter's mark (which I don't think will make it i TCoE), but I apologize, I missed your suggestions? What where they? Will you link to them? I will read them.
I argue that hide in plain sight works great, by RAW. I think it's a great ability! I assume you are referring to what many people do about the 1 minute bit. I read that RAW as a two part ability. Just like the halfling and wood elf abilities. "If you (are behind a creature larger than you/are in naturally occurring lightly obscured area/spend 1 minute making camouflage for yourself), then you can attempt to hide." The ranger version, because of the time factor and movement and action restrictions, gives you a big bonus to the stealth roll.
I see the favored enemy as their flavor ability a bit, I guess. It isn't, but it is the way most tables play the game. In a game where speaking, time spent in the wild, and knowing information about things IN CHARACTER is important than it is a GREAT ability. The revised ranger natural explorer is too much. Perhaps the PHB version is too little. But the revised ranger version would be like for a rogue always being in a dark shadow filled dungeon with every door trapped. Too much.
You keep wanting to compare the ranger to other classes, but that's foolish. You wouldn't compare a cleric and druid and ask yourself, "Now, why would I ever play a druid?" I mean, the cleric is guaranteed more spells, has no restriction on metal armor, and can even wear heavy armor and martial weapons. It's just so superior! What you keep ignoring is that each class is designed with a certain goal in mind. Every mechanic you see is there in service of a story. Some, like druids, lean more heavily into their story than others. When you say the ranger is underpowered, you shouldn't be comparing it to other classes. None of the classes are designed to be equal to one another. Instead, you should ask if the class does a bad job of living up to the fantasy.
It's not foolish. There are people who come onto DDB and ask that very question. Fortunately, in the case of Druids, there are some very good reasons to play a Druid, Wildshape, a variety of control spells, and great summoning spells among them.
So it IS fair to compare the Ranger, as a half-caster/half fighter class to similar part-caster, part-fighter classes, like, hmmmmm, the Paladin maybe? Or say, the Eldritch Knight? This is why the usefulness of taking the Warcaster feat is relevant because other part-caster, part-fighter classes are also likely to benefit somewhat from that feat. Yet for some reason, Rangers get no cantrips and at melee range beyond level 5, are a good deal more vulnerable to concentration saving throws than Paladins.
As to the point about solutions, either create a feat that Rangers can better benefit in place of Warcaster, give Rangers a few cantrips, or give Rangers an automatic boost to concentration saves similar to what they did with War Mages. The solutions exist, but WotC hasn't implemented any of them.
For clarification on the concentration save issue, I made those arguments back in post 96, 99, and 101. I will not be quoting them here to save space.
Meanwhile, nobody has addressed the concentration problem for melee Rangers I mentioned several pages back (even though I also noted some ways to fix this) while everybody admits that, RAW, Hide in Plain Sight is practically worthless for a 10th level ability (compare it to other class' 10th level abilities) and there's a bunch of other situational or DM-specific abilties at levels 1 to 3 while still arguing the base Ranger is as well designed as every other class. Ummmm, yeah, but no.
Concentration isn't the drawback a lot of people think it is. It's annoying, sure, but it's a balancing act. Paladins have the same problem. Both classes have numerous spells which require concentration and are useful in or out of combat. I personally think Hunter's Mark is only really worth it if the ranger is making multiple attacks or you desperately need to track a target. And, after a while, its DPR contributions wear off. Beast Masters have little use for it, and if you're an archer then Swift Quiver is far better. That said, it's a 5th-level spell. You need 17 levels in the class to learn it. Or be a level 10 bard, but that may be a conversation for another thread.
And I don't think Hide in Plain Sight is worthless at all. It stacks with Pass without Trace and any other environmental factors which make you harder to spot. It's for lying in wait and ambushing targets...your prey. Using it effectively requires thinking along those lines. If you're not going to play that way, then, of course, you're not going to think it's useful.
I'm not going to keep repeating myself. I made arguments back in the posts I mentioned above. Please directly address those. Otherwise, I am ignoring responses. Have a good day.
I see. It's the spell concentration as it applies to a ranger compared to a paladin that gets the big buff to saving throw's.
Well, I hope one thing we can all agree on is a ranger is mechanically, and perhaps thematically, suited to be "a person with a bow" in the party. They are kind of doing an injustice to themselves and the party taking up a melee role exclusively. Many of their best spells and abilities enhance upon and even rely on using a ranged weapon or at least a thrown weapon. Paladins are the opposite. Three of their strongest abilities (lay on hands, divine smite, and auras) become much less effective if the take up ranged weapon combat exclusively. The paladin class serves themselves and the party best by being "a person up front with a melee weapon". I see similar situations with rogues and barbarians. Fighters can be built powerfully either way. Again, fighters are very flexible. I really don't have have too much of a problem with this arrangement. If everyone can do everything then classes are all just ribbon abilities. Rangers would benefit from a boost to saving throws, but paladins REQUIRE them. Paladins would benefit from spells that enhance ranged attacks, but rangers REQUIRE them.
For clarification on the concentration save issue, I made those arguments back in post 96, 99, and 101. I will not be quoting them here to save space.
You really want to bring this up from...12 pages ago? Okay, fine.
Rangers don't have to be as good at melee as fighters and paladins; whatever that means. Those two classes have proficiency with heavy armor. The only other class that can is the cleric, and only if you choose an appropriate Divine Domain. Fighters are proficient in Constitution saving throws while paladins gets to add a bonus equal to their Charsima modifier to their Constitution saving throws. And when fighting side-by-side, the paladin makes the fighter even better. Rangers have that precious d10 hit die and proficiency with martial weapons, but I think they have more in common with, say, melee bards (Colleges of Swords and Valor) and warlocks (Pack of the Blade). The ranger has always been this weird tri-part druid/fighter/rogue; a red-headed stepchild with an identity crisis. It walks not just a fine line, but a weird one.
Not every class is going to get full use out of a feat like War Caster, and that's okay. A wizard might only see use in 2/3 because not many fight with multiple melee weapons; or any melee weapons. A wizard could even take Crossbow Expert just to ignore 1/2 and 3/4 cover with their ranged spell attacks. If someone else were to take Shield Master, they, too, might only see strong use in 2/3 of its perks. How many characters, do you think, have both a high Strength (Athletics) score and proficiency with Dexterity saving throws with a decent modifier? I can make a character that does, or eventually would, but it's pretty niche.
But back to War Caster for a hot second. Cantrips are not essential to getting use out of the feat's 3rd bullet. Any spell with a casting time of one action that targets only that creature will do. Slotted spells like Hold Person or Levitate will do the job, too. I just can't find any eligible spells on the ranger's spell list, but that's okay, too.
There is no real reason to go beyond Ranger 5 ever.
I actually think that Ranger is decent in Tier 1 but drops off HARD after that.
Ranger 5 then Rogue X is so much better.
For damage output, you are like 1,000% correct. But some of my favorite things about ranger are 3rd level spells, hide in plain sight, and, depending on your subclass, the level 11 ability. But I hear you and agree. If you want to sneak, be quick, and shoot things for lots of damage, ranger/rogue is awesome sauce! Hunter/Moon Druid is really fun. And Beast Master/Druid and/or Cleric too. Actually a strength based melee Hunter/Barbarian is really fun!
There is no real reason to go beyond Ranger 5 ever.
I actually think that Ranger is decent in Tier 1 but drops off HARD after that.
Ranger 5 then Rogue X is so much better.
For damage output, you are like 1,000% correct. But some of my favorite things about ranger are 3rd level spells, hide in plain sight, and, depending on your subclass, the level 11 ability. But I hear you and agree. If you want to sneak, be quick, and shoot things for lots of damage, ranger/rogue is awesome sauce! Hunter/Moon Druid is really fun. And Beast Master/Druid and/or Cleric too. Actually a strength based melee Hunter/Barbarian is really fun!
For damage output, that's 1000% false. A ranger can, consistently, keep up with paladins who aren't using their Divine Smite. Paladins can, of course, use it for "burst damage". But this burns through another limited and precious resource that could go toward spells. Once they reach Tier 4 (17th level and higher), the gap grows even larger.
A paladin with max Strength, a Greatsword with the accompanying fighting style, and an upcast Elemental Weapon is attacking twice with +13 to hit for an average of 18 (2d6+5+1.33+2d4) per swing. Their total, assuming both attacks land, is 38 damage. A ranger with max Dexterity, a Longbow with the accompanying fighting style, and Swift Quiver is attacking 4 times with +13 to hit for an average of 9 (1d8+5) per arrow. Because of how fractions work, this averages out to 38 damage. So both are expending a single 5th-level spell slot and are more or less going toe-to-toe. The single, biggest difference is the paladin's attacks are guaranteed to be magical.
But rangers can even exceed paladins. If the very same ranger above is a Beast Master with a Wolf, then their DPR shoots up to 54: 28 (3d8+15) from the longbow and 26 (4d4+16) from the bites. The paladin must expend a 2nd-level spell slot for a +18 (4d8) damage Improved Divine Smite once per round just to keep up. And the wolf still brings other perks, like Pack Tactics and the ability to knock enemies [condition[Prone[/item].
Technically, the paladin can pump out more damage per turn. But it's inefficient and not suited for every encounter. Some rangers can, and do, fall a little behind in DPR during Tier 2 play. But once they ding level 11, they're right back in it. So, if your concern is DPR, then you need to look at the level of campaign you're likely to play in. A ranger with TWF is competitive up until Tier-4 when 5th-level spells become available*. That will get you through any hardcover module. Beast Masters, if you don't mind lagging behind for a while, really come into their own in Tier 3. But they're not built for pure DPR. It's a controller archetype.
*Initially forgot about Steel Wind Strike. With it, a TWF ranger needs to only hit 3 enemies. Start round 2 by casting Hunter's Mark and attacking twice. The bonus action attack has to wait until round 3, but they're dealing an average of 53 damage. Rangers are phenomenal at dealing with multiple threats. Better than almost any other martial class.
Meanwhile, nobody has addressed the concentration problem for melee Rangers I mentioned several pages back (even though I also noted some ways to fix this) while everybody admits that, RAW, Hide in Plain Sight is practically worthless for a 10th level ability (compare it to other class' 10th level abilities) and there's a bunch of other situational or DM-specific abilties at levels 1 to 3 while still arguing the base Ranger is as well designed as every other class. Ummmm, yeah, but no.
I mentioned the problem in my wall of text on page 20, though I didn't see your specific complaints about it.
The thing is, a lot of the spells that Rangers have concentration conflicts with just don't seem to be intended to be stacked with Hunter's Mark, so it's not really a problem. Lightning Arrow for example is a fantastic spell, absolute must have for a ranged Ranger, because when you can hit two or more targets at once it will do huge damage for a half caster (and it does pretty decent damage to just one target to begin with, especially if they don't like lightning). If you want to keep Hunter's Mark up, you can use Conjure Barrage instead for less damage (while keeping your sustained damage bonus either side of it).
Meanwhile for a melee Ranger there isn't much conflict at all; Zephyr Strike is a great mobile melee fighter spell, and does bonus damage of its own, which is presumably why it's concentration even though it's a spell you're likely to use entirely within your own turn (unless you plan to ready an attack).
Really the only problem is that if you cast Hunter's Mark early, then later have an opportunity to cast Lightning Arrow/Zephyr Strike, then you lose Hunter's Mark and have to cast it again to bring it back up; so you end up wasting a slot. The 2019 UA class variants go to extremes to counteract that, IMO too far, by giving you a bunch of (Wisdom based) free castings of Hunter's Mark, the ability to switch targets as a bonus action whenever you want, and requiring no concentration. Personally I don't think the Ranger needs the concentration removal, just being able to bring Hunter's Mark back up without using a spell slot would hugely soften the blow of switching between Hunter's Mark and something else, plus removing concentration will only introduce exploits (e.g- stack with Hex, and a bunch of the Ranger specific spells).
I also personally think Hide In Plain Sight is a decent feature; people seem to forget that part of a Ranger's playstyle should include setting ambushes when you can, you only have to look at the spell list to see this. Hide In Plain Sight and throw down any combination (or all) of Cordon of Arrows, Snare and Spike Growth and you can put a Paladin to shame with literal spike damage that doesn't reveal your position so you can also take a full surprise round on top of it! If your allies also have trap spells and abilities you could kill a mob of enemies without them even knowing you're there. 😉
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.
LOL! Don't yell at me about ranger danger. I'm on the "pro ranger" side of the debate. You're still talking about single target damage. What's the math on a beast master and wolf with a hail of thorns or lighting arrow hitting 3 or 4 targets?! BIG!!! Hunter 5/Rogue 15 is just a...straightforward way of getting some DPR.
There is no real reason to go beyond Ranger 5 ever.
I actually think that Ranger is decent in Tier 1 but drops off HARD after that.
Ranger 5 then Rogue X is so much better.
For damage output, you are like 1,000% correct. But some of my favorite things about ranger are 3rd level spells, hide in plain sight, and, depending on your subclass, the level 11 ability. But I hear you and agree. If you want to sneak, be quick, and shoot things for lots of damage, ranger/rogue is awesome sauce! Hunter/Moon Druid is really fun. And Beast Master/Druid and/or Cleric too. Actually a strength based melee Hunter/Barbarian is really fun!
For damage output, that's 1000% false. A ranger can, consistently, keep up with paladins who aren't using their Divine Smite. Paladins can, of course, use it for "burst damage". But this burns through another limited and precious resource that could go toward spells. Once they reach Tier 4 (17th level and higher), the gap grows even larger.
A paladin with max Strength, a Greatsword with the accompanying fighting style, and an upcast Elemental Weapon is attacking twice with +13 to hit for an average of 18 (2d6+5+1.33+2d4) per swing. Their total, assuming both attacks land, is 38 damage. A ranger with max Dexterity, a Longbow with the accompanying fighting style, and Swift Quiver is attacking 4 times with +13 to hit for an average of 9 (1d8+5) per arrow. Because of how fractions work, this averages out to 38 damage. So both are expending a single 5th-level spell slot and are more or less going toe-to-toe. The single, biggest difference is the paladin's attacks are guaranteed to be magical.
But rangers can even exceed paladins. If the very same ranger above is a Beast Master with a Wolf, then their DPR shoots up to 54: 28 (3d8+15) from the longbow and 26 (4d4+16) from the bites. The paladin must expend a 2nd-level spell slot for a +18 (4d8) damage Improved Divine Smite once per round just to keep up. And the wolf still brings other perks, like Pack Tactics and the ability to knock enemies [condition[Prone[/item].
Technically, the paladin can pump out more damage per turn. But it's inefficient and not suited for every encounter. Some rangers can, and do, fall a little behind in DPR during Tier 2 play. But once they ding level 11, they're right back in it. So, if your concern is DPR, then you need to look at the level of campaign you're likely to play in. A ranger with TWF is competitive up until Tier-4 when 5th-level spells become available*. That will get you through any hardcover module. Beast Masters, if you don't mind lagging behind for a while, really come into their own in Tier 3. But they're not built for pure DPR. It's a controller archetype.
*Initially forgot about Steel Wind Strike. With it, a TWF ranger needs to only hit 3 enemies. Start round 2 by casting Hunter's Mark and attacking twice. The bonus action attack has to wait until round 3, but they're dealing an average of 53 damage. Rangers are phenomenal at dealing with multiple threats. Better than almost any other martial class.
You are not using real DPR measures here and I can't take most of it at face value because of this.
And I would believe you more. Honestly some Rangers can keep up (Hunter does fine) but most especially Beast Master are terrible terrible damage options. The fact your beast dies you lose everything have to spend 8 hours to get it back is unforgivingly terrible.
Ranger isn't even in the top ten for damage builds. Its usually beat out because of two things:
1. No sustainable way to get ADV
2. No mitigating features to increase chances to hit (Channel Divinity, Reckless Attack, Precision Attack, etc...)
They also suffer from the aformentioned CON save problem with their biggest damage dealer augment Hunters Mark and have to use a BA to move the mark meaning they cannot even benefit from the BA attack from Handcrossbow CBE meta.
Overall they are fine...but no where near the top end.
There is no real reason to go beyond Ranger 5 ever.
I actually think that Ranger is decent in Tier 1 but drops off HARD after that.
Ranger 5 then Rogue X is so much better.
For damage output, you are like 1,000% correct. But some of my favorite things about ranger are 3rd level spells, hide in plain sight, and, depending on your subclass, the level 11 ability. But I hear you and agree. If you want to sneak, be quick, and shoot things for lots of damage, ranger/rogue is awesome sauce! Hunter/Moon Druid is really fun. And Beast Master/Druid and/or Cleric too. Actually a strength based melee Hunter/Barbarian is really fun!
For damage output, that's 1000% false. A ranger can, consistently, keep up with paladins who aren't using their Divine Smite. Paladins can, of course, use it for "burst damage". But this burns through another limited and precious resource that could go toward spells. Once they reach Tier 4 (17th level and higher), the gap grows even larger.
A paladin with max Strength, a Greatsword with the accompanying fighting style, and an upcast Elemental Weapon is attacking twice with +13 to hit for an average of 18 (2d6+5+1.33+2d4) per swing. Their total, assuming both attacks land, is 38 damage. A ranger with max Dexterity, a Longbow with the accompanying fighting style, and Swift Quiver is attacking 4 times with +13 to hit for an average of 9 (1d8+5) per arrow. Because of how fractions work, this averages out to 38 damage. So both are expending a single 5th-level spell slot and are more or less going toe-to-toe. The single, biggest difference is the paladin's attacks are guaranteed to be magical.
But rangers can even exceed paladins. If the very same ranger above is a Beast Master with a Wolf, then their DPR shoots up to 54: 28 (3d8+15) from the longbow and 26 (4d4+16) from the bites. The paladin must expend a 2nd-level spell slot for a +18 (4d8) damage Improved Divine Smite once per round just to keep up. And the wolf still brings other perks, like Pack Tactics and the ability to knock enemies [condition[Prone[/item].
Technically, the paladin can pump out more damage per turn. But it's inefficient and not suited for every encounter. Some rangers can, and do, fall a little behind in DPR during Tier 2 play. But once they ding level 11, they're right back in it. So, if your concern is DPR, then you need to look at the level of campaign you're likely to play in. A ranger with TWF is competitive up until Tier-4 when 5th-level spells become available*. That will get you through any hardcover module. Beast Masters, if you don't mind lagging behind for a while, really come into their own in Tier 3. But they're not built for pure DPR. It's a controller archetype.
*Initially forgot about Steel Wind Strike. With it, a TWF ranger needs to only hit 3 enemies. Start round 2 by casting Hunter's Mark and attacking twice. The bonus action attack has to wait until round 3, but they're dealing an average of 53 damage. Rangers are phenomenal at dealing with multiple threats. Better than almost any other martial class.
You are not using real DPR measures here and I can't take most of it at face value because of this.
And I would believe you more. Honestly some Rangers can keep up (Hunter does fine) but most especially Beast Master are terrible terrible damage options. The fact your beast dies you lose everything have to spend 8 hours to get it back is unforgivingly terrible.
Ranger isn't even in the top ten for damage builds. Its usually beat out because of two things:
1. No sustainable way to get ADV
2. No mitigating features to increase chances to hit (Channel Divinity, Reckless Attack, Precision Attack, etc...)
They also suffer from the aformentioned CON save problem with their biggest damage dealer augment Hunters Mark and have to use a BA to move the mark meaning they cannot even benefit from the BA attack from Handcrossbow CBE meta.
Overall they are fine...but no where near the top end.
Are these all super OP DPR builds? Because I’m willing to go down a DPR conversation but not if it’s super feat based nova white room kind of stuff. We can apply AC, hit chances, critical chances, and all the rest, but it has to be for real characters. Not power game damage builds. P.S. Beast master’s deal more damage than hunter’s after level 11.
LOL! Don't yell at me about ranger danger. I'm on the "pro ranger" side of the debate. You're still talking about single target damage. What's the math on a beast master and wolf with a hail of thorns or lighting arrow hitting 3 or 4 targets?! BIG!!! Hunter 5/Rogue 15 is just a...straightforward way of getting some DPR.
I deliberately kept the comparisons as simple as possible to remove as many variables as I could. Both had a maxed attack attribute and used a single, 5th-level spell to augment their damage potential.
All I did was point out your assessment was dead wrong.
LOL! Don't yell at me about ranger danger. I'm on the "pro ranger" side of the debate. You're still talking about single target damage. What's the math on a beast master and wolf with a hail of thorns or lighting arrow hitting 3 or 4 targets?! BIG!!! Hunter 5/Rogue 15 is just a...straightforward way of getting some DPR.
I deliberately kept the comparisons as simple as possible to remove as many variables as I could. Both had a maxed attack attribute and used a single, 5th-level spell to augment their damage potential.
All I did was point out your assessment was dead wrong.
You may not "want" to do those things but to be an honest comparison you have to do the work (that many others have already conveniently done) and prove that its as good as you say. A lot of these are not White Room builds as you say as they use class features and spells much like you have suggested for the ranger. Overall they just destroy ranger on DPR.
The simple way of looking at it is that Ranger does not offer a lot of ways to keep up with these higher damage potential builds. I have the firm belief they were never meant to be a top damage dealer as they were suppose to have more out of combat utility than the classes that do (Fighter, Barbarian, etc...) but in play they just do not. I wish they did but here we are.
Overall while I enjoy Rangers to some extent, particularly Gloomstalker, they are kind of a failure as a class for their design intent. They are the most adjusted/homebrewed/"fixed" class and its not even close.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It's "going nowhere" because you ignore everything that doesn't agree with you and just repost your opinion over and over again; you've very pointedly ignored my post where I comprehensively addressed your position, I will note. That is why the "conversation" is "going nowhere", because people who hate on classes and sub-classes don't seem to actually want a conversation, they just want everyone to accept that they're right, when they're not.
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.
👏👏👏
yup
I am an average mathematics enjoyer.
>Extended Signature<
Meanwhile, nobody has addressed the concentration problem for melee Rangers I mentioned several pages back (even though I also noted some ways to fix this) while everybody admits that, RAW, Hide in Plain Sight is practically worthless for a 10th level ability (compare it to other class' 10th level abilities) and there's a bunch of other situational or DM-specific abilties at levels 1 to 3 while still arguing the base Ranger is as well designed as every other class. Ummmm, yeah, but no.
Levels 1-10, with hunter's mark, rangers put out damage that exceeds that of a fighter under the right circumstances (long bow, single handed weapon). Past that they have very ways to up their damage. That CFV UA is trying the no concentration hunter's mark (which I don't think will make it i TCoE), but I apologize, I missed your suggestions? What where they? Will you link to them? I will read them.
I argue that hide in plain sight works great, by RAW. I think it's a great ability! I assume you are referring to what many people do about the 1 minute bit. I read that RAW as a two part ability. Just like the halfling and wood elf abilities. "If you (are behind a creature larger than you/are in naturally occurring lightly obscured area/spend 1 minute making camouflage for yourself), then you can attempt to hide." The ranger version, because of the time factor and movement and action restrictions, gives you a big bonus to the stealth roll.
I see the favored enemy as their flavor ability a bit, I guess. It isn't, but it is the way most tables play the game. In a game where speaking, time spent in the wild, and knowing information about things IN CHARACTER is important than it is a GREAT ability. The revised ranger natural explorer is too much. Perhaps the PHB version is too little. But the revised ranger version would be like for a rogue always being in a dark shadow filled dungeon with every door trapped. Too much.
For clarification on the concentration save issue, I made those arguments back in post 96, 99, and 101. I will not be quoting them here to save space.
Concentration isn't the drawback a lot of people think it is. It's annoying, sure, but it's a balancing act. Paladins have the same problem. Both classes have numerous spells which require concentration and are useful in or out of combat. I personally think Hunter's Mark is only really worth it if the ranger is making multiple attacks or you desperately need to track a target. And, after a while, its DPR contributions wear off. Beast Masters have little use for it, and if you're an archer then Swift Quiver is far better. That said, it's a 5th-level spell. You need 17 levels in the class to learn it. Or be a level 10 bard, but that may be a conversation for another thread.
And I don't think Hide in Plain Sight is worthless at all. It stacks with Pass without Trace and any other environmental factors which make you harder to spot. It's for lying in wait and ambushing targets...your prey. Using it effectively requires thinking along those lines. If you're not going to play that way, then, of course, you're not going to think it's useful.
I'm not going to keep repeating myself. I made arguments back in the posts I mentioned above. Please directly address those. Otherwise, I am ignoring responses. Have a good day.
I see. It's the spell concentration as it applies to a ranger compared to a paladin that gets the big buff to saving throw's.
Well, I hope one thing we can all agree on is a ranger is mechanically, and perhaps thematically, suited to be "a person with a bow" in the party. They are kind of doing an injustice to themselves and the party taking up a melee role exclusively. Many of their best spells and abilities enhance upon and even rely on using a ranged weapon or at least a thrown weapon. Paladins are the opposite. Three of their strongest abilities (lay on hands, divine smite, and auras) become much less effective if the take up ranged weapon combat exclusively. The paladin class serves themselves and the party best by being "a person up front with a melee weapon". I see similar situations with rogues and barbarians. Fighters can be built powerfully either way. Again, fighters are very flexible. I really don't have have too much of a problem with this arrangement. If everyone can do everything then classes are all just ribbon abilities. Rangers would benefit from a boost to saving throws, but paladins REQUIRE them. Paladins would benefit from spells that enhance ranged attacks, but rangers REQUIRE them.
You really want to bring this up from...12 pages ago? Okay, fine.
Rangers don't have to be as good at melee as fighters and paladins; whatever that means. Those two classes have proficiency with heavy armor. The only other class that can is the cleric, and only if you choose an appropriate Divine Domain. Fighters are proficient in Constitution saving throws while paladins gets to add a bonus equal to their Charsima modifier to their Constitution saving throws. And when fighting side-by-side, the paladin makes the fighter even better. Rangers have that precious d10 hit die and proficiency with martial weapons, but I think they have more in common with, say, melee bards (Colleges of Swords and Valor) and warlocks (Pack of the Blade). The ranger has always been this weird tri-part druid/fighter/rogue; a red-headed stepchild with an identity crisis. It walks not just a fine line, but a weird one.
Not every class is going to get full use out of a feat like War Caster, and that's okay. A wizard might only see use in 2/3 because not many fight with multiple melee weapons; or any melee weapons. A wizard could even take Crossbow Expert just to ignore 1/2 and 3/4 cover with their ranged spell attacks. If someone else were to take Shield Master, they, too, might only see strong use in 2/3 of its perks. How many characters, do you think, have both a high Strength (Athletics) score and proficiency with Dexterity saving throws with a decent modifier? I can make a character that does, or eventually would, but it's pretty niche.
But back to War Caster for a hot second. Cantrips are not essential to getting use out of the feat's 3rd bullet. Any spell with a casting time of one action that targets only that creature will do. Slotted spells like Hold Person or Levitate will do the job, too. I just can't find any eligible spells on the ranger's spell list, but that's okay, too.
There is no real reason to go beyond Ranger 5 ever.
I actually think that Ranger is decent in Tier 1 but drops off HARD after that.
Ranger 5 then Rogue X is so much better.
For damage output, you are like 1,000% correct. But some of my favorite things about ranger are 3rd level spells, hide in plain sight, and, depending on your subclass, the level 11 ability. But I hear you and agree. If you want to sneak, be quick, and shoot things for lots of damage, ranger/rogue is awesome sauce! Hunter/Moon Druid is really fun. And Beast Master/Druid and/or Cleric too. Actually a strength based melee Hunter/Barbarian is really fun!
For damage output, that's 1000% false. A ranger can, consistently, keep up with paladins who aren't using their Divine Smite. Paladins can, of course, use it for "burst damage". But this burns through another limited and precious resource that could go toward spells. Once they reach Tier 4 (17th level and higher), the gap grows even larger.
A paladin with max Strength, a Greatsword with the accompanying fighting style, and an upcast Elemental Weapon is attacking twice with +13 to hit for an average of 18 (2d6+5+1.33+2d4) per swing. Their total, assuming both attacks land, is 38 damage. A ranger with max Dexterity, a Longbow with the accompanying fighting style, and Swift Quiver is attacking 4 times with +13 to hit for an average of 9 (1d8+5) per arrow. Because of how fractions work, this averages out to 38 damage. So both are expending a single 5th-level spell slot and are more or less going toe-to-toe. The single, biggest difference is the paladin's attacks are guaranteed to be magical.
But rangers can even exceed paladins. If the very same ranger above is a Beast Master with a Wolf, then their DPR shoots up to 54: 28 (3d8+15) from the longbow and 26 (4d4+16) from the bites. The paladin must expend a 2nd-level spell slot for a +18 (4d8) damage Improved Divine Smite once per round just to keep up. And the wolf still brings other perks, like Pack Tactics and the ability to knock enemies [condition[Prone[/item].
Technically, the paladin can pump out more damage per turn. But it's inefficient and not suited for every encounter. Some rangers can, and do, fall a little behind in DPR during Tier 2 play. But once they ding level 11, they're right back in it. So, if your concern is DPR, then you need to look at the level of campaign you're likely to play in. A ranger with TWF is competitive up until Tier-4 when 5th-level spells become available*. That will get you through any hardcover module. Beast Masters, if you don't mind lagging behind for a while, really come into their own in Tier 3. But they're not built for pure DPR. It's a controller archetype.
*Initially forgot about Steel Wind Strike. With it, a TWF ranger needs to only hit 3 enemies. Start round 2 by casting Hunter's Mark and attacking twice. The bonus action attack has to wait until round 3, but they're dealing an average of 53 damage. Rangers are phenomenal at dealing with multiple threats. Better than almost any other martial class.
I mentioned the problem in my wall of text on page 20, though I didn't see your specific complaints about it.
The thing is, a lot of the spells that Rangers have concentration conflicts with just don't seem to be intended to be stacked with Hunter's Mark, so it's not really a problem. Lightning Arrow for example is a fantastic spell, absolute must have for a ranged Ranger, because when you can hit two or more targets at once it will do huge damage for a half caster (and it does pretty decent damage to just one target to begin with, especially if they don't like lightning). If you want to keep Hunter's Mark up, you can use Conjure Barrage instead for less damage (while keeping your sustained damage bonus either side of it).
Meanwhile for a melee Ranger there isn't much conflict at all; Zephyr Strike is a great mobile melee fighter spell, and does bonus damage of its own, which is presumably why it's concentration even though it's a spell you're likely to use entirely within your own turn (unless you plan to ready an attack).
Really the only problem is that if you cast Hunter's Mark early, then later have an opportunity to cast Lightning Arrow/Zephyr Strike, then you lose Hunter's Mark and have to cast it again to bring it back up; so you end up wasting a slot. The 2019 UA class variants go to extremes to counteract that, IMO too far, by giving you a bunch of (Wisdom based) free castings of Hunter's Mark, the ability to switch targets as a bonus action whenever you want, and requiring no concentration. Personally I don't think the Ranger needs the concentration removal, just being able to bring Hunter's Mark back up without using a spell slot would hugely soften the blow of switching between Hunter's Mark and something else, plus removing concentration will only introduce exploits (e.g- stack with Hex, and a bunch of the Ranger specific spells).
I also personally think Hide In Plain Sight is a decent feature; people seem to forget that part of a Ranger's playstyle should include setting ambushes when you can, you only have to look at the spell list to see this. Hide In Plain Sight and throw down any combination (or all) of Cordon of Arrows, Snare and Spike Growth and you can put a Paladin to shame with literal spike damage that doesn't reveal your position so you can also take a full surprise round on top of it! If your allies also have trap spells and abilities you could kill a mob of enemies without them even knowing you're there. 😉
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.
LOL! Don't yell at me about ranger danger. I'm on the "pro ranger" side of the debate. You're still talking about single target damage. What's the math on a beast master and wolf with a hail of thorns or lighting arrow hitting 3 or 4 targets?! BIG!!! Hunter 5/Rogue 15 is just a...straightforward way of getting some DPR.
You are not using real DPR measures here and I can't take most of it at face value because of this.
Look over this calculator:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14WlZE_UKwn3Vhv4i8ewVOc-f2-A7tMW_VRum_p3YNHQ/edit#gid=151780215
And these builds (which incorporate AC calculations which you are missing)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sVbgG1No5PMMz4QbBnS4d0xSEPT0whP84J3iB2X_Mjk/edit#gid=297972360
And I would believe you more. Honestly some Rangers can keep up (Hunter does fine) but most especially Beast Master are terrible terrible damage options. The fact your beast dies you lose everything have to spend 8 hours to get it back is unforgivingly terrible.
Ranger isn't even in the top ten for damage builds. Its usually beat out because of two things:
1. No sustainable way to get ADV
2. No mitigating features to increase chances to hit (Channel Divinity, Reckless Attack, Precision Attack, etc...)
They also suffer from the aformentioned CON save problem with their biggest damage dealer augment Hunters Mark and have to use a BA to move the mark meaning they cannot even benefit from the BA attack from Handcrossbow CBE meta.
Overall they are fine...but no where near the top end.
Are these all super OP DPR builds? Because I’m willing to go down a DPR conversation but not if it’s super feat based nova white room kind of stuff. We can apply AC, hit chances, critical chances, and all the rest, but it has to be for real characters. Not power game damage builds. P.S. Beast master’s deal more damage than hunter’s after level 11.
https://youtu.be/zg0bAl1WPGQ
I deliberately kept the comparisons as simple as possible to remove as many variables as I could. Both had a maxed attack attribute and used a single, 5th-level spell to augment their damage potential.
All I did was point out your assessment was dead wrong.
You may not "want" to do those things but to be an honest comparison you have to do the work (that many others have already conveniently done) and prove that its as good as you say. A lot of these are not White Room builds as you say as they use class features and spells much like you have suggested for the ranger. Overall they just destroy ranger on DPR.
The simple way of looking at it is that Ranger does not offer a lot of ways to keep up with these higher damage potential builds. I have the firm belief they were never meant to be a top damage dealer as they were suppose to have more out of combat utility than the classes that do (Fighter, Barbarian, etc...) but in play they just do not. I wish they did but here we are.
Overall while I enjoy Rangers to some extent, particularly Gloomstalker, they are kind of a failure as a class for their design intent. They are the most adjusted/homebrewed/"fixed" class and its not even close.