Jounichi1983, player agency driven RAW power gamers are everywhere it would seem. This is why I keep an ancient red dragon mini and stat block on me all the time. She’s a regularly occurring NPC named “Britches”. Sometimes players think they get to big for her.
Oh, I know. Believe me. I didn't start until 3rd edition (when I was in high school), but power gamers trying to milk the most out of the system date back at least 20 years. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if it went on a lot longer.
It was annoying then, and I think it's even worse now. Especially when the system is so forgiving that it's no longer necessary. A case could be made that it never was, but the early days of WotC D&D definitely encouraged it.
all of these points are incredibly flawed and I can't even begin to explain why. please watch literally any YouTube video on DPR and find out why not including AC feats or any other kind of ability is just inherently wrong.
Into your point about Ranger not being a failure... I guess the vast majority of the fan base disagrees with you so there's that.
Feats are only relevant in a comparison against classes that can take more of them; Paladins and Rangers get the same number of Ability Score Increases, so can have the same number of feats in total, you only want to consider feats when comparing against Fighter or Rogue since they can take more, or in a game without feats, can max their key scores earlier.
If you go with a Paladin and Ranger equipped as closely as possible, they can benefit from the same feats, if you go for different builds then of course they're going to take different feats, but it only makes the comparison a lot harder (especially if one them takes Actor because their character is an amateur, but gifted, thespian).
Uh never has that been a thing.
Never has anyone taken the Actor feat? That's just not true.
If you're talking about something else, I think some clarification is in order.
Alright. I’ll look at those spreadsheets tomorrow. But anyone that tells me “the fighter does better damage than __________” is silly because a fighter damned well better do damage. If these are dealing with smite crits or sneak attack crits, I’m out because that is silly. Other than the barbarian who else has a way to get advantage on their attacks? Beast master, wizard, and who? No feats, no multiclass, and a ranger does damage with the beat of them. We’re talking a point or two of damage difference. Against more than one target and the ranger pulls to the lead.
I think Cleric and Bard?
Also you don't need advantage you can just have things like precision attack. Fighters can get a reasonable amount of advantage just by using trip attack. There's literally a fighter subclass that allows you to get advantage in all your attacks.
paladins have a channel Divinity that allows them to get advantage on all attacks against one creature.
Hexblade can get Shadow of Moil which allows them to get advantage in their attacks.
Beast master does too.
How?
Beast master 7 for one. There might be more depending on what beast you go with. Wolves can prone a creature, for example.
Help action is one attack. The other mentioned features provide ADV for all attacks.
Prone is a fair one but you give up an attack for the wolf to prone so it's moot.
The wolf can knock an enemy prone as part of its attack. You wouldn't give anything up to do it.
all of these points are incredibly flawed and I can't even begin to explain why. please watch literally any YouTube video on DPR and find out why not including AC feats or any other kind of ability is just inherently wrong.
Into your point about Ranger not being a failure... I guess the vast majority of the fan base disagrees with you so there's that.
Feats are only relevant in a comparison against classes that can take more of them; Paladins and Rangers get the same number of Ability Score Increases, so can have the same number of feats in total, you only want to consider feats when comparing against Fighter or Rogue since they can take more, or in a game without feats, can max their key scores earlier.
If you go with a Paladin and Ranger equipped as closely as possible, they can benefit from the same feats, if you go for different builds then of course they're going to take different feats, but it only makes the comparison a lot harder (especially if one them takes Actor because their character is an amateur, but gifted, thespian).
Uh never has that been a thing.
Never has anyone taken the Actor feat? That's just not true.
If you're talking about something else, I think some clarification is in order.
I'm talking about not being able to compare builds because they don't get the same amount of feats... It's asinine.
The design was to try and balance between all the classes not just between a couple at a time.
Ranger has undergone more changes and scrutiny than any other class by a long shot.
So yes it's actually worse than Trip Attack from battlemaster.
Ranger will always lose out to fighter...
- Action Surge nova makes catching up to Fighter DPR straight impossible, but this isn't a Ranger exclusive problem.
- Fighter's extra ASI & generally superior subclass options for damage haha means that even though Ranger's base is comparable, they fall behind in consistent DPR aside from AS
I'm talking about not being able to compare builds because they don't get the same amount of feats... It's asinine.
The design was to try and balance between all the classes not just between a couple at a time.
Ranger has undergone more changes and scrutiny than any other class by a long shot.
Even Larian when they were making BG3 were like:
"Uh this sucks... You got suggestions?"
It's just the reality of the situation.
Who's design?
The ranger hasn't actually undergone any changes, aside from errata.
Larian had to change things up for a video game because it's a video game. Plenty of other things were adapted differently, too. Whether those "changes" appear in Tasha's, I have no idea. None of us do.
So yes it's actually worse than Trip Attack from battlemaster.
Ranger will always lose out to fighter...
- Action Surge nova makes catching up to Fighter DPR straight impossible, but this isn't a Ranger exclusive problem.
- Fighter's extra ASI & generally superior subclass options for damage haha means that even though Ranger's base is comparable, they fall behind in consistent DPR aside from AS
Both the wolf's trip and the battle master's trip take place after the damaging attack resolves. Damage is dealt, and the target must then succeed in a strength saving throw.
And pretty much every class "loses out" to fighter. But D&D isn't a game about just putting up ridiculously high damage numbers. Action Surge is great for burst DPR, sure, but you won't always use it for that. It's so versatile a feature that assuming it will only be used for attacking is a fool's errand. Every fight is different, every enemy is different, and not all resources will be available when you want them to be.
"No plan survives contact with the enemy." -Moltke
I'm talking about not being able to compare builds because they don't get the same amount of feats... It's asinine.
The design was to try and balance between all the classes not just between a couple at a time.
Ranger has undergone more changes and scrutiny than any other class by a long shot.
Even Larian when they were making BG3 were like:
"Uh this sucks... You got suggestions?"
It's just the reality of the situation.
Who's design?
The ranger hasn't actually undergone any changes, aside from errata.
Larian had to change things up for a video game because it's a video game. Plenty of other things were adapted differently, too. Whether those "changes" appear in Tasha's, I have no idea. None of us do.
So yes it's actually worse than Trip Attack from battlemaster.
Ranger will always lose out to fighter...
- Action Surge nova makes catching up to Fighter DPR straight impossible, but this isn't a Ranger exclusive problem.
- Fighter's extra ASI & generally superior subclass options for damage haha means that even though Ranger's base is comparable, they fall behind in consistent DPR aside from AS
Both the wolf's trip and the battle master's trip take place after the damaging attack resolves. Damage is dealt, and the target must then succeed in a strength saving throw.
And pretty much every class "loses out" to fighter. But D&D isn't a game about just putting up ridiculously high damage numbers. Action Surge is great for burst DPR, sure, but you won't always use it for that. It's so versatile a feature that assuming it will only be used for attacking is a fool's errand. Every fight is different, every enemy is different, and not all resources will be available when you want them to be.
"No plan survives contact with the enemy." -Moltke
So ranger does less damage then fighter, barbarian. That's settled then.
Now on to utility.
Ranger features beyond combat are terribad.
Favored foe and terrian are barely useful even when in the terrain and facing the enemy. They are usually replaced by a survival roll that rogues are better at.
They get spells but know almost none compared to paladin and paladins can change out their list on a LR.
Overall the ranger is just a mess of bad concepts.
Also Ranger got a Revised Ranger UA and now the CFV of which ranger has the most extensive changes.
If you honestly think ranger hasn't been panned then you are delusional.
OptimusGrimus, why on earth would it be fair for ANY martial class to be as good at dealing damage as the fighter? Compared to the wizard, fighters are horrible at spell casting. That is a fact that almost all of the fan base knows. Don’t even get me started on how bad fighters are at wild shaping compared to a druid. That’s just a fact.
Yeah, we know. You only care about one thing. You've made that clear.
You also have missed pages of the same, tired arguments that, frankly, don't hold any water. You're entitled to your opinion, but you're late to the party and there's no one you're going to convince or help by keeping this up.
Yeah, we know. You only care about one thing. You've made that clear.
You also have missed pages of the same, tired arguments that, frankly, don't hold any water. You're entitled to your opinion, but you're late to the party and there's no one you're going to convince or help by keeping this up.
You're objectively wrong if you don't agree the community wants ranger changes.
Is the only class with a complete overhaul from PHB that came through UA.
They got the most attention in the CFV UA by far.
They are constantly rated low by people actually playing the class.
OptimusGrimus, why on earth would it be fair for ANY martial class to be as good at dealing damage as the fighter? Compared to the wizard, fighters are horrible at spell casting. That is a fact that almost all of the fan base knows. Don’t even get me started on how bad fighters are at wild shaping compared to a druid. That’s just a fact.
This is the single most asinine thing I've ever read. DPR is universal and has a heavy established history in the community with solid math basis.
These"comments" are not the same. You can very much compare DPR between martials as that's basically what they do. DPR can and has been compared between the classes.
“So ranger does less damage then fighter, barbarian. That's settled then.” With a big melee weapon? Yes for the fighter. Maybe sometimes for the barbarian. A strength based hunter ranger with a great sword is no joke
“Ranger features beyond combat are terribad. Favored foe and terrian are barely useful even when in the terrain and facing the enemy. They are usually replaced by a survival roll that rogues are better at.” This is a player/DM/gameplay issue, not a ranger issue. When used...(cause folks who hate rangers don’t use these kinds of “boring rules” at all or correctly anyway)...these are fantastic abilities!
“They get spells but know almost none compared to paladin and paladins can change out their list on a LR.” Almost all paladin spells do one of three things. Not so with rangers. Paladins prepare and rangers don’t because paladins need a bribe to use their spells for something other than smites and rangers would be bonkers over the top crazy good if they had that kind of a spellcasting toolkit
“Overall the ranger is just a mess of bad concepts.” Only for a power gaming table that doesn’t want to do much else than combat.” For every other part of the game they are fantastic.
“Also Ranger got a Revised Ranger UA and now the CFV of which ranger has the most extensive changes.” They sure did! And an even earlier spell-less ranger UA and the video game mods, as you mentioned. WotC have been beaten down and badgered for years by players that don’t play anything but video game style D&D.
“If you honestly think ranger hasn't been panned then you are delusional.” That’s an opinion. Almost all of these complaints that stem from lack of a play style that meshes well with a type of class. Knowledge cleric is cool.
Yeah, we know. You only care about one thing. You've made that clear.
You also have missed pages of the same, tired arguments that, frankly, don't hold any water. You're entitled to your opinion, but you're late to the party and there's no one you're going to convince or help by keeping this up.
You're objectively wrong if you don't agree the community wants ranger changes.
Is the only class with a complete overhaul from PHB that came through UA.
They got the most attention in the CFV UA by far.
They are constantly rated low by people actually playing the class.
These are not "opinions" these are facts.
I don't care what "the community" wants or thinks it wants. That's not wholly relevant to this thread. This thread is about whether the ranger, as it currently exists, is underpowered. This requires understanding the ranger: the intent behind its design and how well it lives up to this mission. Simply comparing damage numbers is not enough. Neither is a survey where the various categories aren't clearly defined. How do players define enjoyment? What were they hoping for out of the experience? What preexisting biases do they have which might color the results? It's not scientific, so it's best taken with a grain of salt.
As for UA, that's all unofficial content. The revised ranger was dropped. So was the previous attempt. And whatever survives the CFV will be, at best, a lateral move. Anything that can be traded in will be balanced against what it could hypothetically replace. These features are not upgrades or buffs. They're choices to further empower players for their own enjoyment.
And that's what the game is about: having fun. If having fun for you is breaking the game with overpowered numbers, then fine. Good for you. More power to you. Literally. But that is not the be-all-end-all of the experience of playing the game; intended or otherwise. Not everyone thinks in those terms. And you shouldn't keep trying to argue from that perspective. It's not helpful. Not to you, and not to anyone else.
Yeah, we know. You only care about one thing. You've made that clear.
You also have missed pages of the same, tired arguments that, frankly, don't hold any water. You're entitled to your opinion, but you're late to the party and there's no one you're going to convince or help by keeping this up.
You're objectively wrong if you don't agree the community wants ranger changes.
Is the only class with a complete overhaul from PHB that came through UA.
They got the most attention in the CFV UA by far.
They are constantly rated low by people actually playing the class.
These are not "opinions" these are facts.
I don't care what "the community" wants or thinks it wants. That's not wholly relevant to this thread. This thread is about whether the ranger, as it currently exists, is underpowered. This requires understanding the ranger: the intent behind its design and how well it lives up to this mission. Simply comparing damage numbers is not enough. Neither is a survey where the various categories aren't clearly defined. How do players define enjoyment? What were they hoping for out of the experience? What preexisting biases do they have which might color the results? It's not scientific, so it's best taken with a grain of salt.
As for UA, that's all unofficial content. The revised ranger was dropped. So was the previous attempt. And whatever survives the CFV will be, at best, a lateral move. Anything that can be traded in will be balanced against what it could hypothetically replace. These features are not upgrades or buffs. They're choices to further empower players for their own enjoyment.
And that's what the game is about: having fun. If having fun for you is breaking the game with overpowered numbers, then fine. Good for you. More power to you. Literally. But that is not the be-all-end-all of the experience of playing the game; intended or otherwise. Not everyone thinks in those terms. And you shouldn't keep trying to argue from that perspective. It's not helpful. Not to you, and not to anyone else.
Yeah, we know. You only care about one thing. You've made that clear.
You also have missed pages of the same, tired arguments that, frankly, don't hold any water. You're entitled to your opinion, but you're late to the party and there's no one you're going to convince or help by keeping this up.
You're objectively wrong if you don't agree the community wants ranger changes.
Is the only class with a complete overhaul from PHB that came through UA.
They got the most attention in the CFV UA by far.
They are constantly rated low by people actually playing the class.
These are not "opinions" these are facts.
I don't care what "the community" wants or thinks it wants. That's not wholly relevant to this thread. This thread is about whether the ranger, as it currently exists, is underpowered. This requires understanding the ranger: the intent behind its design and how well it lives up to this mission. Simply comparing damage numbers is not enough. Neither is a survey where the various categories aren't clearly defined. How do players define enjoyment? What were they hoping for out of the experience? What preexisting biases do they have which might color the results? It's not scientific, so it's best taken with a grain of salt.
As for UA, that's all unofficial content. The revised ranger was dropped. So was the previous attempt. And whatever survives the CFV will be, at best, a lateral move. Anything that can be traded in will be balanced against what it could hypothetically replace. These features are not upgrades or buffs. They're choices to further empower players for their own enjoyment.
And that's what the game is about: having fun. If having fun for you is breaking the game with overpowered numbers, then fine. Good for you. More power to you. Literally. But that is not the be-all-end-all of the experience of playing the game; intended or otherwise. Not everyone thinks in those terms. And you shouldn't keep trying to argue from that perspective. It's not helpful. Not to you, and not to anyone else.
Agree to disagree.
If anything, you should be agreeing with the final paragraph. To say otherwise is akin to telling people their way of fun is wrong and only yours is right.
And that toxic attitude is not welcome on these forums.
Yeah, we know. You only care about one thing. You've made that clear.
You also have missed pages of the same, tired arguments that, frankly, don't hold any water. You're entitled to your opinion, but you're late to the party and there's no one you're going to convince or help by keeping this up.
You're objectively wrong if you don't agree the community wants ranger changes.
Is the only class with a complete overhaul from PHB that came through UA.
They got the most attention in the CFV UA by far.
They are constantly rated low by people actually playing the class.
These are not "opinions" these are facts.
I don't care what "the community" wants or thinks it wants. That's not wholly relevant to this thread. This thread is about whether the ranger, as it currently exists, is underpowered. This requires understanding the ranger: the intent behind its design and how well it lives up to this mission. Simply comparing damage numbers is not enough. Neither is a survey where the various categories aren't clearly defined. How do players define enjoyment? What were they hoping for out of the experience? What preexisting biases do they have which might color the results? It's not scientific, so it's best taken with a grain of salt.
As for UA, that's all unofficial content. The revised ranger was dropped. So was the previous attempt. And whatever survives the CFV will be, at best, a lateral move. Anything that can be traded in will be balanced against what it could hypothetically replace. These features are not upgrades or buffs. They're choices to further empower players for their own enjoyment.
And that's what the game is about: having fun. If having fun for you is breaking the game with overpowered numbers, then fine. Good for you. More power to you. Literally. But that is not the be-all-end-all of the experience of playing the game; intended or otherwise. Not everyone thinks in those terms. And you shouldn't keep trying to argue from that perspective. It's not helpful. Not to you, and not to anyone else.
Agree to disagree.
If anything, you should be agreeing with the final paragraph. To say otherwise is akin to telling people their way of fun is wrong and only yours is right.
And that toxic attitude is not welcome on these forums.
Dude just drop it. You don't have any moral high ground and this attempt to make it seem as if I'm being toxic is kinda sad.
Feats are an optional rule. Feats up the damage of a character. Build damage dealers without feats. Compare. Add the feats. Compare.
Multiclassing is an optional rule.
Show straight ranger with straight fighter, paladin, rogue, whatever.
I’ll look at your spreadsheets tomorrow, I promise.
You do that....
I would love to see how many tables treat MC and Feats as "optional".
I've not allowed either in campaigns. I'm also not against them for others. I'm playing in a campaign where we're using flanking and multiclassing and feats are ok. It's fun to change things up and experience the game in different ways for me and the people I've played with.
Feats are an optional rule. Feats up the damage of a character. Build damage dealers without feats. Compare. Add the feats. Compare.
Multiclassing is an optional rule.
Show straight ranger with straight fighter, paladin, rogue, whatever.
I’ll look at your spreadsheets tomorrow, I promise.
You do that....
I would love to see how many tables treat MC and Feats as "optional".
I've not allowed either in campaigns. I'm also not against them for others. I'm playing in a campaign where we're using flanking and multiclassing and feats are ok. It's fun to change things up and experience the game in different ways for me and the people I've played with.
Fair enough.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Oh, I know. Believe me. I didn't start until 3rd edition (when I was in high school), but power gamers trying to milk the most out of the system date back at least 20 years. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if it went on a lot longer.
It was annoying then, and I think it's even worse now. Especially when the system is so forgiving that it's no longer necessary. A case could be made that it never was, but the early days of WotC D&D definitely encouraged it.
Never has anyone taken the Actor feat? That's just not true.
If you're talking about something else, I think some clarification is in order.
The wolf can knock an enemy prone as part of its attack. You wouldn't give anything up to do it.
I'm talking about not being able to compare builds because they don't get the same amount of feats... It's asinine.
The design was to try and balance between all the classes not just between a couple at a time.
Ranger has undergone more changes and scrutiny than any other class by a long shot.
Even Larian when they were making BG3 were like:
"Uh this sucks... You got suggestions?"
It's just the reality of the situation.
Wolf proning is after the attack not before.
So yes it's actually worse than Trip Attack from battlemaster.
Ranger will always lose out to fighter...
- Action Surge nova makes catching up to Fighter DPR straight impossible, but this isn't a Ranger exclusive problem.
- Fighter's extra ASI & generally superior subclass options for damage haha means that even though Ranger's base is comparable, they fall behind in consistent DPR aside from AS
Who's design?
The ranger hasn't actually undergone any changes, aside from errata.
Larian had to change things up for a video game because it's a video game. Plenty of other things were adapted differently, too. Whether those "changes" appear in Tasha's, I have no idea. None of us do.
Both the wolf's trip and the battle master's trip take place after the damaging attack resolves. Damage is dealt, and the target must then succeed in a strength saving throw.
And pretty much every class "loses out" to fighter. But D&D isn't a game about just putting up ridiculously high damage numbers. Action Surge is great for burst DPR, sure, but you won't always use it for that. It's so versatile a feature that assuming it will only be used for attacking is a fool's errand. Every fight is different, every enemy is different, and not all resources will be available when you want them to be.
"No plan survives contact with the enemy." -Moltke
So ranger does less damage then fighter, barbarian. That's settled then.
Now on to utility.
Ranger features beyond combat are terribad.
Favored foe and terrian are barely useful even when in the terrain and facing the enemy. They are usually replaced by a survival roll that rogues are better at.
They get spells but know almost none compared to paladin and paladins can change out their list on a LR.
Overall the ranger is just a mess of bad concepts.
Also Ranger got a Revised Ranger UA and now the CFV of which ranger has the most extensive changes.
If you honestly think ranger hasn't been panned then you are delusional.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQK9WoCYz5l0IWv6a9kDJmy4X5-zQYd631t1CFxGA_68OKeKxKyM3prgvHqx1k7acRdTKO0ZR6XXLOp/pubhtml#
I'll just leave this here...
LOL! Jounichi1993, you’re on fire tonight!
OptimusGrimus, why on earth would it be fair for ANY martial class to be as good at dealing damage as the fighter? Compared to the wizard, fighters are horrible at spell casting. That is a fact that almost all of the fan base knows. Don’t even get me started on how bad fighters are at wild shaping compared to a druid. That’s just a fact.
Yeah, we know. You only care about one thing. You've made that clear.
You also have missed pages of the same, tired arguments that, frankly, don't hold any water. You're entitled to your opinion, but you're late to the party and there's no one you're going to convince or help by keeping this up.
You're objectively wrong if you don't agree the community wants ranger changes.
Is the only class with a complete overhaul from PHB that came through UA.
They got the most attention in the CFV UA by far.
They are constantly rated low by people actually playing the class.
These are not "opinions" these are facts.
This is the single most asinine thing I've ever read. DPR is universal and has a heavy established history in the community with solid math basis.
These"comments" are not the same. You can very much compare DPR between martials as that's basically what they do. DPR can and has been compared between the classes.
“So ranger does less damage then fighter, barbarian. That's settled then.” With a big melee weapon? Yes for the fighter. Maybe sometimes for the barbarian. A strength based hunter ranger with a great sword is no joke
“Ranger features beyond combat are terribad. Favored foe and terrian are barely useful even when in the terrain and facing the enemy. They are usually replaced by a survival roll that rogues are better at.” This is a player/DM/gameplay issue, not a ranger issue. When used...(cause folks who hate rangers don’t use these kinds of “boring rules” at all or correctly anyway)...these are fantastic abilities!
“They get spells but know almost none compared to paladin and paladins can change out their list on a LR.” Almost all paladin spells do one of three things. Not so with rangers. Paladins prepare and rangers don’t because paladins need a bribe to use their spells for something other than smites and rangers would be bonkers over the top crazy good if they had that kind of a spellcasting toolkit
“Overall the ranger is just a mess of bad concepts.” Only for a power gaming table that doesn’t want to do much else than combat.” For every other part of the game they are fantastic.
“Also Ranger got a Revised Ranger UA and now the CFV of which ranger has the most extensive changes.” They sure did! And an even earlier spell-less ranger UA and the video game mods, as you mentioned. WotC have been beaten down and badgered for years by players that don’t play anything but video game style D&D.
“If you honestly think ranger hasn't been panned then you are delusional.” That’s an opinion. Almost all of these complaints that stem from lack of a play style that meshes well with a type of class. Knowledge cleric is cool.
I don't think you will change your mind and that's fair. Good luck.
I don't care what "the community" wants or thinks it wants. That's not wholly relevant to this thread. This thread is about whether the ranger, as it currently exists, is underpowered. This requires understanding the ranger: the intent behind its design and how well it lives up to this mission. Simply comparing damage numbers is not enough. Neither is a survey where the various categories aren't clearly defined. How do players define enjoyment? What were they hoping for out of the experience? What preexisting biases do they have which might color the results? It's not scientific, so it's best taken with a grain of salt.
As for UA, that's all unofficial content. The revised ranger was dropped. So was the previous attempt. And whatever survives the CFV will be, at best, a lateral move. Anything that can be traded in will be balanced against what it could hypothetically replace. These features are not upgrades or buffs. They're choices to further empower players for their own enjoyment.
And that's what the game is about: having fun. If having fun for you is breaking the game with overpowered numbers, then fine. Good for you. More power to you. Literally. But that is not the be-all-end-all of the experience of playing the game; intended or otherwise. Not everyone thinks in those terms. And you shouldn't keep trying to argue from that perspective. It's not helpful. Not to you, and not to anyone else.
Agree to disagree.
If anything, you should be agreeing with the final paragraph. To say otherwise is akin to telling people their way of fun is wrong and only yours is right.
And that toxic attitude is not welcome on these forums.
Dude just drop it. You don't have any moral high ground and this attempt to make it seem as if I'm being toxic is kinda sad.
Let's just agree to disagree and move on.
I've not allowed either in campaigns. I'm also not against them for others. I'm playing in a campaign where we're using flanking and multiclassing and feats are ok. It's fun to change things up and experience the game in different ways for me and the people I've played with.
Fair enough.