While I wouldn’t say it’s a top tier damaging class I would say most people, when saying the Ranger is underpowered, are only looking at the base class features, and it is my takeaway that the 5th Edition Ranger is built in such a way that most of it’s offensive abilities come from the subclasses, like the aforementioned Gloom Stalker or the Hunter.
Colossus Slayer
Your tenacity can wear down the most potent foes. When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, the creature takes an extra 1d8 damage if it’s below its hit point maximum. You can deal this extra damage only once per turn.
Giant Killer
When a Large or larger creature within 5 feet of you hits or misses you with an attack, you can use your reaction to attack that creature immediately after its attack, provided that you can see the creature.
Horde Breaker
Once on each of your turns when you make a weapon attack, you can make another attack with the same weapon against a different creature that is within 5 feet of the original target and within range of your weapon.
Rangers are top tier damage dealers. At times more so than fighters. Why are you throwing out claims like this that are flat wrong?
Not even you believe that.
No actually. He's objectively correct.
Nah, fighters'd win.
I don't know what to tell you if you think rangers can compete with 8 attacks on an action surge round at lvl 20. Or if you think it's fine that rangers have a damage spell at 9th level that does 3d8.
Rangers are top tier damage dealers. At times more so than fighters. Why are you throwing out claims like this that are flat wrong?
Not even you believe that.
No actually. He's objectively correct.
Nah, fighters'd win.
I don't know what to tell you if you think rangers can compete with 8 attacks on an action surge round at lvl 20. Or if you think it's fine that rangers have a damage spell at 9th level that does 3d8.
You are taking a single level of character progression (and the obviously strongest for the fighter at high levels - try the same math at level 19 - pathetic), a single round of combat, and purposefully comparing that to only a single (and poorly chosen) spell. Shame on you. Show me round 2 of that battle. Show me 4 rounds of a battle. Show me 3 4-round deadly CR combats between long rests. Show me conjure animals upcast with a 5th level slot. Show me ranger subclass damage. Show me massive healing capabilities. Show me terms of engagement for combats. Show me ranged combat. Show me maneuverability.
Rangers are top tier damage dealers. At times more so than fighters. Why are you throwing out claims like this that are flat wrong?
Not even you believe that.
No actually. He's objectively correct.
Nah, fighters'd win.
I don't know what to tell you if you think rangers can compete with 8 attacks on an action surge round at lvl 20. Or if you think it's fine that rangers have a damage spell at 9th level that does 3d8.
That's really cute.
Try your 8 attacks on an action surge against my attacks + my beast companion's attacks + 16 wolves from an upcast Conjure Animals and Rangers still win.
But even if we were to pretend your super cherry-picked example was correct, that doesn't change anything. I did acknowledge that Fighters tend to nova harder than Rangers. It's on every turn they're *not* using Action Surge that Rangers handily outpace them. And Fighters can't Action Surge indefinitely.
Of course, you'd know that if you had actually read my post.
Rangers are top tier damage dealers. At times more so than fighters. Why are you throwing out claims like this that are flat wrong?
Not even you believe that.
No actually. He's objectively correct.
Nah, fighters'd win.
I don't know what to tell you if you think rangers can compete with 8 attacks on an action surge round at lvl 20. Or if you think it's fine that rangers have a damage spell at 9th level that does 3d8.
That's really cute.
Try your 8 attacks on an action surge against my attacks + my beast companion's attacks + 16 wolves from an upcast Conjure Animals and Rangers still win.
But even if we were to pretend your super cherry-picked example was correct, that doesn't change anything. I did acknowledge that Fighters tend to nova harder than Rangers. It's on every turn they're *not* using Action Surge that Rangers handily outpace them. And Fighters can't Action Surge indefinitely.
Of course, you'd know that if you had actually read my post.
And how long would your turn take again? Is your table happy with that? Are your wolves surviving a dragon breath attack? I don't know, there's a reason you almost never seen rangers compete, and it has nothing to do with stigma or public opinion.
Rangers are top tier damage dealers. At times more so than fighters. Why are you throwing out claims like this that are flat wrong?
Not even you believe that.
No actually. He's objectively correct.
Nah, fighters'd win.
I don't know what to tell you if you think rangers can compete with 8 attacks on an action surge round at lvl 20. Or if you think it's fine that rangers have a damage spell at 9th level that does 3d8.
That's really cute.
Try your 8 attacks on an action surge against my attacks + my beast companion's attacks + 16 wolves from an upcast Conjure Animals and Rangers still win.
But even if we were to pretend your super cherry-picked example was correct, that doesn't change anything. I did acknowledge that Fighters tend to nova harder than Rangers. It's on every turn they're *not* using Action Surge that Rangers handily outpace them. And Fighters can't Action Surge indefinitely.
Of course, you'd know that if you had actually read my post.
And how long would your turn take again? Is your table happy with that? Are your wolves surviving a dragon breath attack? I don't know, there's a reason you almost never seen rangers compete, and it has nothing to do with stigma or public opinion.
See everyone? This is a classic example of moving the goalposts. Suddenly, it's not about who does more dpr. Now it's about how long a turn takes or how fun/boring it is to run. That wasn't what we were discussing. Stick to your original point.
We also weren't talking about the wolves' survivability. That's a completely different topic as well. Wolves die to a dragon's breath just as well as a Fighter dies to a Lich's Power Word Kill or Finger of Death. The wolves are expendable and I can always just resummon them. What was your point again?
Because the original comment you replied to simply claimed that Ranger could - at times - out-damage a Fighter. Nothing to do with fun, tedium, or survivability.
Because the original comment you replied to simply claimed that Ranger could - at times - out-damage a Fighter. Nothing to do with fun, tedium, or survivability.
The ranger chassis just doesn't out damage a fighter over the average of a campaign. Especially not when you consider extra feats, not when you consider better scaling with martial weapons. Like, wow, you summoned several wolves! Oh, a fireball! Man, it doesn't even need to be a dragon's breath attack, any AoE skill will do away with the fruits of your action and spell slot. The fighter is mostly self-sufficient and able to perform consistent loads of damage, with or without resources. Mind you, if we wanna talk about the fighters in other points of their career, we might as well observe the average length of a campaign and see just how much does ranger keep up with fighter? a campaign might get to lvl 12, at best. a ranger at that level only has three casts for conjure animals. The fighter? Has three attacks per turn and can action surge to perform an absurd amount of damage and still get back after a short rest.
Just because a class is able to - at times - perform more damage in a round than another, does not mean it is top tier. Anyone in their right mind would think about the bigger picture, the overall result and experience and a comparison.
Some players literally can't see pet or minions as part of their own damage. I respect that some want their character to do lot of damage.
But fighting boiling down to just damage numbers is no longer fun for me. Because it won't really take everything into account.
Rangers can be simple but usually are unique builds tailored to players taste. That's what makes them fun. The "I did it my way" Aproach to a dms challenge is what make it fun.
Even Rangers with the exact same spells or features choices will still have a customized solution feel to approaching a dms challenge.
But the best part is even when Rangers are super powerful they still won't break the game with one trick playbooks that ruin encounters.They self balance quite well.
Because the original comment you replied to simply claimed that Ranger could - at times - out-damage a Fighter. Nothing to do with fun, tedium, or survivability.
The ranger chassis just doesn't out damage a fighter over the average of a campaign. Especially not when you consider extra feats, not when you consider better scaling with martial weapons. Like, wow, you summoned several wolves! Oh, a fireball! Man, it doesn't even need to be a dragon's breath attack, any AoE skill will do away with the fruits of your action and spell slot. The fighter is mostly self-sufficient and able to perform consistent loads of damage, with or without resources. Mind you, if we wanna talk about the fighters in other points of their career, we might as well observe the average length of a campaign and see just how much does ranger keep up with fighter? a campaign might get to lvl 12, at best. a ranger at that level only has three casts for conjure animals. The fighter? Has three attacks per turn and can action surge to perform an absurd amount of damage and still get back after a short rest.
Just because a class is able to - at times - perform more damage in a round than another, does not mean it is top tier. Anyone in their right mind would think about the bigger picture, the overall result and experience and a comparison.
You pick a level and tell us what a fighter with their feats are putting out in between one turn one, in one combat, and over 3 deady combats long rests. Then we will bring you a ranger of the same level. We won't bring up the other points, like massivie healing capabilities, terms of engagement, and damage avoidance/soak that the fighter just doesn't have. I hope and pray that the fighter DOES do more damage than the ranger over an entire day. Otherwise, what's the point of them. That is all they do.
Regarding the conjure animals and taking a long time, that is a new player issue. Anyone who reads the spell and has DM'd and/or been a player with minions at least once before knows how to take an efficient turn. My turns with conjure animals take half the time that paladin, fighter, wizard, and rogue players take.
Because the original comment you replied to simply claimed that Ranger could - at times - out-damage a Fighter. Nothing to do with fun, tedium, or survivability.
The ranger chassis just doesn't out damage a fighter over the average of a campaign. Especially not when you consider extra feats, not when you consider better scaling with martial weapons. Like, wow, you summoned several wolves! Oh, a fireball! Man, it doesn't even need to be a dragon's breath attack, any AoE skill will do away with the fruits of your action and spell slot. The fighter is mostly self-sufficient and able to perform consistent loads of damage, with or without resources. Mind you, if we wanna talk about the fighters in other points of their career, we might as well observe the average length of a campaign and see just how much does ranger keep up with fighter? a campaign might get to lvl 12, at best. a ranger at that level only has three casts for conjure animals. The fighter? Has three attacks per turn and can action surge to perform an absurd amount of damage and still get back after a short rest.
Just because a class is able to - at times - perform more damage in a round than another, does not mean it is top tier. Anyone in their right mind would think about the bigger picture, the overall result and experience and a comparison.
Seriously, read my original post. I covered most of this already.
The extra feats mean nothing because only a handful (CBE/Sharpshooter and GWM/PAM) increase the Fighter's dpr potential, and the two sets tend to be mutually exclusive. Also, let's not pretend that Fighters are out there swimming in feats. They get two over other classes. That's it. Two feats do not make up for an entire spell list.
At level 12? Rangers are *also* getting three attacks. The third one comes from their subclass. Again, I said this in my original post. So Fighters and Rangers are *consistently* (do you know the meaning of the word or are you just throwing it around?) making the same amounts of attacks. The only thing is the Rangers get a dpr bump from their subclass at level 3 and their T3 attack is more interesting (pets? Teleportation? Rerollong? Martial AoE?)
Fighters *only* outpace the Rangers when they Action Surge. But they can only action surge once per short rest. That is the definition of inconsistent. And if Fighters get to use a resource, so do Rangers. In this case, a 3rd-level spell slot for Conjure Animals. And suddenly it's the Fighter who has to try to catch up. And the wolves will stick around for an hour or so. So much longer - and therefore much more *consistent* - than Action Surge, which only lasts a turn.
Even if some of the wolves die (seriously, who would bunch them up and and make them prime targets for a Fireball anyway? Does the Ranger have to play like an idiot for the Fighter to even slightly have a chance?) they'll still contribute more and longer than Action Surge just by lasting multiple turns. Not to mention all the other utility they bring. Even if half die in one go, the other half is still around to contribute more than an Action Surge.
And I'm just talking pure dpr. I'm not even bringing healing, support, non-combat utility, and battlefield control into the mix. Because there's no point. Rangers win no contest in those categories.
Try your 8 attacks on an action surge against my attacks + my beast companion's attacks + 16 wolves from an upcast Conjure Animals and Rangers still win.
But even if we were to pretend your super cherry-picked example was correct, that doesn't change anything. I did acknowledge that Fighters tend to nova harder than Rangers. It's on every turn they're *not* using Action Surge that Rangers handily outpace them. And Fighters can't Action Surge indefinitely.
Of course, you'd know that if you had actually read my post.
I figure the comparison is most favorable for Ranger at level 17, the earliest time they can acquire a 5th level upcast Conjure Animals. So lets delve into it. (Wrapping in a spoiler for the sake of brevity)
16 Wolves is nice, but against a CR 17 monster, there's a likelihood that they wont hit their AC. A CR 17 monster like an Adult Gold Dragon (which is unlikely going to be strong enough to face your PC lvl 17 party, but lets just roll with it) has an AC of 19 - against the Wolf's +4 to hit, giving an average of 10.5 + 2 DEX + 2 Prof. Bonus + 3 (likely getting flanking advantage, either from Pack Tactics or DMG's flanking rules) = 17.5. With advantage that's about 51% chance to hit. (Lets for the comparison ignore the logistics of 16 creatures having to attack at melee range - which is possible against an Adult Gold Dragon which is huge, but then no animal companion unless we switch positions)
The damage is 2d4 + 2 DEX for an average of 7 damage per hit.
Your 16 wolves is then on average going to deal 7 damage * 51% chance to hit * 16 wolves = 57.1 damage
And this damage is nonmagical piercing damage, so there's also a possibility (dare I say probability) that the damage is going to be resisted or be outright immune at that level of play.
Your Ranger is spending their first round casting this spell, but can also direct their Beast companion to make an attack (if we assume we're using the optional rules for Primal Companion where it costs a bonus action to attack with your beast compared to an action). It uses your spell attack modifier, aka WIS + Prof. Bonus, which is likely a +4 WIS + 6 Prof. Bonus, so is very likely to hit with advantage (~70%), dealing 1d8 + 2 + 6 magical slashing (taking the land version for maximum damage), which it can make two of for an average of 25 damage * 70% chance to hit = 17.5 average DPR.
As was stated previously in this thread, there's a high likelihood that any sort of AoE is going to clear any wolf caught in its range, so the damage contribution of Conjure Animals for further rounds is quickly going to be reduced or removed.
On further rounds lets assume the Ranger attacks with their +3 Longbow (assumed in tier 4 play) and use their BA for beast attacks. I will assume the use of Sharpshooter (granted through Human variant lvl 1 feat) and FS - Archery.
They attack on average for 10.5 + 3 weapon bonus + 5 DEX + 6 Prof. Bonus + 2 Archery - 5 SS penalty = 21.5 on AC or hitting approx. 65%
Dealing 2x [ 4.5 (d8) + 3 weapon bonus + 5 DEX + 10 SS ] * 65% chance to hit + 1d6 (Fav Foe) = 32.8 DPR
+ 17.5 (from Beast) = 50.3 DPR
+ whatever remains from the Conjure Animals, which is likely to be 0-2 against the dragon as its wing attack is a DC 22 Dex saving throw and the Wolves have +2 Dex, so only a 20 saves them against 2d6 + 8 bludgeoning damage with their 11 HP. Even in the event some wolves manage to survive, the dragon still have multi-attack (x3) and a tail-attack as a legendary action to clear any remaining wolves.
'
In comparison your Fighter at level 17 is making 3 weapon attacks naturally. I'll assume they have used their ASIs to get 20 STR and PAM and GWM and have Fighting Style GWF. I'll assume in tier 4 that they have acquired at least a +3 weapon d10. I'll assume they also have advantage through flanking. I will use a Fighter - Samurai.
So they will make 3 normal weapon attacks with advantage, trade one of the attacks' advantage for an additional attack through Rapid Strike and then a bonus action attack through PAM. All attacks are utilizing GWM.
Attacks with advantage is going to hit on average: 10.5 + 3 weapon bonus + 3 advantage + 5 STR + 6 Prof. Bonus - 5 GWM penalty = 22.5 to hit or very likely to hit AC 19 (~75%).
Attacks without advantage (the two attacks affected by Rapid Strike) is going to hit on average: 10.5 + 3 weapon bonus + 5 STR + 6 Prof. Bonus - 5 GWM penalty = 19.5 or 55% chance to hit.
So the Fighter deals: 2x [ 5.5 (d10) + 3 weapon bonus + 5 STR + 10 GWM + 0.8 GWF d10 ] * 75% chance to hit + 2x [ 5.5 (d10) + 3 weapon bonus + 5 STR + 10 GWM + 0.8 GWF d10 ] * 55% chance to hit + 1x [ 2.5 (d4) + 3 weapon bonus + 5 STR + 10 GWM + 0.5 GWF d4 ] * 75% chance to hit = 78.9 DPR against an Adult Gold Dragon
All of which is from a magical source (not relevant to this particular case but very much so for many other similar CR monsters)
This is without expending any limited ressources for the Fighter. It is not accounting for the occasional critical hit in non-PAM attacks that through GWM could upscale the PAM attack to a regular weapon attack with a d10 damage die. That's a rather insignificant difference at this point. Action Surge can add another 54.7 damage on top (not accounting the PAM attack nor the Rapid Strike).
And if you really want, shift it to a +3 Longbow with SS and FS - Archery for the Fighter as well. Pop Samurai's Fighting Spirit with your Bonus Action to gain advantage and trade one of those from your three attacks to gain a fourth. Basically the Ranger's weapon attacks + 2 attacks of a variant with advantage.
Or the equivalent of 68.9 DPR for 3 rounds, +1 per combat encounter thereafter, then dropping to 43.9.
Much less impressive. However SS and CE with 2x +3 Hand Crossbows in melee range with flanking/enemy prone for the Samurai with Rapid Strike can churn up to 84.7 DPR or 55.9 DPR at range. Its DPR is higher than the two-hander because of FS - Archery compared to FS - GWF. But it does require 2x +3 Hand Crossbows... which is... much more costly than just one +3 weapon.
'
And let me be clear, this is very simplistic, but favorable circumstances for both, but primarily for the Ranger. For instance the dragon doesn't have any damage reduction against non-magical attacks. And if the Dragon has turn between the Ranger casting Conjure Animals and the Wolves having their turn, it can relatively easily use its breath weapon against them or walk over and do the Wing Attack at the end of the turn for the next creature in turn order. Naturally the Ranger could just ready action until the Dragon has had their turn to avoid this and hope the wolves get a low enough initiative to not be skipped the round they are summoned. And I'm also assuming something keeps the Dragon on the ground, like a friendly spellcaster or its nest/eggs (which benefits both for this comparison) and that there's someone for the Fighter to high-five a flanking advantage for - both assumptions that generally is true for tier 4 play.
Now to trade a 5th level spell slot for the dragon to primarily use their breath weapon on them, is a win - and quite possibly vanity to think it would, compared to just smacking the shit out of the Ranger to have them drop concentration. But we were comparing damage in mostly favorable circumstances.
'
As for OneDND, both GWM and SS are going out the door, so that's a huge hit to Fighter's damage capabilities that we don't know if they will get something similar to compensate them. Some tools for Hunter, like its bread-and-butter Hunter's Mark is also receiving a hit to its potential damage output, being reduced to proc'ing only once per turn. So this damage calculation has to be considered with a grain of salt as for the future of the game. But right now, Fighter is the most likely to output most damage in general, with relatively simple conditions. Only dethroned by favorable AoE scenarios that tend to favor spellcasters.
Thank you for you work and effort into this example.
There has always been a huge glaring flaw when it comes to high powered melee damage builds. Melee. Why on earth would any creature with ability to NOT be in melee with their enemies be in melee with their enemies. Both for wolves and a fighter. The DPR of a melee fighter or other martial has to be high because there is a zero percent chance that any dragon worth their salt is going to spend any more time on the ground then they have too. So now we compare all of these numbers again, but assume the melee fighter might only get one or tow rounds of even being able to hit said dragon. I assume you chose melee because of wolves. Fair enough. But a dragon is a bad example for both examples. It does give rangers the upper hand.
We are already assuming expansion books and feats, now we have to assume flanking as well? Not many folks play with flanking how does that change your fighter's math?
Also, wolves get advantage on their attacks, greatly increasing their DPR. Dragon do not have the resistance you mentioned. So, pick an enemy, please.
A CR monster at level 17, as you implied above, is a "trivial" fight. So no one is going to blow their top resources on that battle.
Opportunity attacks are not mentioned above. That is important, as having stirges, blood hawks, or some other flying creature would make for a lot more attacks from that. Another thing is any time a breath weapon or AoE is used on conjured animals that is a huge win for the party. It can be equivalent to a counterspell.
There is the option of one or two giant constrictor snakes. Which would provide advanatnge to the entire party, soak hits and/or actions of the dragon, and/or be the target of said breath weapon.
Finally, after that battle, a ranger is going to have a lot of healing they can provide to the party.
So what I'm reading in this post is a 100% optimized fighter using several optional rules and an optional expansion book fighting an trivial challenge rating and tactically poorly played enemy in an ideal-for-the-fighter scenario and can do some more damage compared to a bog standard ranger playing poorly. using a single spell slot.
Thank you for you work and effort into this example.
<snip>
You're stating many of the same reservations and assumptions that I pointed out, so I don't think you're adding much to this scenario by repeating it, especially in a manner that makes it seem like I didn't take it into account.
Also, wolves get advantage on their attacks, greatly increasing their DPR. Dragon do not have the resistance you mentioned. So, pick an enemy, please.
I did include advantage for the Wolves in their damage calculations so there's no need to point out that it increases their DPR. The reason for the wolves was because I was replying to Envoy who specifically said to compare the Fighter to their 16 Wolves and Beast companion.
The reason for the dragon was because it was an enemy at CR 17 that is fairly "common" (there are many dragon variants) and didn't have damage resistances to non-magical physical damage, which would utterly tank the Ranger's damage contribution through Conjure Animals - Wolves (which was one of the reasons for the comparison). I'm not that familiar with the monster manual (nor do I own one) so I just looked at available resources online and from what I readily found (and have read from these forums and other sources), was that many monsters at CR 15+ (likely even earlier) have either resistance or outright immunity to non-magical physical damage, with the notable exception of Dragons. I don't know if Conjure Animals can summon creatures that have magical attacks or attacks that primarily deal non-physical damage to bypass that fairly common damage reduction. I imagine such creatures would not provide the same raw damage contribution as wolves.
I already picked an enemy and made a comparison. How about you do the next one?
Opportunity attacks are not mentioned above. That is important, as having stirges, blood hawks, or some other flying creature would make for a lot more attacks from that. Another thing is any time a breath weapon or AoE is used on conjured animals that is a huge win for the party. It can be equivalent to a counterspell.
And in the scenario above, why would the dragon not just use its legendary action - Wing Attack to get rid of any nearby creatures that would proc an opportunity attack? Do you perhaps have a calculation that feasibly account for opportunity attacks in a real scenario? If so, please add it.
Again you're repeating my previous statement about the Conjured Animals tanking hits is a win, but this was specifically a damage comparison as I stated in the post. Trying to force other considerations into the mix would result in a different comparison. Furthermore I doubt it would actually use its breath weapon on the conjured animals, but rather focus on taking out the ones that magically conjured them. Dragons are intelligent and would recognize the animals as non-real (non-physical is probably the better term) if it observed their creation or could determine their "leader".
There is the option of one or two giant constrictor snakes. Which would provide advanatnge to the entire party, soak hits and/or actions of the dragon, and/or be the target of said breath weapon.
True, there's likely better choices to go for with Conjure Animals. The case in point was a comparison for 16 Wolves.
Finally, after that battle, a ranger is going to have a lot of healing they can provide to the party.
Indeed, and the Fighter is likely the one who has tanked the hits. Not relevant for the damage dealing comparison, but yes classes have different roles, purposes and abilities. Like that friendly spellcaster who possibly grounded the dragon for the comparison to make sense in the first place.
'
As for the entire melee-vs-ranged "flaw" you mentioned; The dragon in the scenario would if possible just keep at distance, use its 80 ft. fly speed to go in and make its 60 ft. breath weapon, then fly off again until the breath weapon is recharged. Making it only possible for the ranged characters to prepare action to attack the dragon. This would significantly cut back the party's overall damage output and is the reason why spellcasters often pick up control spells that enables their melee party members to deliver their high single-target damage against mobile and especially elusive flying targets. However I did also make a comparison to a ranged Fighter's damage output, which is still largely higher than the Ranger's, depending on how lenient you want to be for the Ranger's benefit in using something like Conjure Animals - flying combat is kinda weird to account for.
So 78.9 DPR for the melee fighter. What was your total tally for the DPR for the ranger and animals? Total over 3/4 rounds, dived by the number of rounds.
So 78.9 DPR for the melee fighter. What was your total tally for the DPR for the ranger and animals? Total over 3/4 rounds, dived by the number of rounds.
Can we compare that to the ranged fighter?
If your assumption is that the Dragon is flying and keeping out of reach, then I will assume it only flies in to do a breath weapon and then fly away again. How will you apply the Conjure Animals to this scenario? Will you make the calculation and do the assumptions?
With that tactic I see a ranger being better off with either Hail of Thorns and a longbow or an upcast fog could along with the bonus action hide they picked up at level 14. At level 18 the ranger can use the same fog cloud trick and have advantage on all of their attacks.
If I was going to use a Conjure Animals, I would use a level 3 or 4 spell slot and only cast larger creatures. Not next to the party of course. The wing attack is awesome and a real killer for minions. I love dragons!
Everyone's damage drops at this point. The archer fighter, assuming it is an archer and not a 100% focused melee build, is doing way less damage as well, along with using resources.
I think my point here, no matter which builds or scenarios used, is that a bog standard ranger (I would even be happy to use Hunter or PHB Beast Master) doing PHB stuff handily keeps up with a fighter that is using and assuming many optional rules and expansions and built in a very focused way. Does the fighter deal more damage than the ranger? Sure. I'll admit defeat. But don't stray too far from the heavily optimized build.
I think my point here, no matter which builds or scenarios used, is that a bog standard ranger (I would even be happy to use Hunter or PHB Beast Master) doing PHB stuff handily keeps up with a fighter that is using and assuming many optional rules and expansions and built in a very focused way. Does the fighter deal more damage than the ranger? Sure. I'll admit defeat. But don't stray too far from the heavily optimized build.
I assumed the use of the optional flanking rule. A rather common optional rule from the DMG which is on par with PHB in terms of release - I don't know how many groups actually use it, my assumption was that most do - actually 1 minute on google; survey says.
I used the Samurai because it could work without using a limited resource, because then someone would moan about the use of limited resources - ignoring how we're also using a very limited resource on the Ranger to cast that Conjure Animals at 5th level. I imagine the Battle Master (which is PHB) could service the comparison in a somewhat similar fashion, but at the use of their 8 available Superiority Dice. However the way their maneuvers work is quite a bit more complex to account for if you want the most out of it - meaning you have to make further assumptions - so I opted for a more simple comparison without resorting to a worse use case like the Champion.
The rest is PHB for the Fighter. So no, I'm not really using any obscure optional rules or obscure species to get a more optimized build for the Fighter. I'm using one very common optional rule and an expansion subclass*. (Technically we're also using the optional rule for feats, which both are using - however the disallowance of feats would render the Fighter class close to meaningless at higher levels, and rarely do I hear about groups who don't allow feats.)
And "Build in a very focused way" is how you get the most out of a character for a damage comparison, and frankly the Fighter's class features are mostly granting ASIs and the class is very dependent on their gear - aka they get the least out of their class features but those function very well with their gear. So it makes sense to pump your damage stats and gain feats that complement what your character does best; making weapon attacks.
You can start out at 15 STR on point buy, get +1 STR and GWM from Human variant then use a 4th lvl ASI for PAM, then use 2x ASIs at level 6 and 8 to get 20 STR and your build is "done". You have 3 additional ASIs up to level 17 and another at lvl 19. You can use these to pick up +4 DEX (you can start with 15 DEX on point buy and +1 from Human variant in addition to your STR build, resulting in 20/20 STR/DEX) and SS + CE to also cover a ranged build. The FS - GWF is such a low impact that you can easily pick up Archery, even though you don't plan on using it as a primary source of damage. Weapon enhancements might become an issue to spread over multiple weapons - again back to the Fighter being gear dependent much more than basically any other class.
As for the standard Ranger keeping up with the optimized Fighter... I don't believe you. Not that the Ranger can't somewhat keep up, but that they are non-optimized to do so. There are many spells in the Ranger list that simply are not worth their salt, so you're also optimizing your Ranger when you select specific spells to use for your comparison. You can't say that picking main damage stat increases and feats that compliment your weapon is optimization on the Fighter and not say that about the Ranger when selecting ASIs, feats AND spells. You're being very disingenuous in your remarks here.
At level 17, over four rounds of combat, fighting an adult red dragon flying in the air, using rough math...
For a Samurai with a +3 longbow using nothing else I get 30.68 DPR. (zero resources used)
For a Samurai with a +3 longbow and sharpshooter and nothing else I get 37.8 DPR. (zero resources used)
For a Samurai with a +3 longbow using all fighting spirit uses and action surge I get 43.07 DPR. (all long rest and short rest resources used)
For a Samurai with a +3 longbow and sharpshooter using all fighting spirit uses and action surge I get 60.41 DPR. (all long rest and short rest resources used)
For a ranger with a +3 longbow and sharpshooter using only hunter's mark I get 29.4 DPR.
For a ranger with a +3 longbow and sharpshooter using a 3rd level and 4th level hail of thorns and hunter's mark on two rounds I get 36.925 DPR. (less than a third of daily resources)
On average flying snakes will do 52 points of damage. If we assume a half life depletion do to dragon wing attacks versus flyby of the snakes, that is 97 snake DPR over 4 rounds. For a ranger with a +3 longbow and sharpshooter using attacking rounds 2-4 after casting the snakes I get 43.15 DPR. (using one spell slot for the day)
At level 17, over four rounds of combat, fighting an adult red dragon flying in the air, using rough math...
For a Samurai with a +3 longbow using nothing else I get 30.68 DPR. (zero resources used)
For a Samurai with a +3 longbow and sharpshooter and nothing else I get 37.8 DPR. (zero resources used)
For a Samurai with a +3 longbow using all fighting spirit uses and action surge I get 43.07 DPR. (all long rest and short rest resources used)
For a Samurai with a +3 longbow and sharpshooter using all fighting spirit uses and action surge I get 60.41 DPR. (all long rest and short rest resources used)
For a ranger with a +3 longbow and sharpshooter using only hunter's mark I get 29.4 DPR.
For a ranger with a +3 longbow and sharpshooter using a 3rd level and 4th level hail of thorns and hunter's mark on two rounds I get 36.925 DPR. (less than a third of daily resources)
On average flying snakes will do 52 points of damage. If we assume a half life depletion do to dragon wing attacks versus flyby of the snakes, that is 97 snake DPR over 4 rounds. For a ranger with a +3 longbow and sharpshooter using attacking rounds 2-4 after casting the snakes I get 43.15 DPR. (using one spell slot for the day)
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.
this situation is about dpr and goblins defeated per turn
ranger hunter full movement but no resources: 300 attacks(this can with the other effects be even more, but goblins have 7 hp) times 7 average gives 2100 dpr and 300 goblins
champion no resources: 4 times 7 makes 28 dpr and 4 goblins
champion action surge:8 times 7 makes 56 dpr and 8 goblins.
the ranger if he can stand receiving around 600-700+300-400 +0-100 ranged attacks can win(I would recommend strong armor and defensive spells, and using the bonus action to try to misdirect attacks, maybe hide or an illusion or a well aimed rain on the bowstring)
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
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
While I wouldn’t say it’s a top tier damaging class I would say most people, when saying the Ranger is underpowered, are only looking at the base class features, and it is my takeaway that the 5th Edition Ranger is built in such a way that most of it’s offensive abilities come from the subclasses, like the aforementioned Gloom Stalker or the Hunter.
Colossus Slayer
Your tenacity can wear down the most potent foes. When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, the creature takes an extra 1d8 damage if it’s below its hit point maximum. You can deal this extra damage only once per turn.
Giant Killer
When a Large or larger creature within 5 feet of you hits or misses you with an attack, you can use your reaction to attack that creature immediately after its attack, provided that you can see the creature.
Horde Breaker
Once on each of your turns when you make a weapon attack, you can make another attack with the same weapon against a different creature that is within 5 feet of the original target and within range of your weapon.
I rest my case.
Mystic v3 should be official, nuff said.
Nah, fighters'd win.
I don't know what to tell you if you think rangers can compete with 8 attacks on an action surge round at lvl 20. Or if you think it's fine that rangers have a damage spell at 9th level that does 3d8.
You are taking a single level of character progression (and the obviously strongest for the fighter at high levels - try the same math at level 19 - pathetic), a single round of combat, and purposefully comparing that to only a single (and poorly chosen) spell. Shame on you. Show me round 2 of that battle. Show me 4 rounds of a battle. Show me 3 4-round deadly CR combats between long rests. Show me conjure animals upcast with a 5th level slot. Show me ranger subclass damage. Show me massive healing capabilities. Show me terms of engagement for combats. Show me ranged combat. Show me maneuverability.
That's really cute.
Try your 8 attacks on an action surge against my attacks + my beast companion's attacks + 16 wolves from an upcast Conjure Animals and Rangers still win.
But even if we were to pretend your super cherry-picked example was correct, that doesn't change anything. I did acknowledge that Fighters tend to nova harder than Rangers. It's on every turn they're *not* using Action Surge that Rangers handily outpace them. And Fighters can't Action Surge indefinitely.
Of course, you'd know that if you had actually read my post.
And how long would your turn take again? Is your table happy with that? Are your wolves surviving a dragon breath attack? I don't know, there's a reason you almost never seen rangers compete, and it has nothing to do with stigma or public opinion.
See everyone? This is a classic example of moving the goalposts. Suddenly, it's not about who does more dpr. Now it's about how long a turn takes or how fun/boring it is to run. That wasn't what we were discussing. Stick to your original point.
We also weren't talking about the wolves' survivability. That's a completely different topic as well. Wolves die to a dragon's breath just as well as a Fighter dies to a Lich's Power Word Kill or Finger of Death. The wolves are expendable and I can always just resummon them. What was your point again?
Because the original comment you replied to simply claimed that Ranger could - at times - out-damage a Fighter. Nothing to do with fun, tedium, or survivability.
The ranger chassis just doesn't out damage a fighter over the average of a campaign. Especially not when you consider extra feats, not when you consider better scaling with martial weapons. Like, wow, you summoned several wolves! Oh, a fireball! Man, it doesn't even need to be a dragon's breath attack, any AoE skill will do away with the fruits of your action and spell slot. The fighter is mostly self-sufficient and able to perform consistent loads of damage, with or without resources. Mind you, if we wanna talk about the fighters in other points of their career, we might as well observe the average length of a campaign and see just how much does ranger keep up with fighter? a campaign might get to lvl 12, at best. a ranger at that level only has three casts for conjure animals. The fighter? Has three attacks per turn and can action surge to perform an absurd amount of damage and still get back after a short rest.
Just because a class is able to - at times - perform more damage in a round than another, does not mean it is top tier. Anyone in their right mind would think about the bigger picture, the overall result and experience and a comparison.
Some players literally can't see pet or minions as part of their own damage. I respect that some want their character to do lot of damage.
But fighting boiling down to just damage numbers is no longer fun for me. Because it won't really take everything into account.
Rangers can be simple but usually are unique builds tailored to players taste. That's what makes them fun. The "I did it my way" Aproach to a dms challenge is what make it fun.
Even Rangers with the exact same spells or features choices will still have a customized solution feel to approaching a dms challenge.
But the best part is even when Rangers are super powerful they still won't break the game with one trick playbooks that ruin encounters.They self balance quite well.
You pick a level and tell us what a fighter with their feats are putting out in between one turn one, in one combat, and over 3 deady combats long rests. Then we will bring you a ranger of the same level. We won't bring up the other points, like massivie healing capabilities, terms of engagement, and damage avoidance/soak that the fighter just doesn't have. I hope and pray that the fighter DOES do more damage than the ranger over an entire day. Otherwise, what's the point of them. That is all they do.
Regarding the conjure animals and taking a long time, that is a new player issue. Anyone who reads the spell and has DM'd and/or been a player with minions at least once before knows how to take an efficient turn. My turns with conjure animals take half the time that paladin, fighter, wizard, and rogue players take.
Seriously, read my original post. I covered most of this already.
The extra feats mean nothing because only a handful (CBE/Sharpshooter and GWM/PAM) increase the Fighter's dpr potential, and the two sets tend to be mutually exclusive. Also, let's not pretend that Fighters are out there swimming in feats. They get two over other classes. That's it. Two feats do not make up for an entire spell list.
At level 12? Rangers are *also* getting three attacks. The third one comes from their subclass. Again, I said this in my original post. So Fighters and Rangers are *consistently* (do you know the meaning of the word or are you just throwing it around?) making the same amounts of attacks. The only thing is the Rangers get a dpr bump from their subclass at level 3 and their T3 attack is more interesting (pets? Teleportation? Rerollong? Martial AoE?)
Fighters *only* outpace the Rangers when they Action Surge. But they can only action surge once per short rest. That is the definition of inconsistent. And if Fighters get to use a resource, so do Rangers. In this case, a 3rd-level spell slot for Conjure Animals. And suddenly it's the Fighter who has to try to catch up. And the wolves will stick around for an hour or so. So much longer - and therefore much more *consistent* - than Action Surge, which only lasts a turn.
Even if some of the wolves die (seriously, who would bunch them up and and make them prime targets for a Fireball anyway? Does the Ranger have to play like an idiot for the Fighter to even slightly have a chance?) they'll still contribute more and longer than Action Surge just by lasting multiple turns. Not to mention all the other utility they bring. Even if half die in one go, the other half is still around to contribute more than an Action Surge.
And I'm just talking pure dpr. I'm not even bringing healing, support, non-combat utility, and battlefield control into the mix. Because there's no point. Rangers win no contest in those categories.
I figure the comparison is most favorable for Ranger at level 17, the earliest time they can acquire a 5th level upcast Conjure Animals. So lets delve into it. (Wrapping in a spoiler for the sake of brevity)
16 Wolves is nice, but against a CR 17 monster, there's a likelihood that they wont hit their AC. A CR 17 monster like an Adult Gold Dragon (which is unlikely going to be strong enough to face your PC lvl 17 party, but lets just roll with it) has an AC of 19 - against the Wolf's +4 to hit, giving an average of 10.5 + 2 DEX + 2 Prof. Bonus + 3 (likely getting flanking advantage, either from Pack Tactics or DMG's flanking rules) = 17.5. With advantage that's about 51% chance to hit. (Lets for the comparison ignore the logistics of 16 creatures having to attack at melee range - which is possible against an Adult Gold Dragon which is huge, but then no animal companion unless we switch positions)
The damage is 2d4 + 2 DEX for an average of 7 damage per hit.
Your 16 wolves is then on average going to deal 7 damage * 51% chance to hit * 16 wolves = 57.1 damage
And this damage is nonmagical piercing damage, so there's also a possibility (dare I say probability) that the damage is going to be resisted or be outright immune at that level of play.
Your Ranger is spending their first round casting this spell, but can also direct their Beast companion to make an attack (if we assume we're using the optional rules for Primal Companion where it costs a bonus action to attack with your beast compared to an action). It uses your spell attack modifier, aka WIS + Prof. Bonus, which is likely a +4 WIS + 6 Prof. Bonus, so is very likely to hit with advantage (~70%), dealing 1d8 + 2 + 6 magical slashing (taking the land version for maximum damage), which it can make two of for an average of 25 damage * 70% chance to hit = 17.5 average DPR.
Round 1 = 57.1 non-magical + 17.5 magical damage = 74.6 damage (against an Adult Gold Dragon)
As was stated previously in this thread, there's a high likelihood that any sort of AoE is going to clear any wolf caught in its range, so the damage contribution of Conjure Animals for further rounds is quickly going to be reduced or removed.
On further rounds lets assume the Ranger attacks with their +3 Longbow (assumed in tier 4 play) and use their BA for beast attacks. I will assume the use of Sharpshooter (granted through Human variant lvl 1 feat) and FS - Archery.
They attack on average for 10.5 + 3 weapon bonus + 5 DEX + 6 Prof. Bonus + 2 Archery - 5 SS penalty = 21.5 on AC or hitting approx. 65%
Dealing 2x [ 4.5 (d8) + 3 weapon bonus + 5 DEX + 10 SS ] * 65% chance to hit + 1d6 (Fav Foe) = 32.8 DPR
+ 17.5 (from Beast) = 50.3 DPR
+ whatever remains from the Conjure Animals, which is likely to be 0-2 against the dragon as its wing attack is a DC 22 Dex saving throw and the Wolves have +2 Dex, so only a 20 saves them against 2d6 + 8 bludgeoning damage with their 11 HP. Even in the event some wolves manage to survive, the dragon still have multi-attack (x3) and a tail-attack as a legendary action to clear any remaining wolves.
'
In comparison your Fighter at level 17 is making 3 weapon attacks naturally. I'll assume they have used their ASIs to get 20 STR and PAM and GWM and have Fighting Style GWF. I'll assume in tier 4 that they have acquired at least a +3 weapon d10. I'll assume they also have advantage through flanking. I will use a Fighter - Samurai.
So they will make 3 normal weapon attacks with advantage, trade one of the attacks' advantage for an additional attack through Rapid Strike and then a bonus action attack through PAM. All attacks are utilizing GWM.
Attacks with advantage is going to hit on average: 10.5 + 3 weapon bonus + 3 advantage + 5 STR + 6 Prof. Bonus - 5 GWM penalty = 22.5 to hit or very likely to hit AC 19 (~75%).
Attacks without advantage (the two attacks affected by Rapid Strike) is going to hit on average: 10.5 + 3 weapon bonus + 5 STR + 6 Prof. Bonus - 5 GWM penalty = 19.5 or 55% chance to hit.
So the Fighter deals: 2x [ 5.5 (d10) + 3 weapon bonus + 5 STR + 10 GWM + 0.8 GWF d10 ] * 75% chance to hit + 2x [ 5.5 (d10) + 3 weapon bonus + 5 STR + 10 GWM + 0.8 GWF d10 ] * 55% chance to hit + 1x [ 2.5 (d4) + 3 weapon bonus + 5 STR + 10 GWM + 0.5 GWF d4 ] * 75% chance to hit = 78.9 DPR against an Adult Gold Dragon
All of which is from a magical source (not relevant to this particular case but very much so for many other similar CR monsters)
This is without expending any limited ressources for the Fighter. It is not accounting for the occasional critical hit in non-PAM attacks that through GWM could upscale the PAM attack to a regular weapon attack with a d10 damage die. That's a rather insignificant difference at this point. Action Surge can add another 54.7 damage on top (not accounting the PAM attack nor the Rapid Strike).
And if you really want, shift it to a +3 Longbow with SS and FS - Archery for the Fighter as well. Pop Samurai's Fighting Spirit with your Bonus Action to gain advantage and trade one of those from your three attacks to gain a fourth. Basically the Ranger's weapon attacks + 2 attacks of a variant with advantage.
Or the equivalent of 68.9 DPR for 3 rounds, +1 per combat encounter thereafter, then dropping to 43.9.
Much less impressive. However SS and CE with 2x +3 Hand Crossbows in melee range with flanking/enemy prone for the Samurai with Rapid Strike can churn up to 84.7 DPR or 55.9 DPR at range. Its DPR is higher than the two-hander because of FS - Archery compared to FS - GWF. But it does require 2x +3 Hand Crossbows... which is... much more costly than just one +3 weapon.
'
And let me be clear, this is very simplistic, but favorable circumstances for both, but primarily for the Ranger. For instance the dragon doesn't have any damage reduction against non-magical attacks. And if the Dragon has turn between the Ranger casting Conjure Animals and the Wolves having their turn, it can relatively easily use its breath weapon against them or walk over and do the Wing Attack at the end of the turn for the next creature in turn order. Naturally the Ranger could just ready action until the Dragon has had their turn to avoid this and hope the wolves get a low enough initiative to not be skipped the round they are summoned. And I'm also assuming something keeps the Dragon on the ground, like a friendly spellcaster or its nest/eggs (which benefits both for this comparison) and that there's someone for the Fighter to high-five a flanking advantage for - both assumptions that generally is true for tier 4 play.
Now to trade a 5th level spell slot for the dragon to primarily use their breath weapon on them, is a win - and quite possibly vanity to think it would, compared to just smacking the shit out of the Ranger to have them drop concentration. But we were comparing damage in mostly favorable circumstances.
'
As for OneDND, both GWM and SS are going out the door, so that's a huge hit to Fighter's damage capabilities that we don't know if they will get something similar to compensate them. Some tools for Hunter, like its bread-and-butter Hunter's Mark is also receiving a hit to its potential damage output, being reduced to proc'ing only once per turn. So this damage calculation has to be considered with a grain of salt as for the future of the game. But right now, Fighter is the most likely to output most damage in general, with relatively simple conditions. Only dethroned by favorable AoE scenarios that tend to favor spellcasters.
Thank you for you work and effort into this example.
There has always been a huge glaring flaw when it comes to high powered melee damage builds. Melee. Why on earth would any creature with ability to NOT be in melee with their enemies be in melee with their enemies. Both for wolves and a fighter. The DPR of a melee fighter or other martial has to be high because there is a zero percent chance that any dragon worth their salt is going to spend any more time on the ground then they have too. So now we compare all of these numbers again, but assume the melee fighter might only get one or tow rounds of even being able to hit said dragon. I assume you chose melee because of wolves. Fair enough. But a dragon is a bad example for both examples. It does give rangers the upper hand.
We are already assuming expansion books and feats, now we have to assume flanking as well? Not many folks play with flanking how does that change your fighter's math?
Also, wolves get advantage on their attacks, greatly increasing their DPR. Dragon do not have the resistance you mentioned. So, pick an enemy, please.
A CR monster at level 17, as you implied above, is a "trivial" fight. So no one is going to blow their top resources on that battle.
Opportunity attacks are not mentioned above. That is important, as having stirges, blood hawks, or some other flying creature would make for a lot more attacks from that. Another thing is any time a breath weapon or AoE is used on conjured animals that is a huge win for the party. It can be equivalent to a counterspell.
There is the option of one or two giant constrictor snakes. Which would provide advanatnge to the entire party, soak hits and/or actions of the dragon, and/or be the target of said breath weapon.
Finally, after that battle, a ranger is going to have a lot of healing they can provide to the party.
So what I'm reading in this post is a 100% optimized fighter using several optional rules and an optional expansion book fighting an trivial challenge rating and tactically poorly played enemy in an ideal-for-the-fighter scenario and can do some more damage compared to a bog standard ranger playing poorly. using a single spell slot.
You're stating many of the same reservations and assumptions that I pointed out, so I don't think you're adding much to this scenario by repeating it, especially in a manner that makes it seem like I didn't take it into account.
I did include advantage for the Wolves in their damage calculations so there's no need to point out that it increases their DPR. The reason for the wolves was because I was replying to Envoy who specifically said to compare the Fighter to their 16 Wolves and Beast companion.
The reason for the dragon was because it was an enemy at CR 17 that is fairly "common" (there are many dragon variants) and didn't have damage resistances to non-magical physical damage, which would utterly tank the Ranger's damage contribution through Conjure Animals - Wolves (which was one of the reasons for the comparison). I'm not that familiar with the monster manual (nor do I own one) so I just looked at available resources online and from what I readily found (and have read from these forums and other sources), was that many monsters at CR 15+ (likely even earlier) have either resistance or outright immunity to non-magical physical damage, with the notable exception of Dragons. I don't know if Conjure Animals can summon creatures that have magical attacks or attacks that primarily deal non-physical damage to bypass that fairly common damage reduction. I imagine such creatures would not provide the same raw damage contribution as wolves.
I already picked an enemy and made a comparison. How about you do the next one?
And in the scenario above, why would the dragon not just use its legendary action - Wing Attack to get rid of any nearby creatures that would proc an opportunity attack? Do you perhaps have a calculation that feasibly account for opportunity attacks in a real scenario? If so, please add it.
Again you're repeating my previous statement about the Conjured Animals tanking hits is a win, but this was specifically a damage comparison as I stated in the post. Trying to force other considerations into the mix would result in a different comparison. Furthermore I doubt it would actually use its breath weapon on the conjured animals, but rather focus on taking out the ones that magically conjured them. Dragons are intelligent and would recognize the animals as non-real (non-physical is probably the better term) if it observed their creation or could determine their "leader".
True, there's likely better choices to go for with Conjure Animals. The case in point was a comparison for 16 Wolves.
Indeed, and the Fighter is likely the one who has tanked the hits. Not relevant for the damage dealing comparison, but yes classes have different roles, purposes and abilities. Like that friendly spellcaster who possibly grounded the dragon for the comparison to make sense in the first place.
'
As for the entire melee-vs-ranged "flaw" you mentioned; The dragon in the scenario would if possible just keep at distance, use its 80 ft. fly speed to go in and make its 60 ft. breath weapon, then fly off again until the breath weapon is recharged. Making it only possible for the ranged characters to prepare action to attack the dragon. This would significantly cut back the party's overall damage output and is the reason why spellcasters often pick up control spells that enables their melee party members to deliver their high single-target damage against mobile and especially elusive flying targets.
However I did also make a comparison to a ranged Fighter's damage output, which is still largely higher than the Ranger's, depending on how lenient you want to be for the Ranger's benefit in using something like Conjure Animals - flying combat is kinda weird to account for.
So 78.9 DPR for the melee fighter. What was your total tally for the DPR for the ranger and animals? Total over 3/4 rounds, dived by the number of rounds.
Can we compare that to the ranged fighter?
If your assumption is that the Dragon is flying and keeping out of reach, then I will assume it only flies in to do a breath weapon and then fly away again. How will you apply the Conjure Animals to this scenario? Will you make the calculation and do the assumptions?
With that tactic I see a ranger being better off with either Hail of Thorns and a longbow or an upcast fog could along with the bonus action hide they picked up at level 14. At level 18 the ranger can use the same fog cloud trick and have advantage on all of their attacks.
If I was going to use a Conjure Animals, I would use a level 3 or 4 spell slot and only cast larger creatures. Not next to the party of course. The wing attack is awesome and a real killer for minions. I love dragons!
Everyone's damage drops at this point. The archer fighter, assuming it is an archer and not a 100% focused melee build, is doing way less damage as well, along with using resources.
I think my point here, no matter which builds or scenarios used, is that a bog standard ranger (I would even be happy to use Hunter or PHB Beast Master) doing PHB stuff handily keeps up with a fighter that is using and assuming many optional rules and expansions and built in a very focused way. Does the fighter deal more damage than the ranger? Sure. I'll admit defeat. But don't stray too far from the heavily optimized build.
I assumed the use of the optional flanking rule. A rather common optional rule from the DMG which is on par with PHB in terms of release - I don't know how many groups actually use it, my assumption was that most do - actually 1 minute on google; survey says.
I used the Samurai because it could work without using a limited resource, because then someone would moan about the use of limited resources - ignoring how we're also using a very limited resource on the Ranger to cast that Conjure Animals at 5th level. I imagine the Battle Master (which is PHB) could service the comparison in a somewhat similar fashion, but at the use of their 8 available Superiority Dice. However the way their maneuvers work is quite a bit more complex to account for if you want the most out of it - meaning you have to make further assumptions - so I opted for a more simple comparison without resorting to a worse use case like the Champion.
The rest is PHB for the Fighter. So no, I'm not really using any obscure optional rules or obscure species to get a more optimized build for the Fighter. I'm using one very common optional rule and an expansion subclass*. (Technically we're also using the optional rule for feats, which both are using - however the disallowance of feats would render the Fighter class close to meaningless at higher levels, and rarely do I hear about groups who don't allow feats.)
And "Build in a very focused way" is how you get the most out of a character for a damage comparison, and frankly the Fighter's class features are mostly granting ASIs and the class is very dependent on their gear - aka they get the least out of their class features but those function very well with their gear. So it makes sense to pump your damage stats and gain feats that complement what your character does best; making weapon attacks.
You can start out at 15 STR on point buy, get +1 STR and GWM from Human variant then use a 4th lvl ASI for PAM, then use 2x ASIs at level 6 and 8 to get 20 STR and your build is "done". You have 3 additional ASIs up to level 17 and another at lvl 19. You can use these to pick up +4 DEX (you can start with 15 DEX on point buy and +1 from Human variant in addition to your STR build, resulting in 20/20 STR/DEX) and SS + CE to also cover a ranged build. The FS - GWF is such a low impact that you can easily pick up Archery, even though you don't plan on using it as a primary source of damage. Weapon enhancements might become an issue to spread over multiple weapons - again back to the Fighter being gear dependent much more than basically any other class.
As for the standard Ranger keeping up with the optimized Fighter... I don't believe you. Not that the Ranger can't somewhat keep up, but that they are non-optimized to do so. There are many spells in the Ranger list that simply are not worth their salt, so you're also optimizing your Ranger when you select specific spells to use for your comparison. You can't say that picking main damage stat increases and feats that compliment your weapon is optimization on the Fighter and not say that about the Ranger when selecting ASIs, feats AND spells. You're being very disingenuous in your remarks here.
At level 17, over four rounds of combat, fighting an adult red dragon flying in the air, using rough math...
For a Samurai with a +3 longbow using nothing else I get 30.68 DPR. (zero resources used)
For a Samurai with a +3 longbow and sharpshooter and nothing else I get 37.8 DPR. (zero resources used)
For a Samurai with a +3 longbow using all fighting spirit uses and action surge I get 43.07 DPR. (all long rest and short rest resources used)
For a Samurai with a +3 longbow and sharpshooter using all fighting spirit uses and action surge I get 60.41 DPR. (all long rest and short rest resources used)
For a ranger with a +3 longbow and sharpshooter using only hunter's mark I get 29.4 DPR.
For a ranger with a +3 longbow and sharpshooter using a 3rd level and 4th level hail of thorns and hunter's mark on two rounds I get 36.925 DPR. (less than a third of daily resources)
On average flying snakes will do 52 points of damage. If we assume a half life depletion do to dragon wing attacks versus flyby of the snakes, that is 97 snake DPR over 4 rounds. For a ranger with a +3 longbow and sharpshooter using attacking rounds 2-4 after casting the snakes I get 43.15 DPR. (using one spell slot for the day)
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.
this situation is about dpr and goblins defeated per turn
ranger hunter full movement but no resources: 300 attacks(this can with the other effects be even more, but goblins have 7 hp) times 7 average gives 2100 dpr and 300 goblins
champion no resources: 4 times 7 makes 28 dpr and 4 goblins
champion action surge:8 times 7 makes 56 dpr and 8 goblins.
the ranger if he can stand receiving around 600-700+300-400 +0-100 ranged attacks can win(I would recommend strong armor and defensive spells, and using the bonus action to try to misdirect attacks, maybe hide or an illusion or a well aimed rain on the bowstring)
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