Action economy would win that fight in favor of the animals.
One griffon with a rider swinging a sword is not going to beat an archer ranger and 2-8 additional animals, whether or not some or all of them fly.
YEAH bECUASE THE TWO SPELLS HAVE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS, one is meant to give you a short term boost to combat, the other is a pet you don't need resources to maintain, its like trying to compare hallow and fireball by asking who would win in a fight, one of them is not built with that purpose in mind
still i will agree that generally the pets gained by beast masters and drakewardens and the new tasha's elemental variants are stronger
LOL!
That's what I'm saying.
Yes. Even the griffon, which I would argue is the superior choice for a paladin in this ridiculous discussion, has 7 less hit points, does less (and non magical) damage, has a lower to-hit chance, and a WAY lower AC than even a blood hawk from the PHB beast master.
Rangers are useful for if things like planning is a thing that is done. Can set up a nasty trap with a simple snare spell. And Cordon of arrows is very useful. Sorta set up an area to reduce numbers. Maybe even if patrolling or intentionally alerting someone when your attack misses and they run towards you. Then you can fall back and safe to say, people being peppered by arrows is an issue. Even moreso if you do it yourself or with help of spike growth. Weaken people before they get to you if you scout.
I personally enjoy hunter and going with horde breaker, while combining it with some battlemaster. Great for groups if they are around you or close. (since 5 feet of target. aka free action extra attack on groups.)
I think people get caught up looking at super optimized builds for damage, where you question how the heck the math works for damage output and wanting to see if the abilities are being read right. Plus things like a popular critical rule where you automatically do max dice value plus the normal roll. Which for some weapons or attacks is devastating. Feels great to do, even though if everyone is super optimized for damage. Lets face it. The kill it faster so it kills us less logic works too well in this game. Especially when many fights are to the death instead of fleeing, or non-lethal.
Less flashy with less giant numbers. Yet just as capable of such a thing with great ability to combine with other classes to be highly effective for a specific role. Horde breaker to even the odds a lot. colossus slayer for a bigger hit. Giant slayer has a use for when you are the target of something to try and kill it faster. Could also sling a magic stone filled bag from your druid friend and have a makeshift explosive arrow. You get the cool tricks as a ranger. Set a trap, encourage others to prep some battlefield control or help each other out. Maybe downtime to see about enchanting arrows since downtime activities get overlooked and people forget they can enchant some things. (Plus the games tend to have arrows be a one off magic attack that is fairly cheap. With more control, or fancier spells on them being a bit more expensive.)
generally speaking, rangers tend to be really good in a narrow niche and bad in other situations, they get to be the best at exploration but only in certain terrain, a hunter ranger with the right choice of abillities would be the one martial class who could take on an entire battalion of hobgoblins on their own * but would struggle against smaller groups of stronger enemies and singular bosses, a beast master ranger can dish out tons of damage, issue tons of battlefield controll and can have a bunch of really neat exploration abillities but become worthless should their fragile pet ever die, for while it has admirable armor class it has poor hit points, and i would give more examples if i had any
* provided they specialize in archery, have enough arrows and are fighting ones in decently dense formation (this by virtue of volley and horde breaker as well as spells such as hail of thorns, swift quiver, conjure barrage and conjure volley, not that any sane DM would ever go through the effort of a fight with tens of combatants)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Other than nova, single turn, single target damage, rangers are just as capable as other martials as dishing out massive damage. Defensively they are major survivors. Their teamwork ability, battlefield control spells and abilities are unmatched by other martial classes or subclasses. Rangers are the best and most well rounded at wilderness exploration and survival, and are at the top of their game when in their favored terrain (Expertise in two skills does not a survivor make. I’m looking at you scout rogues.). The ranger has no defining class feature and that confuses many people. What confuses me is how so many people sing the praises of the bard or eldritch knight yet criticize the ranger.
I think Rangers are great, but mix in rogue and they are pretty unmatched. I have a character I am playing now, Ward, who is currently a 3 rogue 2 ranger, ultimately he will be 11 Scout Rogue, 7 levels Swarmkeeper Ranger and 2 levels Twilight Cleric - everything Nature themed and he is already amazing, in a recent game I crit for 51 points of damage. The roadmap is https://ddb.ac/characters/44628969/uXoNKN
I've played every Ranger subclass except Drakewarden (which I was going to test out in a oneshot, but alas, that fell through) and I've honestly never felt like I was lagging behind the rest of my allies. Mind you, I've played a Hunter and a Monster Slayer (no multiclassing) at level 20 and I've always used RAW with no homebrew 'fixes.' In my experience, the Ranger plays a lot better than it reads, and their damage output is fine. Hunters are great for multi-targeting, new Beast Masters get four attacks + battlefield control at level 11, Gloom Stalkers are Gloom Stalkers, Horizon Walkers become functionally immune to AoO's at level eleven and can deal 2d8 damage as a bonus action every round while teleporting 20-30 feet depending on whether or not they single or multi-target, Monster Slayers are more defensive but they counteract spellcasting (which becomes far more common in higher tiers of play) while also getting reaction attacks, Fey Wanderers get 1d6 per target per turn at level 11 while being able to summon a no-concentration Fey Spirit that grants them at minimum a third attack + battlefield control, and Swarmkeepers offer some really solid resource-free (non-spell) battlefield control in lieu of outright offense. Prior to level 11, all Rangers easily keep up in the DPR department with the rest of the martials, so that's not really a concern.
If you know what you're doing and how to play a Ranger to their strengths, they won't let you down. At least, that's been my experience.
I think Rangers are great, but mix in rogue and they are pretty unmatched. I have a character I am playing now, Ward, who is currently a 3 rogue 2 ranger, ultimately he will be 11 Scout Rogue, 7 levels Swarmkeeper Ranger and 2 levels Twilight Cleric - everything Nature themed and he is already amazing, in a recent game I crit for 51 points of damage. The roadmap is https://ddb.ac/characters/44628969/uXoNKN
that sounds more like a rouge build with a ranger dip than a ranger build
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
I think Rangers are great, but mix in rogue and they are pretty unmatched. I have a character I am playing now, Ward, who is currently a 3 rogue 2 ranger, ultimately he will be 11 Scout Rogue, 7 levels Swarmkeeper Ranger and 2 levels Twilight Cleric - everything Nature themed and he is already amazing, in a recent game I crit for 51 points of damage. The roadmap is https://ddb.ac/characters/44628969/uXoNKN
that sounds more like a rouge build with a ranger dip than a ranger build
Sort of, but flavor wise and rp I play him as a ranger, but yes, mechanically the rogue abilities add more to his combat capabilities than the ranger. I will likely be taking ranger to 7 before picking up any more rogue levels
This ignores Foe Slayer as well, which is a game changer at level 20 (too bad it doesn’t come into effect earlier). It adds 20-50%+ damage vs those enemies.
And at levels 11+ they more than keep up if you calculate ranged AoE attacks in addition to just single target. Volley, hail of thorns, and lightning arrow all accomplish this very well. They also branch out (pun intended) into great control effects and spells with the likes of spike growth, conjure animals, and plant growth. If not doing something other than single target damage, then an easy rogue multiclass has you covered.
Plus the subclasses all typically get conditional ways to make additional attacks that often come attached to battlefield control or mobility.
Yes! Probably more so than any other martial class! Their damage beyond extra attack and fighting style comes from spell use (casting them) and subclass abilities.
Rangers don’t suck at all, specially after Tasha’s variant class options that brought more utility without breaking the game like the old Revised Ranger. Deft Explorer and Favored Foe are quite nice.
But even before that, Rangers were really effective when played by seasoned players.
Of course you could be a very effective BBEG/single striker with things like Archery/TWF, Hunters Mark or Ensnaring Strike, but aside AoE-focused casters, no martial class could handle swarms and minions like a good Hunter with Horde Breaker and Hail of Thorns — who needs Fireball? Hahah.
Ranger play style requires some tactical knowledge and dedication, that’s why a lot of people complained.
What confuses me is how so many people sing the praises of the bard or eldritch knight yet criticize the ranger.
I think this can be summed up to 9th level spells and 4 attacks. Personally I am no fan of Eldritch knight, and would rather have a Battlemaster11/Caster9 but the bard is rock solid, in particular the bladebard who gets +1d6 ac every round, 2 attacks, and full casting including wish.
What confuses me is how so many people sing the praises of the bard or eldritch knight yet criticize the ranger.
I think this can be summed up to 9th level spells and 4 attacks. Personally I am no fan of Eldritch knight, and would rather have a Battlemaster11/Caster9 but the bard is rock solid, in particular the bladebard who gets +1d6 ac every round, 2 attacks, and full casting including wish.
You are talking about level 17 (once) and level 20 stuff.
What confuses me is how so many people sing the praises of the bard or eldritch knight yet criticize the ranger.
I think this can be summed up to 9th level spells and 4 attacks. Personally I am no fan of Eldritch knight, and would rather have a Battlemaster11/Caster9 but the bard is rock solid, in particular the bladebard who gets +1d6 ac every round, 2 attacks, and full casting including wish.
You are talking about level 17 (once) and level 20 stuff.
to take it to a more generic explanation, the fighter is properly specialized into melee combat and recives some handy spellcasting to boot, the bladebard gets to be good at spellcasting and not too shabby at the whole melee side of things either
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Rangers don’t suck at all, specially after Tasha’s variant class options that brought more utility without breaking the game like the old Revised Ranger. Deft Explorer and Favored Foe are quite nice.
But even before that, Rangers were really effective when played by seasoned players.
Of course you could be a very effective BBEG/single striker with things like Archery/TWF, Hunters Mark or Ensnaring Strike, but aside AoE-focused casters, no martial class could handle swarms and minions like a good Hunter with Horde Breaker and Hail of Thorns — who needs Fireball? Hahah.
Ranger play style requires some tactical knowledge and dedication, that’s why a lot of people complained.is
The biggest problem with the ranger is the amount of trap options for players to choose, coupled with uninspiring or just lame class features/spell selections.
You can build rangers that work great, even PHB beastmasters. But it's very easy to make poor choices and end up with a character that feels broken and bad.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
There's no real way to build a pre-Tasha's Ranger in a useful way without losing out on significant chunks of the class - even if you picked a particularly common Favored Enemy, like Monstrosity, you could count on the ability virtually never coming up, and the actual odds of a Natural Explorer terrain coming up in a given campaign are such a crapshoot you can basically ignore it as well. Primeval Awareness was particularly useless with a Wizard anywhere nearby, since the answer would just be Yes (the Wizard's familiar), and it's worse now that there are UA races that count as undead as well as humanoid, setting the answer to just permanently Yes.
Hide in Plain Sight is the only pre-Tasha's Ranger ability where I can see a serious case for the argument that a veteran gamer could make it perfectly useful.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
LOL!
That's what I'm saying.
Yes. Even the griffon, which I would argue is the superior choice for a paladin in this ridiculous discussion, has 7 less hit points, does less (and non magical) damage, has a lower to-hit chance, and a WAY lower AC than even a blood hawk from the PHB beast master.
Rangers are useful for if things like planning is a thing that is done. Can set up a nasty trap with a simple snare spell. And Cordon of arrows is very useful. Sorta set up an area to reduce numbers. Maybe even if patrolling or intentionally alerting someone when your attack misses and they run towards you. Then you can fall back and safe to say, people being peppered by arrows is an issue. Even moreso if you do it yourself or with help of spike growth. Weaken people before they get to you if you scout.
I personally enjoy hunter and going with horde breaker, while combining it with some battlemaster. Great for groups if they are around you or close. (since 5 feet of target. aka free action extra attack on groups.)
I think people get caught up looking at super optimized builds for damage, where you question how the heck the math works for damage output and wanting to see if the abilities are being read right. Plus things like a popular critical rule where you automatically do max dice value plus the normal roll. Which for some weapons or attacks is devastating. Feels great to do, even though if everyone is super optimized for damage. Lets face it. The kill it faster so it kills us less logic works too well in this game. Especially when many fights are to the death instead of fleeing, or non-lethal.
Less flashy with less giant numbers. Yet just as capable of such a thing with great ability to combine with other classes to be highly effective for a specific role. Horde breaker to even the odds a lot. colossus slayer for a bigger hit. Giant slayer has a use for when you are the target of something to try and kill it faster. Could also sling a magic stone filled bag from your druid friend and have a makeshift explosive arrow. You get the cool tricks as a ranger. Set a trap, encourage others to prep some battlefield control or help each other out. Maybe downtime to see about enchanting arrows since downtime activities get overlooked and people forget they can enchant some things. (Plus the games tend to have arrows be a one off magic attack that is fairly cheap. With more control, or fancier spells on them being a bit more expensive.)
generally speaking, rangers tend to be really good in a narrow niche and bad in other situations, they get to be the best at exploration but only in certain terrain, a hunter ranger with the right choice of abillities would be the one martial class who could take on an entire battalion of hobgoblins on their own * but would struggle against smaller groups of stronger enemies and singular bosses, a beast master ranger can dish out tons of damage, issue tons of battlefield controll and can have a bunch of really neat exploration abillities but become worthless should their fragile pet ever die, for while it has admirable armor class it has poor hit points, and i would give more examples if i had any
* provided they specialize in archery, have enough arrows and are fighting ones in decently dense formation (this by virtue of volley and horde breaker as well as spells such as hail of thorns, swift quiver, conjure barrage and conjure volley, not that any sane DM would ever go through the effort of a fight with tens of combatants)
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Other than nova, single turn, single target damage, rangers are just as capable as other martials as dishing out massive damage. Defensively they are major survivors. Their teamwork ability, battlefield control spells and abilities are unmatched by other martial classes or subclasses. Rangers are the best and most well rounded at wilderness exploration and survival, and are at the top of their game when in their favored terrain (Expertise in two skills does not a survivor make. I’m looking at you scout rogues.). The ranger has no defining class feature and that confuses many people. What confuses me is how so many people sing the praises of the bard or eldritch knight yet criticize the ranger.
I think Rangers are great, but mix in rogue and they are pretty unmatched. I have a character I am playing now, Ward, who is currently a 3 rogue 2 ranger, ultimately he will be 11 Scout Rogue, 7 levels Swarmkeeper Ranger and 2 levels Twilight Cleric - everything Nature themed and he is already amazing, in a recent game I crit for 51 points of damage. The roadmap is https://ddb.ac/characters/44628969/uXoNKN
I've played every Ranger subclass except Drakewarden (which I was going to test out in a oneshot, but alas, that fell through) and I've honestly never felt like I was lagging behind the rest of my allies. Mind you, I've played a Hunter and a Monster Slayer (no multiclassing) at level 20 and I've always used RAW with no homebrew 'fixes.' In my experience, the Ranger plays a lot better than it reads, and their damage output is fine. Hunters are great for multi-targeting, new Beast Masters get four attacks + battlefield control at level 11, Gloom Stalkers are Gloom Stalkers, Horizon Walkers become functionally immune to AoO's at level eleven and can deal 2d8 damage as a bonus action every round while teleporting 20-30 feet depending on whether or not they single or multi-target, Monster Slayers are more defensive but they counteract spellcasting (which becomes far more common in higher tiers of play) while also getting reaction attacks, Fey Wanderers get 1d6 per target per turn at level 11 while being able to summon a no-concentration Fey Spirit that grants them at minimum a third attack + battlefield control, and Swarmkeepers offer some really solid resource-free (non-spell) battlefield control in lieu of outright offense. Prior to level 11, all Rangers easily keep up in the DPR department with the rest of the martials, so that's not really a concern.
If you know what you're doing and how to play a Ranger to their strengths, they won't let you down. At least, that's been my experience.
that sounds more like a rouge build with a ranger dip than a ranger build
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Sort of, but flavor wise and rp I play him as a ranger, but yes, mechanically the rogue abilities add more to his combat capabilities than the ranger. I will likely be taking ranger to 7 before picking up any more rogue levels
Took me way longer than i'd care to admit to get this. Good one.
This ignores Foe Slayer as well, which is a game changer at level 20 (too bad it doesn’t come into effect earlier). It adds 20-50%+ damage vs those enemies.
Edit: Link - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rGG3NrOCUEQmQs1_03_iFdL-K0nOfekqvooyclGvxVg/edit
And at levels 11+ they more than keep up if you calculate ranged AoE attacks in addition to just single target. Volley, hail of thorns, and lightning arrow all accomplish this very well. They also branch out (pun intended) into great control effects and spells with the likes of spike growth, conjure animals, and plant growth. If not doing something other than single target damage, then an easy rogue multiclass has you covered.
Plus the subclasses all typically get conditional ways to make additional attacks that often come attached to battlefield control or mobility.
Yes! Probably more so than any other martial class! Their damage beyond extra attack and fighting style comes from spell use (casting them) and subclass abilities.
Ranger is cool. i play one now.
Rangers don’t suck at all, specially after Tasha’s variant class options that brought more utility without breaking the game like the old Revised Ranger. Deft Explorer and Favored Foe are quite nice.
But even before that, Rangers were really effective when played by seasoned players.
Of course you could be a very effective BBEG/single striker with things like Archery/TWF, Hunters Mark or Ensnaring Strike, but aside AoE-focused casters, no martial class could handle swarms and minions like a good Hunter with Horde Breaker and Hail of Thorns — who needs Fireball? Hahah.
Ranger play style requires some tactical knowledge and dedication, that’s why a lot of people complained.
I think this can be summed up to 9th level spells and 4 attacks. Personally I am no fan of Eldritch knight, and would rather have a Battlemaster11/Caster9 but the bard is rock solid, in particular the bladebard who gets +1d6 ac every round, 2 attacks, and full casting including wish.
You are talking about level 17 (once) and level 20 stuff.
to take it to a more generic explanation, the fighter is properly specialized into melee combat and recives some handy spellcasting to boot, the bladebard gets to be good at spellcasting and not too shabby at the whole melee side of things either
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
The biggest problem with the ranger is the amount of trap options for players to choose, coupled with uninspiring or just lame class features/spell selections.
You can build rangers that work great, even PHB beastmasters. But it's very easy to make poor choices and end up with a character that feels broken and bad.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
There's no real way to build a pre-Tasha's Ranger in a useful way without losing out on significant chunks of the class - even if you picked a particularly common Favored Enemy, like Monstrosity, you could count on the ability virtually never coming up, and the actual odds of a Natural Explorer terrain coming up in a given campaign are such a crapshoot you can basically ignore it as well. Primeval Awareness was particularly useless with a Wizard anywhere nearby, since the answer would just be Yes (the Wizard's familiar), and it's worse now that there are UA races that count as undead as well as humanoid, setting the answer to just permanently Yes.
Hide in Plain Sight is the only pre-Tasha's Ranger ability where I can see a serious case for the argument that a veteran gamer could make it perfectly useful.