why is there no ranger subclass? this also is a very specific situation that gives a twisted image. I have another situation for you if you want to talk that way:
ranger hunter(whirlwind, the redirect thing, escape the horde and no important first level choice) and fighter champion, both lvl 20(though you can pick everything 11+ and the situation goes the same way) I don’t account for feats, fighting styles or miss/critical, both have a plain greatsword.
you go up against say 1000 goblins (goes for everything above 8, but I want to make a point), all of them have scimitars and shortbows and they are around one feet apart, and one has to hold them off, while the others in the party retreat.
<snip>
Who is cherry picking now?
If you want a fair contest of AoE potential (I assume specifically between the Fighter and Ranger class), why not pick the Eldritch Knight and have him pop in with Fireballs and Sword Bursts? As for holding targets off you also can put in Wall of Fire or Sickening Radiance for the Fighter, as well as quite a few good control options for the Ranger, but for the body blocking, probably Conjure Animals would be a fine choice too.
The Champion subclass is one of the worst subclasses for Fighter if you want damage and especially if you want AoE/multi-target hits. Their entire shtick is around critical hits, which only apply to the damage dice of a weapon attack - which for a pure Fighter - Champion mostly is their Greatsword's damage dice. And furthermore you want to discount critical hits altogether, completely invalidating the main selling point of Champion? Furthermore also no Fighting Stlyes and especially feats - which as I said previously is one of the main ways for Fighter to expand their damage beyond boosting their main damage stat? Yea, I don't think there's any point going on from here with this comparison...
in a few specific situations like some instances of killing dragons samurai may be better than plain ranger, but hunters and in general rangers beat every other (sub)class at fighting armies, they can ambush, sneak, spy and charge right in
We can agree that Rangers have more tools to deal with multiple enemies than a Fighter, especially from their main class features - namely through spell casting. But given that you selected a Greatsword Ranger, they mainly invest in Strength and have no proficiency in heavy armor, so they are mostly limited to medium armor and is likely worse of for AC than the Fighter. Furthermore the Fighter likely has a better CON score and thus more HP, and has self-healing from Second Wind. Even though the Ranger has access to healing through spell casting, they either require an action and/or concentration, and depend on your spell casting modifier (WIS). Your Ranger is also likely to lose concentration as they don't have proficiency in CON saves and neither can invest much into their CON score. I wager the Fighter is standing a lot longer than the Ranger for your proposed scenario.
A Sword'n'board Ranger with FS - Duelist (with a Finesse weapon) is much better in that scenario - mainly because they are not as MAD.
why is there no ranger subclass? this also is a very specific situation that gives a twisted image. I have another situation for you if you want to talk that way:
ranger hunter(whirlwind, the redirect thing, escape the horde and no important first level choice) and fighter champion, both lvl 20(though you can pick everything 11+ and the situation goes the same way) I don’t account for feats, fighting styles or miss/critical, both have a plain greatsword.
you go up against say 1000 goblins (goes for everything above 8, but I want to make a point), all of them have scimitars and shortbows and they are around one feet apart, and one has to hold them off, while the others in the party retreat.
<snip>
Who is cherry picking now?
If you want a fair contest of AoE potential (I assume specifically between the Fighter and Ranger class), why not pick the Eldritch Knight and have him pop in with Fireballs and Sword Bursts? As for holding targets off you also can put in Wall of Fire or Sickening Radiance for the Fighter, as well as quite a few good control options for the Ranger, but for the body blocking, probably Conjure Animals would be a fine choice too.
The Champion subclass is one of the worst subclasses for Fighter if you want damage and especially if you want AoE/multi-target hits. Their entire shtick is around critical hits, which only apply to the damage dice of a weapon attack - which for a pure Fighter - Champion mostly is their Greatsword's damage dice. And furthermore you want to discount critical hits altogether, completely invalidating the main selling point of Champion? Furthermore also no Fighting Stlyes and especially feats - which as I said previously is one of the main ways for Fighter to expand their damage beyond boosting their main damage stat? Yea, I don't think there's any point going on from here with this comparison...
in a few specific situations like some instances of killing dragons samurai may be better than plain ranger, but hunters and in general rangers beat every other (sub)class at fighting armies, they can ambush, sneak, spy and charge right in
We can agree that Rangers have more tools to deal with multiple enemies than a Fighter, especially from their main class features - namely through spell casting. But given that you selected a Greatsword Ranger, they mainly invest in Strength and have no proficiency in heavy armor, so they are mostly limited to medium armor and is likely worse of for AC than the Fighter. Furthermore the Fighter likely has a better CON score and thus more HP, and has self-healing from Second Wind. Even though the Ranger has access to healing through spell casting, they either require an action and/or concentration, and depend on your spell casting modifier (WIS). Your Ranger is also likely to lose concentration as they don't have proficiency in CON saves and neither can invest much into their CON score. I wager the Fighter is standing a lot longer than the Ranger for your proposed scenario.
A Sword'n'board Ranger with FS - Duelist (with a Finesse weapon) is much better in that scenario - mainly because they are not as MAD.
first, the entire post was an example of how different situations have different outcomes. second: hunter is the base rules and most basic ranger subclass and champion for fighter. third: I wasn’t talking about aoe potential, I was talking at rate of surviving a last stand. fourth: I don’t know if you know, but whirlwind isn’t expendable.fifth: feats are not classbound, so they don’t matter, sixth: this is low ac low hp mob, it isn’t even mainly dpr, but more enemies per round.seventh:they technically have action-free healing with goodberries which can be produced a lot. eigth: well then take a scimitar+hand crossbow ranger, fact remains rangers, especially gloomstalkers(who can sneak and assassinate and ambush) and hunters(who can attack them all at once), have more strategic/tactical value than any fighter.
back to my first point: this was aimed to be cherry picking the situation. it depends on the dm whether you run into a dragon or an army, but my point, which you haven’t proven wrong in your comment , is that the ranger has substantial use in combat and outside.(also you weren’t the one I reacted to, so why the “who is cherry picking now”, I didn’t even use that phrasing)
also you are very clear in how you remove parts and context of the quote, not subtle at all
by the way, sorry for misreading the situation.(if I understand it correctly your post actually defended the ranger keeping up?)
It was! I am a top tier ranger fan and supporter.
I repeat sorry, the thing is, the other posts were entangled and your post seemed relatively unconnected, so I assumed it was a reaction to the original post and reacted.
It makes me smile when rangers can pull numbers near, at, or over that of fighters and paladins. Especially when the builds with numbers that beat rangers are very specific against specific odds also typically completely ignoring non combat game time, the terms of engagement, mobility, and many other factors. At the end of the day, I am happy that so many folks don't like the ranger. More for me!
First I'd like to set something straight: I'm not shitting on the Ranger, I'm advocating for why the Fighter generally deals/inflict more damage. Like Frank also mentions, the Ranger has many out-of-combat features and skills, or even just combat utility like control effects through their spellcasting that makes them valuable. If the Fighter doesn't generally deal more damage and tank more damage, then what is their purpose? They are not really skill orientated and as I said previously they get the least out of their class features, so they have to create strong synergies with the features they have: aka get good gear and deal/soak damage.
Personally I have an issue with the two half-caster classes not really being that hybrid between fighting and spell casting it is made out to be (with the Paladin being the more "offending" of the two). They are usually doomed to choose between being a mediocre martial or a mediocre spellcaster - once we get to late tier 2 play or into tier 3 play. Their saving grace is usually their class specific spells: Smite/Hunter's Mark that overperforms for their respective level and just so happens to be a bonus action to not impact too much on their martial side. But that's a very different discussion that I wont get into with this post.
first, the entire post was an example of how different situations have different outcomes. second: hunter is the base rules and most basic ranger subclass and champion for fighter. third: I wasn’t talking about aoe potential, I was talking at rate of surviving a last stand. fourth: I don’t know if you know, but whirlwind isn’t expendable.fifth: feats are not classbound, so they don’t matter, sixth: this is low ac low hp mob, it isn’t even mainly dpr, but more enemies per round.seventh:they technically have action-free healing with goodberries which can be produced a lot. eigth: well then take a scimitar+hand crossbow ranger, fact remains rangers, especially gloomstalkers(who can sneak and assassinate and ambush) and hunters(who can attack them all at once), have more strategic/tactical value than any fighter.
First: Sure, different situations can occur. However fighting an army is very unusual for DnD, it is usually only groups or individuals you fight. Therefore it is generally more cohesive to compare in situations where you are fighting a smaller group.
Second: What you define as basic also serves to pick the worst subclass for Fighter, especially for the scenario you have picked. That you are also then stripping certain rulesets that further goes against the Fighter's setup only serves to make the comparison really one-sided and not a very good argument. To retort I could say; what if you compare it to a Ranger who uses unarmed strikes and doesn't use their spell slots? That would be a terrible comparison. Furthermore the Eldritch Knight is also from the PHB (so basic ruleset), although the Sword Burst cantrip is an inclusion from Tasha's Cauldron - especially designed to support the Eldritch Knight/Bladesinger/melee spellcasters with the Wizard spell list.
Third: I don't get this point. You made the scenario for fighting an army and you had to hold them off. Furthermore you said the situation was about DPR and goblins defeated per turn. When dealing with an army, a very prominent aspect to look at is how quickly, efficiently and consistently can you kill your adversaries, so they don't harm you or so they wont get past whatever point you're holding. That's something AoE potential can work towards. You even specifically said the Ranger is a Hunter using a Greatsword and Whirlwind. You're talking about AoE. Furthermore I believe I made a fairly relevant argument for why the Fighter can survive longer than the Ranger when facing hits.
Fourth: Whirlwind is not a limited resource, no. Neither is the Eldritch Knight's Sword Burst cantrip.
Fifth: Feats are not class-bound, no, but the Fighter gets access to 7x ASIs/feats up till level 20, whilst the Ranger gets 5x. Furthermore, the Ranger wants to increase their main damage stat (STR - with a Greatsword), they want DEX +2 at least to get full armor from Medium armor, they usually want as much WIS thereafter to boost their spell casting, but an argument could be made for going CON and forsake their spell DC. In comparison the Fighter wants 20 STR and 20 CON... that's it. So the Fighter can easily achieve both their stat goals AND pick up some feats - for instance Heavy Armor Master which serves as a flat 3 damage reduction against non-magical physical attacks. The Ranger has much more trouble balancing that. To dismiss this facet of the respective classes is a disrespect to the Fighter and only serves to make the comparison faulty. So absolutely feats matter.
Sixth: And back to your third point where AoE wasn't a focus point and now it is again because we want kills per round.
Seventh: How is Goodberry an action-free healing? Reading the spell text it specifically says: "A creature can use its action to eat one berry."
Eighth: Scimitar + Hand Crossbow Ranger would require Crossbow Expert feat to function, putting more burden on your ASIs and lessens the damage from the Hunter's Whirlwind/Volley subclass features. You cannot convince me that the Ranger class is categorically better as strategic/tactical value than anything the Fighter class can make - as damage dealing and tanking is a very valuable strategic asset. Especially when it comes to damage output in the most frequently seen situations in DnD. However I did say before that the Ranger can generally keep up in damage, by using their spell slots. And I also said that different classes have different strengths and purposes, which is very true for the Fighter who mainly excel in single-target combat (which is very applicable to most combat situations).
back to my first point: this was aimed to be cherry picking the situation. it depends on the dm whether you run into a dragon or an army, but my point, which you haven’t proven wrong in your comment , is that the ranger has substantial use in combat and outside.(also you weren’t the one I reacted to, so why the “who is cherry picking now”, I didn’t even use that phrasing)
I wasn't trying to disprove that the Ranger has substantial use in combat and outside combat. I was only trying to compare the damage between the two, because in general the Fighter stands to pump out more consistent damage than the Ranger - at least in tier 3+ play.
The cherry picking is generally speaking something you want to avoid, as corner cases are not a good foundation to make an argument. I said it because previously in the thread Envoy (the one I responded to way back then) retorted that someone was cherry picking an optimal position for the Fighter's benefit. So it seems appropriate to demand the same from the pro-Ranger crowd.
also you are very clear in how you remove parts and context of the quote, not subtle at all
I remove text from a quote when it doesn't appear material to the argument being made - and yes I make it very apparent that I cut something out, so if people are curious they can follow the quote-link to see what they missed. Otherwise these posts tend to become extremely long(er).
What context do you figure I left out of the quote that didn't truthfully represent your argument?
I left out the damage calculation as that's data supporting the argument, but not the argument itself - and to top it off it doesn't seem based in the systems of DnD as you were talking about 2,100 Damage per round and 300 attacks. I suspect you're thinking you can activate whirlwind and then sawblade your way through the enemy with your movement. Technically the RAW doesn't disallow this, but RAI certainly doesn't allow it and I'd wager neither would a DM. You whirlwind once where you stand (against up to 8 enemies if you're completely surrounded), then you can move. It has to compare to Volley and what other classes can achieve at this point. Furthermore in DnD, creatures are always put in standard placement boxes like a 5 ft. square/cube or hexagon in combat - as that's what they need to fight effectively. Free-placements at 1 foot spacing is not something the game naturally supports, so it's either a DM who really wants to shoehorn a cool moment for their Ranger (or any spellcaster) or it doesn't happen. And the point about tanking ranged attacks was very incoherent and difficult to make out what you were trying to say. Reading it again with the mindset of the Beyblade-esque Whirlwind, I think I get it, but also it doesn't really say anything, and it is built upon a very abused interpretation of the Whirlwind feature and the combat rules for moving between attacks.
First I'd like to set something straight: I'm not shitting on the Ranger, I'm advocating for why the Fighter generally deals/inflict more damage. Like Frank also mentions, the Ranger has many out-of-combat features and skills, or even just combat utility like control effects through their spellcasting that makes them valuable. If the Fighter doesn't generally deal more damage and tank more damage, then what is their purpose? They are not really skill orientated and as I said previously they get the least out of their class features, so they have to create strong synergies with the features they have: aka get good gear and deal/soak damage.
Personally I have an issue with the two half-caster classes not really being that hybrid between fighting and spell casting it is made out to be (with the Paladin being the more "offending" of the two). They are usually doomed to choose between being a mediocre martial or a mediocre spellcaster - once we get to late tier 2 play or into tier 3 play. Their saving grace is usually their class specific spells: Smite/Hunter's Mark that overperforms for their respective level and just so happens to be a bonus action to not impact too much on their martial side. But that's a very different discussion that I wont get into with this post.
first, the entire post was an example of how different situations have different outcomes. second: hunter is the base rules and most basic ranger subclass and champion for fighter. third: I wasn’t talking about aoe potential, I was talking at rate of surviving a last stand. fourth: I don’t know if you know, but whirlwind isn’t expendable.fifth: feats are not classbound, so they don’t matter, sixth: this is low ac low hp mob, it isn’t even mainly dpr, but more enemies per round.seventh:they technically have action-free healing with goodberries which can be produced a lot. eigth: well then take a scimitar+hand crossbow ranger, fact remains rangers, especially gloomstalkers(who can sneak and assassinate and ambush) and hunters(who can attack them all at once), have more strategic/tactical value than any fighter.
First: Sure, different situations can occur. However fighting an army is very unusual for DnD, it is usually only groups or individuals you fight. Therefore it is generally more cohesive to compare in situations where you are fighting a smaller group.
Second: What you define as basic also serves to pick the worst subclass for Fighter, especially for the scenario you have picked. That you are also then stripping certain rulesets that further goes against the Fighter's setup only serves to make the comparison really one-sided and not a very good argument. To retort I could say; what if you compare it to a Ranger who uses unarmed strikes and doesn't use their spell slots? That would be a terrible comparison. Furthermore the Eldritch Knight is also from the PHB (so basic ruleset), although the Sword Burst cantrip is an inclusion from Tasha's Cauldron - especially designed to support the Eldritch Knight/Bladesinger/melee spellcasters with the Wizard spell list.
Third: I don't get this point. You made the scenario for fighting an army and you had to hold them off. Furthermore you said the situation was about DPR and goblins defeated per turn. When dealing with an army, a very prominent aspect to look at is how quickly, efficiently and consistently can you kill your adversaries, so they don't harm you or so they wont get past whatever point you're holding. That's something AoE potential can work towards. You even specifically said the Ranger is a Hunter using a Greatsword and Whirlwind. You're talking about AoE. Furthermore I believe I made a fairly relevant argument for why the Fighter can survive longer than the Ranger when facing hits.
Fourth: Whirlwind is not a limited resource, no. Neither is the Eldritch Knight's Sword Burst cantrip.
Fifth: Feats are not class-bound, no, but the Fighter gets access to 7x ASIs/feats up till level 20, whilst the Ranger gets 5x. Furthermore, the Ranger wants to increase their main damage stat (STR - with a Greatsword), they want DEX +2 at least to get full armor from Medium armor, they usually want as much WIS thereafter to boost their spell casting, but an argument could be made for going CON and forsake their spell DC. In comparison the Fighter wants 20 STR and 20 CON... that's it. So the Fighter can easily achieve both their stat goals AND pick up some feats - for instance Heavy Armor Master which serves as a flat 3 damage reduction against non-magical physical attacks. The Ranger has much more trouble balancing that. To dismiss this facet of the respective classes is a disrespect to the Fighter and only serves to make the comparison faulty. So absolutely feats matter.
Sixth: And back to your third point where AoE wasn't a focus point and now it is again because we want kills per round.
Seventh: How is Goodberry an action-free healing? Reading the spell text it specifically says: "A creature can use its action to eat one berry."
Eighth: Scimitar + Hand Crossbow Ranger would require Crossbow Expert feat to function, putting more burden on your ASIs and lessens the damage from the Hunter's Whirlwind/Volley subclass features. You cannot convince me that the Ranger class is categorically better as strategic/tactical value than anything the Fighter class can make - as damage dealing and tanking is a very valuable strategic asset. Especially when it comes to damage output in the most frequently seen situations in DnD. However I did say before that the Ranger can generally keep up in damage, by using their spell slots. And I also said that different classes have different strengths and purposes, which is very true for the Fighter who mainly excel in single-target combat (which is very applicable to most combat situations).
back to my first point: this was aimed to be cherry picking the situation. it depends on the dm whether you run into a dragon or an army, but my point, which you haven’t proven wrong in your comment , is that the ranger has substantial use in combat and outside.(also you weren’t the one I reacted to, so why the “who is cherry picking now”, I didn’t even use that phrasing)
I wasn't trying to disprove that the Ranger has substantial use in combat and outside combat. I was only trying to compare the damage between the two, because in general the Fighter stands to pump out more consistent damage than the Ranger - at least in tier 3+ play.
The cherry picking is generally speaking something you want to avoid, as corner cases are not a good foundation to make an argument. I said it because previously in the thread Envoy (the one I responded to way back then) retorted that someone was cherry picking an optimal position for the Fighter's benefit. So it seems appropriate to demand the same from the pro-Ranger crowd.
also you are very clear in how you remove parts and context of the quote, not subtle at all
I remove text from a quote when it doesn't appear material to the argument being made - and yes I make it very apparent that I cut something out, so if people are curious they can follow the quote-link to see what they missed. Otherwise these posts tend to become extremely long(er).
What context do you figure I left out of the quote that didn't truthfully represent your argument?
I left out the damage calculation as that's data supporting the argument, but not the argument itself - and to top it off it doesn't seem based in the systems of DnD as you were talking about 2,100 Damage per round and 300 attacks. I suspect you're thinking you can activate whirlwind and then sawblade your way through the enemy with your movement. Technically the RAW doesn't disallow this, but RAI certainly doesn't allow it and I'd wager neither would a DM. You whirlwind once where you stand (against up to 8 enemies if you're completely surrounded), then you can move. It has to compare to Volley and what other classes can achieve at this point. Furthermore in DnD, creatures are always put in standard placement boxes like a 5 ft. square/cube or hexagon in combat - as that's what they need to fight effectively. Free-placements at 1 foot spacing is not something the game naturally supports, so it's either a DM who really wants to shoehorn a cool moment for their Ranger (or any spellcaster) or it doesn't happen. And the point about tanking ranged attacks was very incoherent and difficult to make out what you were trying to say. Reading it again with the mindset of the Beyblade-esque Whirlwind, I think I get it, but also it doesn't really say anything, and it is built upon a very abused interpretation of the Whirlwind feature and the combat rules for moving between attacks.
1+8:you don’t get the term random example ,do you? 2.I pick the ones in the basic rules on dndbeyond, the ones which wizards of the coast themselves see as the most basic
3+6. what I mean is it doesn’t matter how much dpr, as long as every attacks kills an enemy, it matters how many goblins are dead, 6d6 on ten goblins is worse than 2d6 on twenty goblins.and you want to get the enemy away and not necessarily kill them as long as you stay alive
4. the other spells you said are
5.ok, I see your point, but still it depends on race and the sixth and seventh feat are way less useful than the first, because you already have the good paired feats by then, let’s say +2 damage per attack(asi), making it up to 64
7. sorry, I misread that spell that is correct, but it is the eater’s action and in RAI it can be an indefinite number of berries, so if your ally is heavily woundedyou can heal him , but still they have many ways of healing themselves
whirlwind is attacks and movement between attacks can and it isn’t with the enemies fixed at the start of the action.
enemies dedicated to melee maybe, but the part that is using ranged weapons is closer together so they are compacter and to increase marching speed
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I agree 100%!
Who is cherry picking now?
If you want a fair contest of AoE potential (I assume specifically between the Fighter and Ranger class), why not pick the Eldritch Knight and have him pop in with Fireballs and Sword Bursts? As for holding targets off you also can put in Wall of Fire or Sickening Radiance for the Fighter, as well as quite a few good control options for the Ranger, but for the body blocking, probably Conjure Animals would be a fine choice too.
The Champion subclass is one of the worst subclasses for Fighter if you want damage and especially if you want AoE/multi-target hits. Their entire shtick is around critical hits, which only apply to the damage dice of a weapon attack - which for a pure Fighter - Champion mostly is their Greatsword's damage dice. And furthermore you want to discount critical hits altogether, completely invalidating the main selling point of Champion? Furthermore also no Fighting Stlyes and especially feats - which as I said previously is one of the main ways for Fighter to expand their damage beyond boosting their main damage stat? Yea, I don't think there's any point going on from here with this comparison...
We can agree that Rangers have more tools to deal with multiple enemies than a Fighter, especially from their main class features - namely through spell casting. But given that you selected a Greatsword Ranger, they mainly invest in Strength and have no proficiency in heavy armor, so they are mostly limited to medium armor and is likely worse of for AC than the Fighter. Furthermore the Fighter likely has a better CON score and thus more HP, and has self-healing from Second Wind. Even though the Ranger has access to healing through spell casting, they either require an action and/or concentration, and depend on your spell casting modifier (WIS). Your Ranger is also likely to lose concentration as they don't have proficiency in CON saves and neither can invest much into their CON score. I wager the Fighter is standing a lot longer than the Ranger for your proposed scenario.
A Sword'n'board Ranger with FS - Duelist (with a Finesse weapon) is much better in that scenario - mainly because they are not as MAD.
first, the entire post was an example of how different situations have different outcomes. second: hunter is the base rules and most basic ranger subclass and champion for fighter. third: I wasn’t talking about aoe potential, I was talking at rate of surviving a last stand. fourth: I don’t know if you know, but whirlwind isn’t expendable.fifth: feats are not classbound, so they don’t matter, sixth: this is low ac low hp mob, it isn’t even mainly dpr, but more enemies per round.seventh:they technically have action-free healing with goodberries which can be produced a lot. eigth: well then take a scimitar+hand crossbow ranger, fact remains rangers, especially gloomstalkers(who can sneak and assassinate and ambush) and hunters(who can attack them all at once), have more strategic/tactical value than any fighter.
back to my first point: this was aimed to be cherry picking the situation. it depends on the dm whether you run into a dragon or an army, but my point, which you haven’t proven wrong in your comment , is that the ranger has substantial use in combat and outside.(also you weren’t the one I reacted to, so why the “who is cherry picking now”, I didn’t even use that phrasing)
also you are very clear in how you remove parts and context of the quote, not subtle at all
by the way, sorry for misreading the situation.(if I understand it correctly your post actually defended the ranger keeping up?)
It was! I am a top tier ranger fan and supporter.
I repeat sorry, the thing is, the other posts were entangled and your post seemed relatively unconnected, so I assumed it was a reaction to the original post and reacted.
I understand. No problem!
It makes me smile when rangers can pull numbers near, at, or over that of fighters and paladins. Especially when the builds with numbers that beat rangers are very specific against specific odds also typically completely ignoring non combat game time, the terms of engagement, mobility, and many other factors. At the end of the day, I am happy that so many folks don't like the ranger. More for me!
First I'd like to set something straight: I'm not shitting on the Ranger, I'm advocating for why the Fighter generally deals/inflict more damage. Like Frank also mentions, the Ranger has many out-of-combat features and skills, or even just combat utility like control effects through their spellcasting that makes them valuable. If the Fighter doesn't generally deal more damage and tank more damage, then what is their purpose? They are not really skill orientated and as I said previously they get the least out of their class features, so they have to create strong synergies with the features they have: aka get good gear and deal/soak damage.
Personally I have an issue with the two half-caster classes not really being that hybrid between fighting and spell casting it is made out to be (with the Paladin being the more "offending" of the two). They are usually doomed to choose between being a mediocre martial or a mediocre spellcaster - once we get to late tier 2 play or into tier 3 play. Their saving grace is usually their class specific spells: Smite/Hunter's Mark that overperforms for their respective level and just so happens to be a bonus action to not impact too much on their martial side. But that's a very different discussion that I wont get into with this post.
First: Sure, different situations can occur. However fighting an army is very unusual for DnD, it is usually only groups or individuals you fight. Therefore it is generally more cohesive to compare in situations where you are fighting a smaller group.
Second: What you define as basic also serves to pick the worst subclass for Fighter, especially for the scenario you have picked. That you are also then stripping certain rulesets that further goes against the Fighter's setup only serves to make the comparison really one-sided and not a very good argument. To retort I could say; what if you compare it to a Ranger who uses unarmed strikes and doesn't use their spell slots? That would be a terrible comparison.
Furthermore the Eldritch Knight is also from the PHB (so basic ruleset), although the Sword Burst cantrip is an inclusion from Tasha's Cauldron - especially designed to support the Eldritch Knight/Bladesinger/melee spellcasters with the Wizard spell list.
Third: I don't get this point. You made the scenario for fighting an army and you had to hold them off. Furthermore you said the situation was about DPR and goblins defeated per turn. When dealing with an army, a very prominent aspect to look at is how quickly, efficiently and consistently can you kill your adversaries, so they don't harm you or so they wont get past whatever point you're holding. That's something AoE potential can work towards. You even specifically said the Ranger is a Hunter using a Greatsword and Whirlwind. You're talking about AoE. Furthermore I believe I made a fairly relevant argument for why the Fighter can survive longer than the Ranger when facing hits.
Fourth: Whirlwind is not a limited resource, no. Neither is the Eldritch Knight's Sword Burst cantrip.
Fifth: Feats are not class-bound, no, but the Fighter gets access to 7x ASIs/feats up till level 20, whilst the Ranger gets 5x. Furthermore, the Ranger wants to increase their main damage stat (STR - with a Greatsword), they want DEX +2 at least to get full armor from Medium armor, they usually want as much WIS thereafter to boost their spell casting, but an argument could be made for going CON and forsake their spell DC. In comparison the Fighter wants 20 STR and 20 CON... that's it. So the Fighter can easily achieve both their stat goals AND pick up some feats - for instance Heavy Armor Master which serves as a flat 3 damage reduction against non-magical physical attacks. The Ranger has much more trouble balancing that.
To dismiss this facet of the respective classes is a disrespect to the Fighter and only serves to make the comparison faulty. So absolutely feats matter.
Sixth: And back to your third point where AoE wasn't a focus point and now it is again because we want kills per round.
Seventh: How is Goodberry an action-free healing? Reading the spell text it specifically says: "A creature can use its action to eat one berry."
Eighth: Scimitar + Hand Crossbow Ranger would require Crossbow Expert feat to function, putting more burden on your ASIs and lessens the damage from the Hunter's Whirlwind/Volley subclass features.
You cannot convince me that the Ranger class is categorically better as strategic/tactical value than anything the Fighter class can make - as damage dealing and tanking is a very valuable strategic asset. Especially when it comes to damage output in the most frequently seen situations in DnD. However I did say before that the Ranger can generally keep up in damage, by using their spell slots. And I also said that different classes have different strengths and purposes, which is very true for the Fighter who mainly excel in single-target combat (which is very applicable to most combat situations).
I wasn't trying to disprove that the Ranger has substantial use in combat and outside combat. I was only trying to compare the damage between the two, because in general the Fighter stands to pump out more consistent damage than the Ranger - at least in tier 3+ play.
The cherry picking is generally speaking something you want to avoid, as corner cases are not a good foundation to make an argument. I said it because previously in the thread Envoy (the one I responded to way back then) retorted that someone was cherry picking an optimal position for the Fighter's benefit. So it seems appropriate to demand the same from the pro-Ranger crowd.
I remove text from a quote when it doesn't appear material to the argument being made - and yes I make it very apparent that I cut something out, so if people are curious they can follow the quote-link to see what they missed. Otherwise these posts tend to become extremely long(er).
What context do you figure I left out of the quote that didn't truthfully represent your argument?
I left out the damage calculation as that's data supporting the argument, but not the argument itself - and to top it off it doesn't seem based in the systems of DnD as you were talking about 2,100 Damage per round and 300 attacks. I suspect you're thinking you can activate whirlwind and then sawblade your way through the enemy with your movement. Technically the RAW doesn't disallow this, but RAI certainly doesn't allow it and I'd wager neither would a DM. You whirlwind once where you stand (against up to 8 enemies if you're completely surrounded), then you can move. It has to compare to Volley and what other classes can achieve at this point.
Furthermore in DnD, creatures are always put in standard placement boxes like a 5 ft. square/cube or hexagon in combat - as that's what they need to fight effectively. Free-placements at 1 foot spacing is not something the game naturally supports, so it's either a DM who really wants to shoehorn a cool moment for their Ranger (or any spellcaster) or it doesn't happen. And the point about tanking ranged attacks was very incoherent and difficult to make out what you were trying to say. Reading it again with the mindset of the Beyblade-esque Whirlwind, I think I get it, but also it doesn't really say anything, and it is built upon a very abused interpretation of the Whirlwind feature and the combat rules for moving between attacks.
1+8:you don’t get the term random example ,do you?
2.I pick the ones in the basic rules on dndbeyond, the ones which wizards of the coast themselves see as the most basic
3+6. what I mean is it doesn’t matter how much dpr, as long as every attacks kills an enemy, it matters how many goblins are dead, 6d6 on ten goblins is worse than 2d6 on twenty goblins.and you want to get the enemy away and not necessarily kill them as long as you stay alive
4. the other spells you said are
5.ok, I see your point, but still it depends on race and the sixth and seventh feat are way less useful than the first, because you already have the good paired feats by then, let’s say +2 damage per attack(asi), making it up to 64
7. sorry, I misread that spell that is correct, but it is the eater’s action and in RAI it can be an indefinite number of berries, so if your ally is heavily woundedyou can heal him , but still they have many ways of healing themselves
whirlwind is attacks and movement between attacks can and it isn’t with the enemies fixed at the start of the action.
enemies dedicated to melee maybe, but the part that is using ranged weapons is closer together so they are compacter and to increase marching speed