If you are also a life cleric the hp for each berry increases to 4 hp each so a ranger (or druid)/ life cleric with a first level spellslot can heal 40 hp
Yeah, I don't much care for multiclassing cheese. Plus, that kind of argument detracts from the merits of the spell. If you need two classes to make it "good", you're basically saying it's a bad spell.
Goodberry, by itself, is useful for stabilizing downed characters and filling bellies when food is scarce. Which is still fantastic.
And if someone tried to eat multiple berries, if contemplate making them roll for an upset tummy.
If you are also a life cleric the hp for each berry increases to 4 hp each so a ranger (or druid)/ life cleric with a first level spellslot can heal 40 hp
Yeah, I don't much care for multiclassing cheese. Plus, that kind of argument detracts from the merits of the spell. If you need two classes to make it "good", you're basically saying it's a bad spell.
Goodberry, by itself, is useful for stabilizing downed characters and filling bellies when food is scarce. Which is still fantastic.
And if someone tried to eat multiple berries, if contemplate making them roll for an upset tummy.
Yeah this tends to be a bit much for my taste (No pun intended) as well as it makes it really easy to cheese healing with left over 1st level spells before a long rest.
Healing is already pretty easy in 5e thanks to Healing Word, Hit Dice, etc...
I like saying they can only eat one good berry per day but even then its very valuable if you can feed them one to bring them back from 0.
I find the ranger subclasses to be on par with rogues, barbarians, and paladins in the damage department at levels 11+. Fighters pull ahead of everyone.
Barbs pull ahead as well due to Rage Damage and Brutal Critical as the math with Reckless and big crits along with static damage. GWM helps a lot as well.
Rogue I would agree with as they are actually pretty low on the scale of DPR but not terrible. Ranger paces above rogue for a long time.
Paladin get higher level smites and Improved Divine Smite so they easily outpace ranger at his point.
Ranger does not get a class option that increases damage outside of spell selection which means you can pick for versatility and then lack in damage. They are much more reliant on choice than the others.
While rangers don't get class option that increase damage (at least up until this variant version), their damage increases are all loaded into their subclass so you can't just go comparing base ranger to another base class.
al level 11: -Hunter gets AOE attack -Beastmaster gets an extra attack for the beast -Gloomstalker gets an extra attack if you miss -Horizon walker gets and extra attack if you spread out your damage + teleports at will + good damage increase on their bonus action (1d8 -> 2d8) -Monster slayer gets a special counterspell -Fey wanderer gets a free summon spell it can use without concentration(!) and a slight damage increase on base damage (1d4->1d6) -Swarm keeper gets slight damage increase (1d6 -> 1d8) or prone or half cover
So five out of the seven subclasses get a way to increase their number of attacks. Although they are all either conditional or they add the extra attack in another form (through beast or summon), it still is a major boost. What monster slayer and swarmkeeper are doing... honestly, i don't know. Their level 11 features, while not bad in their own right, seem so lackluster when compared to the other subclasses.
Compared to that, barbarians don't get any damage increase at level 11 (although relentless is still an awesome feature) and paladins get 2d8 extra damage per turn (provided they hit both attacks).
Looking at all this, i find it weird that you say rangers fall off when compared to barbarians at level 11since barbarians gain no damage while almost all ranger subclasses get a very significant boost. The comparisson with paladin is a bit more difficult as an extra attack is better than a 2d8 damage increase but that extra attack is, again, a bit situational.
In the end, the only class that really pulls ahead compared to the ranger at level 11 is the fighter, for his unconditional extra attack.
Good berry is a really great option for healing. Just remember that the berries all expire after one day, but eating the left overs before a short/long rest is a great idea just in case you get jumped.
1 hp isn't that great. It can revive someone who's unconscious, but the real benefit is filling your belly for the day. You don't have to forage for food.
Jounichi no one was saying Goodberry is not good except for maybe you lol. Mentioning a combo that makes a spell better isn't saying it sucks without it.
What is this obsession with needing the ranger to match these other classes in damage? That's not the design of the class. The druid isn't a straight blaster and still manages to be an effective spell caster with a focus on crowd control. While other martial classes keep focusing and honing their one thing, the ranger develops a number of skill sets as they level. Like the druid, the ranger makes up for lower damage with strong crowd control and decent AOE. It's okay the ranger lags in damage because their strengths lie with intangible strategic value.
Swift quiver is a completely fine part of the ranger's kit. It's a logical fallacy to think that because it's not an amazing damage dealing option that it's not worth a spell slot on a ranger. The value of an option is heavily influenced by the rest of the kit. As one of the best single target damage options on a ranger it will have its uses. Did people suddenly forget it's okay to have secondary roles or something? The ranger is not a single-target damage dealer by design, but being able to pull it off decently well when necessary has a lot of value.
-Hunter gets AOE attack- Fairly situational but likely the best damage option of the subclasses. Spreading damage is generally inferior to single target damage at this level. -Beastmaster gets an extra attack for the beast- This doesn't scale well and is generally lower than the other martial options. -Gloomstalker gets an extra attack if you miss- This is decent for DPR but not amazing. You will most likely be hitting your shots at this level but does help with one miss. -Horizon walker gets and extra attack if you spread out your damage + teleports at will + good damage increase on their bonus action (1d8 -> 2d8)- BA economy means you are likely picking between swapping Hunters Mark and this extra damage. Fair on t he spreading damage but this is generally inferfior to single target damage. -Monster slayer gets a special counterspell- No damage but very useful -Fey wanderer gets a free summon spell it can use without concentration(!) and a slight damage increase on base damage (1d4->1d6)- 1 point damage difference is...something but summon is very good- best option overall. -Swarm keeper gets slight damage increase (1d6 -> 1d8) or prone or half cover- pretty bad...1 point damage difference...likely the worst option
These are ok but generally lower than the damage added by the other martials.
Barbarian is fairly close but with Reckless and GWM you are just a damage machine already and ranger is just now catching up....especially if they don't take Hunters Mark they have been behind a while on damage.
Rogue does not add much here and is likely behind ranger unless they have a way to set up off turn Sneak Attack reliably.
Fighter gets a third attack which is just blowing away the above options especially since they have had several levels to add feats.
Paladin gets Improved Divine Smite- 1d8 per attack not just once per turn like the ranger subclasses. They also now have a way to use a short rest resource to recover spell slots which means they will consistently have more smites.
Ranger doesn't do terribly but lacks a "Wow" damage ability past 11th unless they take a mass summon spell.
OptimusGrimus you mention a couple of good non damage ranger options, but you seem to be completely ignoring my point. You are damage obsessed.
IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT THE RANGER IS NOT AS GOOD AT DAMAGE
There are numerous other factors that can lead to an effective and valuable team member. Hypnotic Pattern is widely considered one of the best spells in the game and somehow, it manages to do it without dealing damage. Good tactics are more intricate than just pumping damage into things.
WHAT THE RANGER LACKS IN RAW DAMAGE IT MAKES UP FOR IN TACTICAL PROWESS
Please, stop these incessant damage comparisons. They are not proving any point other than that you don't understand how to properly assess strategic value.
OptimusGrimus you mention a couple of good non damage ranger options, but you seem to be completely ignoring my point. You are damage obsessed.
IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT THE RANGER IS NOT AS GOOD AT DAMAGE
There are numerous other factors that can lead to an effective and valuable team member. Hypnotic Pattern is widely considered one of the best spells in the game and somehow, it manages to do it without dealing damage. Good tactics are more intricate than just pumping damage into things.
WHAT THE RANGER LACKS IN RAW DAMAGE IT MAKES UP FOR IN TACTICAL PROWESS
Please, stop these incessant damage calculations. They are not proving any point other than that you don't understand how to properly assess strategic value.
I was making one simple point: They are lower in damage unless they take specific spells.
I never said they were not better in other ways I am just saying that if you want to focus on damage as a ranger past 11 you need to pick very specific options to keep up.
Now you can choose to do this or focus on something else which is perfectly fine. I am just saying that if you do want to focus on damage your options are limited. This is the same for previous levels with Hunter's Mark as you are pretty much forced to take it if you want to keep up damage wise.
This is not saying you are not focusing on something else...this is fine. But some people like focusing on doing damage...especially if they are in a party with low damage options.
My narrow discussion of a single possible pathway in no way is a full assessment of ranger as a class. If we wanted to go that route I would simply point to the 6 different versions of ranger we have gotten over the years and how they have tried many times to fix the issues with the class.
Your only contribution to the thread has been to compare damage to show that range can't keep up or needs to make specific choices to have a chance. You haven't taken the time to expound upon the other virtues of the class in a meaningful way...how else do you expect your attitude towards the situation to be perceived?
Your only contribution to the thread has been to compare damage to show that range can't keep up or needs to make specific choices to have a chance. You haven't taken the time to expound upon the other virtues of the class in a meaningful way...how else do you expect your attitude towards the situation to be perceived?
I mean just because I focus on one aspect of the topic I have to talk about the entire class? That is an unfair expectation.
Long answer: the amount of bonus damage hinges on how many attacks are made. A ranger with TWF, making up to 3 attacks per round, is going to see the most use. Beast Masters will, generally, see the least, with the best levels being from 7-10.
And the tracking is just awesome. It's why Oath of Vengeance paladins have it.
-Hunter gets AOE attack- Fairly situational but likely the best damage option of the subclasses. Spreading damage is generally inferior to single target damage at this level. -Beastmaster gets an extra attack for the beast- This doesn't scale well and is generally lower than the other martial options. -Gloomstalker gets an extra attack if you miss- This is decent for DPR but not amazing. You will most likely be hitting your shots at this level but does help with one miss. -Horizon walker gets and extra attack if you spread out your damage + teleports at will + good damage increase on their bonus action (1d8 -> 2d8)- BA economy means you are likely picking between swapping Hunters Mark and this extra damage. Fair on t he spreading damage but this is generally inferfior to single target damage. -Monster slayer gets a special counterspell- No damage but very useful -Fey wanderer gets a free summon spell it can use without concentration(!) and a slight damage increase on base damage (1d4->1d6)- 1 point damage difference is...something but summon is very good- best option overall. -Swarm keeper gets slight damage increase (1d6 -> 1d8) or prone or half cover- pretty bad...1 point damage difference...likely the worst option
These are ok but generally lower than the damage added by the other martials.
Barbarian is fairly close but with Reckless and GWM you are just a damage machine already and ranger is just now catching up....especially if they don't take Hunters Mark they have been behind a while on damage.
Rogue does not add much here and is likely behind ranger unless they have a way to set up off turn Sneak Attack reliably.
Fighter gets a third attack which is just blowing away the above options especially since they have had several levels to add feats.
Paladin gets Improved Divine Smite- 1d8 per attack not just once per turn like the ranger subclasses. They also now have a way to use a short rest resource to recover spell slots which means they will consistently have more smites.
Ranger doesn't do terribly but lacks a "Wow" damage ability past 11th unless they take a mass summon spell.
While i'm not saying that paladins and barbarians are weak, i am arguing your point that level 11 is the point where the other classes get a massive lead since level 11 also is the level where most ranger subclasses take a major leap in power. Even if they are situational, they are still very strong.
Let me compare a few it to your 1d8 per attack bonus on a paladin, which we both agree is a very strong feature. -A standard extra ranger longbow attack adds 1d8+5 (9.5) (This is without factoring any other damage increases on said longbow attack) -A beast of the land attack deals 1d8+6 (10.5), a beast of the sky attack deals 1d4+7 (9.5) -A summon fey attack deals 2d6+6 (13) (but not always up so take with a grain of salt) Meanwhile, the paladin deals and extra 2d8 (9) damage. So really, i don't see why you regard the step from level 10 ranger to level 11 ranger so unfavorably.
The step from level 9 tot level 10 seems much more catastrophic from a combat perspective but with the new variant ranger, that is definitly no longer the case. The ranger gets some nice temp hp and invisibility on bonus action! That's free advantage on attacks and disadvantage on enemy attacks, not to mention the countless out of combat opportunities. If i look over the (new) ranger features, it seems like the dropoff in power starts at level 15 rather than at level 11.
@HeironymusZot: i personally think that arguing damage dealt certainly does have a place in a thread about hunter's mark, one of the main damage tools a ranger has. It is valuable to consider lessdamaging rangers and what good they can bring to the table. It is, however, equally valuable to consider how good the base damage is for if you want to play a ranger focussed on damage but are wondering if hunter's mark is necessary for that.
I never said it's not worth discussing. I was speaking against the incessant comparisons that spoke nothing of other factors that lead to a ranger's effectiveness.
OptimusGrimus when you use damage comparisons to draw conclusions about a class's effectiveness it is a fair expectation for you to discuss the other factors behind the class's strengths/weaknesses. To do otherwise is willfully omitting information to inflate your point.
The thread is titled "How necessary is Hunter's Mark" not "How necessary is hunter's mark to keep up in damage". Again, I wasn't saying don't talk about damage. But when it's being tossed around to show the ranger in a bad light, only to ignore the other strengths of the class, it's annoyingly short sighted. And beyond that it's just not nearly as important a subject matter as all of this focus on it would bely.
Part of my point in working against this damage conversation is my own stance on the thread's topic. The ranger doesn't need hunter's mark because it doesn't need to compete in damage to be effective.
Yeah the new ranger is a big step up for sure. Overall they aren't too far behind in damage but it's enough that taking specific spells is likely to get you closer than not.
I do like the added versatility of the new ranger options!
Paladins fuel their damage via spell slots. And it is a very inefficient exchange. 4d8 for a level 3 spell slot?! It’s not good mathematically. But it plays good. It’s fun. Conjure animals, lightning arrow, and upcast hail of thorns all add more damage than a smite. Paladins get a bump in damage at level 11 and...that’s it. Other than more spell slots they get zero. People say doing single target is better than spreading damage out. That is only true in some situations. In a funny way, at levels 11+, beast masters (PHB version) are the biggest single target damage output subclass of the ranger. Just an archer with a wolf is doing 39 damage a round with a level 1 spell slot. A paladin with a long sword is doing 32. IF they burn a level 1 spell slot they add 9 damage...once. 🤷♂️ But it feeeeeeeels good. The Tasha’s beast master option is WAY more. A fighter with a bow is doing 28.5 damage using no resources. So in a world of one-shots, DDAL modules, or a home game with an absurd amount of allowed rests, fighters and paladins can burn through all their resources and make big waves. Very “fun”. Very flashy. But rogues and rangers are using almost zero resources to pretty much keep up with the others.
Paladins fuel their damage via spell slots. And it is a very inefficient exchange. 4d8 for a level 3 spell slot?! It’s not good mathematically. But it plays good. It’s fun. Conjure animals, lightning arrow, and upcast hail of thorns all add more damage than a smite. Paladins get a bump in damage at level 11 and...that’s it. Other than more spell slots they get zero. People say doing single target is better than spreading damage out. That is only true in some situations. In a funny way, at levels 11+, beast masters (PHB version) are the biggest single target damage output subclass of the ranger. Just an archer with a wolf is doing 39 damage a round with a level 1 spell slot. A paladin with a long sword is doing 32. IF they burn a level 1 spell slot they add 9 damage...once. 🤷♂️ But it feeeeeeeels good. The Tasha’s beast master option is WAY more. A fighter with a bow is doing 28.5 damage using no resources. So in a world of one-shots, DDAL modules, or a home game with an absurd amount of allowed rests, fighters and paladins can burn through all their resources and make big waves. Very “fun”. Very flashy. But rogues and rangers are using almost zero resources to pretty much keep up with the others.
Rangers are heavily reliant on spells for damage. Hunter's mark and eventually Conjure animals. Funny how you call paladins out for it but then causually state that "for only a 1st level spell slot" for ranger....lol
Paladins do rely on spells and Smites are generally better than you think due to the fact that they get to pick WHEN to smite so they can crit and then burn the slot so its a better use of resources.
Also you can smite as many times as you can attack so you can stack on stacks. Using Polearm Master you can smite three times in a turn. This is a lot of resource drain but its pretty massive damage for the level. Paladins are Nova kings for sure.
Also I am not sure where you are getting 39 damage....a wolf gets one attack which averages 7 damage. Even if they get two attacks with 11th level they are only doing 14 damage plus 8 for proficiency at 11th level which is 22 damage.
You still must use your aciton to command them to attack so you can only do this damage? And Hunters mark only works on your attacks?
Harping on about the Paladin class’ damage is just as reductionist as being fixated on the Ranger’s. Both classes have plenty to offer aside from acting as strikers.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Harping on about the Paladin class’ damage is just as reductionist as being fixated on the Ranger’s. Both classes have plenty to offer aside from acting as strikers.
You know this is a good point....I feel like ranger offers different things than the other classes which is good. The only aspect is you probably need Hunters Mark and Conjure Animals if you wanted to focus on damage was my only point.
Paladins fuel their damage via spell slots. And it is a very inefficient exchange. 4d8 for a level 3 spell slot?! It’s not good mathematically. But it plays good. It’s fun. Conjure animals, lightning arrow, and upcast hail of thorns all add more damage than a smite. Paladins get a bump in damage at level 11 and...that’s it. Other than more spell slots they get zero. People say doing single target is better than spreading damage out. That is only true in some situations. In a funny way, at levels 11+, beast masters (PHB version) are the biggest single target damage output subclass of the ranger. Just an archer with a wolf is doing 39 damage a round with a level 1 spell slot. A paladin with a long sword is doing 32. IF they burn a level 1 spell slot they add 9 damage...once. 🤷♂️ But it feeeeeeeels good. The Tasha’s beast master option is WAY more. A fighter with a bow is doing 28.5 damage using no resources. So in a world of one-shots, DDAL modules, or a home game with an absurd amount of allowed rests, fighters and paladins can burn through all their resources and make big waves. Very “fun”. Very flashy. But rogues and rangers are using almost zero resources to pretty much keep up with the others.
Rangers are heavily reliant on spells for damage. Hunter's mark and eventually Conjure animals. Funny how you call paladins out for it but then causually state that "for only a 1st level spell slot" for ranger....lol
Paladins do rely on spells and Smites are generally better than you think due to the fact that they get to pick WHEN to smite so they can crit and then burn the slot so its a better use of resources.
Also you can smite as many times as you can attack so you can stack on stacks. Using Polearm Master you can smite three times in a turn. This is a lot of resource drain but its pretty massive damage for the level. Paladins are Nova kings for sure.
Also I am not sure where you are getting 39 damage....a wolf gets one attack which averages 7 damage. Even if they get two attacks with 11th level they are only doing 14 damage plus 8 for proficiency at 11th level which is 22 damage.
You still must use your aciton to command them to attack so you can only do this damage? And Hunters mark only works on your attacks?
I’m saying that concentration spells from the ranger offer a better damage boost than the paladin smite over the long run.
39 is from a level 17 beast master ranger. One any given turn, using only a level 1 spell slot for hunter’s mark for the ranger’s attack:
Wolf: (2d4 + 2 + 6)*2
Ranger: (1d8 + 1d6 + 5)
Average of 39!
At level 11 they are doing 35 damage with just a level 1 spell slot. Since the beast is replacing one of the ranger’s attacks with two of their own, spells like lightning arrow and hail of thorns is actually more effective with this subclass as they only lose one instance of hunter’s mark.
Yeah, I don't much care for multiclassing cheese. Plus, that kind of argument detracts from the merits of the spell. If you need two classes to make it "good", you're basically saying it's a bad spell.
Goodberry, by itself, is useful for stabilizing downed characters and filling bellies when food is scarce. Which is still fantastic.
And if someone tried to eat multiple berries, if contemplate making them roll for an upset tummy.
Yeah this tends to be a bit much for my taste (No pun intended) as well as it makes it really easy to cheese healing with left over 1st level spells before a long rest.
Healing is already pretty easy in 5e thanks to Healing Word, Hit Dice, etc...
I like saying they can only eat one good berry per day but even then its very valuable if you can feed them one to bring them back from 0.
While rangers don't get class option that increase damage (at least up until this variant version), their damage increases are all loaded into their subclass so you can't just go comparing base ranger to another base class.
al level 11:
-Hunter gets AOE attack
-Beastmaster gets an extra attack for the beast
-Gloomstalker gets an extra attack if you miss
-Horizon walker gets and extra attack if you spread out your damage + teleports at will + good damage increase on their bonus action (1d8 -> 2d8)
-Monster slayer gets a special counterspell
-Fey wanderer gets a free summon spell it can use without concentration(!) and a slight damage increase on base damage (1d4->1d6)
-Swarm keeper gets slight damage increase (1d6 -> 1d8) or prone or half cover
So five out of the seven subclasses get a way to increase their number of attacks. Although they are all either conditional or they add the extra attack in another form (through beast or summon), it still is a major boost. What monster slayer and swarmkeeper are doing... honestly, i don't know. Their level 11 features, while not bad in their own right, seem so lackluster when compared to the other subclasses.
Compared to that, barbarians don't get any damage increase at level 11 (although relentless is still an awesome feature) and paladins get 2d8 extra damage per turn (provided they hit both attacks).
Looking at all this, i find it weird that you say rangers fall off when compared to barbarians at level 11since barbarians gain no damage while almost all ranger subclasses get a very significant boost. The comparisson with paladin is a bit more difficult as an extra attack is better than a 2d8 damage increase but that extra attack is, again, a bit situational.
In the end, the only class that really pulls ahead compared to the ranger at level 11 is the fighter, for his unconditional extra attack.
Jounichi no one was saying Goodberry is not good except for maybe you lol. Mentioning a combo that makes a spell better isn't saying it sucks without it.
What is this obsession with needing the ranger to match these other classes in damage? That's not the design of the class. The druid isn't a straight blaster and still manages to be an effective spell caster with a focus on crowd control. While other martial classes keep focusing and honing their one thing, the ranger develops a number of skill sets as they level. Like the druid, the ranger makes up for lower damage with strong crowd control and decent AOE. It's okay the ranger lags in damage because their strengths lie with intangible strategic value.
Swift quiver is a completely fine part of the ranger's kit. It's a logical fallacy to think that because it's not an amazing damage dealing option that it's not worth a spell slot on a ranger. The value of an option is heavily influenced by the rest of the kit. As one of the best single target damage options on a ranger it will have its uses. Did people suddenly forget it's okay to have secondary roles or something? The ranger is not a single-target damage dealer by design, but being able to pull it off decently well when necessary has a lot of value.
-Hunter gets AOE attack- Fairly situational but likely the best damage option of the subclasses. Spreading damage is generally inferior to single target damage at this level.
-Beastmaster gets an extra attack for the beast- This doesn't scale well and is generally lower than the other martial options.
-Gloomstalker gets an extra attack if you miss- This is decent for DPR but not amazing. You will most likely be hitting your shots at this level but does help with one miss.
-Horizon walker gets and extra attack if you spread out your damage + teleports at will + good damage increase on their bonus action (1d8 -> 2d8)- BA economy means you are likely picking between swapping Hunters Mark and this extra damage. Fair on t he spreading damage but this is generally inferfior to single target damage.
-Monster slayer gets a special counterspell- No damage but very useful
-Fey wanderer gets a free summon spell it can use without concentration(!) and a slight damage increase on base damage (1d4->1d6)- 1 point damage difference is...something but summon is very good- best option overall.
-Swarm keeper gets slight damage increase (1d6 -> 1d8) or prone or half cover- pretty bad...1 point damage difference...likely the worst option
These are ok but generally lower than the damage added by the other martials.
Barbarian is fairly close but with Reckless and GWM you are just a damage machine already and ranger is just now catching up....especially if they don't take Hunters Mark they have been behind a while on damage.
Rogue does not add much here and is likely behind ranger unless they have a way to set up off turn Sneak Attack reliably.
Fighter gets a third attack which is just blowing away the above options especially since they have had several levels to add feats.
Paladin gets Improved Divine Smite- 1d8 per attack not just once per turn like the ranger subclasses. They also now have a way to use a short rest resource to recover spell slots which means they will consistently have more smites.
Ranger doesn't do terribly but lacks a "Wow" damage ability past 11th unless they take a mass summon spell.
OptimusGrimus you mention a couple of good non damage ranger options, but you seem to be completely ignoring my point. You are damage obsessed.
IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT THE RANGER IS NOT AS GOOD AT DAMAGE
There are numerous other factors that can lead to an effective and valuable team member. Hypnotic Pattern is widely considered one of the best spells in the game and somehow, it manages to do it without dealing damage. Good tactics are more intricate than just pumping damage into things.
WHAT THE RANGER LACKS IN RAW DAMAGE IT MAKES UP FOR IN TACTICAL PROWESS
Please, stop these incessant damage comparisons. They are not proving any point other than that you don't understand how to properly assess strategic value.
I was making one simple point: They are lower in damage unless they take specific spells.
I never said they were not better in other ways I am just saying that if you want to focus on damage as a ranger past 11 you need to pick very specific options to keep up.
Now you can choose to do this or focus on something else which is perfectly fine. I am just saying that if you do want to focus on damage your options are limited. This is the same for previous levels with Hunter's Mark as you are pretty much forced to take it if you want to keep up damage wise.
This is not saying you are not focusing on something else...this is fine. But some people like focusing on doing damage...especially if they are in a party with low damage options.
My narrow discussion of a single possible pathway in no way is a full assessment of ranger as a class. If we wanted to go that route I would simply point to the 6 different versions of ranger we have gotten over the years and how they have tried many times to fix the issues with the class.
However that was not my focus....
Your only contribution to the thread has been to compare damage to show that range can't keep up or needs to make specific choices to have a chance. You haven't taken the time to expound upon the other virtues of the class in a meaningful way...how else do you expect your attitude towards the situation to be perceived?
I mean just because I focus on one aspect of the topic I have to talk about the entire class? That is an unfair expectation.
Short answer: yes, Hunter's Mark is worth it.
Long answer: the amount of bonus damage hinges on how many attacks are made. A ranger with TWF, making up to 3 attacks per round, is going to see the most use. Beast Masters will, generally, see the least, with the best levels being from 7-10.
And the tracking is just awesome. It's why Oath of Vengeance paladins have it.
While i'm not saying that paladins and barbarians are weak, i am arguing your point that level 11 is the point where the other classes get a massive lead since level 11 also is the level where most ranger subclasses take a major leap in power. Even if they are situational, they are still very strong.
Let me compare a few it to your 1d8 per attack bonus on a paladin, which we both agree is a very strong feature.
-A standard extra ranger longbow attack adds 1d8+5 (9.5) (This is without factoring any other damage increases on said longbow attack)
-A beast of the land attack deals 1d8+6 (10.5), a beast of the sky attack deals 1d4+7 (9.5)
-A summon fey attack deals 2d6+6 (13) (but not always up so take with a grain of salt)
Meanwhile, the paladin deals and extra 2d8 (9) damage. So really, i don't see why you regard the step from level 10 ranger to level 11 ranger so unfavorably.
The step from level 9 tot level 10 seems much more catastrophic from a combat perspective but with the new variant ranger, that is definitly no longer the case. The ranger gets some nice temp hp and invisibility on bonus action! That's free advantage on attacks and disadvantage on enemy attacks, not to mention the countless out of combat opportunities. If i look over the (new) ranger features, it seems like the dropoff in power starts at level 15 rather than at level 11.
@HeironymusZot: i personally think that arguing damage dealt certainly does have a place in a thread about hunter's mark, one of the main damage tools a ranger has. It is valuable to consider lessdamaging rangers and what good they can bring to the table. It is, however, equally valuable to consider how good the base damage is for if you want to play a ranger focussed on damage but are wondering if hunter's mark is necessary for that.
I never said it's not worth discussing. I was speaking against the incessant comparisons that spoke nothing of other factors that lead to a ranger's effectiveness.
OptimusGrimus when you use damage comparisons to draw conclusions about a class's effectiveness it is a fair expectation for you to discuss the other factors behind the class's strengths/weaknesses. To do otherwise is willfully omitting information to inflate your point.
The thread is titled "How necessary is Hunter's Mark" not "How necessary is hunter's mark to keep up in damage". Again, I wasn't saying don't talk about damage. But when it's being tossed around to show the ranger in a bad light, only to ignore the other strengths of the class, it's annoyingly short sighted. And beyond that it's just not nearly as important a subject matter as all of this focus on it would bely.
Part of my point in working against this damage conversation is my own stance on the thread's topic. The ranger doesn't need hunter's mark because it doesn't need to compete in damage to be effective.
Yeah the new ranger is a big step up for sure. Overall they aren't too far behind in damage but it's enough that taking specific spells is likely to get you closer than not.
I do like the added versatility of the new ranger options!
Paladins fuel their damage via spell slots. And it is a very inefficient exchange. 4d8 for a level 3 spell slot?! It’s not good mathematically. But it plays good. It’s fun. Conjure animals, lightning arrow, and upcast hail of thorns all add more damage than a smite. Paladins get a bump in damage at level 11 and...that’s it. Other than more spell slots they get zero. People say doing single target is better than spreading damage out. That is only true in some situations. In a funny way, at levels 11+, beast masters (PHB version) are the biggest single target damage output subclass of the ranger. Just an archer with a wolf is doing 39 damage a round with a level 1 spell slot. A paladin with a long sword is doing 32. IF they burn a level 1 spell slot they add 9 damage...once. 🤷♂️ But it feeeeeeeels good. The Tasha’s beast master option is WAY more. A fighter with a bow is doing 28.5 damage using no resources. So in a world of one-shots, DDAL modules, or a home game with an absurd amount of allowed rests, fighters and paladins can burn through all their resources and make big waves. Very “fun”. Very flashy. But rogues and rangers are using almost zero resources to pretty much keep up with the others.
Rangers are heavily reliant on spells for damage. Hunter's mark and eventually Conjure animals. Funny how you call paladins out for it but then causually state that "for only a 1st level spell slot" for ranger....lol
Paladins do rely on spells and Smites are generally better than you think due to the fact that they get to pick WHEN to smite so they can crit and then burn the slot so its a better use of resources.
Also you can smite as many times as you can attack so you can stack on stacks. Using Polearm Master you can smite three times in a turn. This is a lot of resource drain but its pretty massive damage for the level. Paladins are Nova kings for sure.
Also I am not sure where you are getting 39 damage....a wolf gets one attack which averages 7 damage. Even if they get two attacks with 11th level they are only doing 14 damage plus 8 for proficiency at 11th level which is 22 damage.
You still must use your aciton to command them to attack so you can only do this damage? And Hunters mark only works on your attacks?
Harping on about the Paladin class’ damage is just as reductionist as being fixated on the Ranger’s. Both classes have plenty to offer aside from acting as strikers.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Battlemaster fighter with CBE and Sharpshooter are doing: 4(1d6+15) = 72 damage
Zealot Barb with GWM is doing: 2(2d6+17) + 1d6 + 5 = 56.5 damage
This is with 0 resource use.
So if 39 is the best the ranger has at this level....ooof.
You know this is a good point....I feel like ranger offers different things than the other classes which is good. The only aspect is you probably need Hunters Mark and Conjure Animals if you wanted to focus on damage was my only point.
I’m saying that concentration spells from the ranger offer a better damage boost than the paladin smite over the long run.
39 is from a level 17 beast master ranger. One any given turn, using only a level 1 spell slot for hunter’s mark for the ranger’s attack:
Wolf: (2d4 + 2 + 6)*2
Ranger: (1d8 + 1d6 + 5)
Average of 39!
At level 11 they are doing 35 damage with just a level 1 spell slot. Since the beast is replacing one of the ranger’s attacks with two of their own, spells like lightning arrow and hail of thorns is actually more effective with this subclass as they only lose one instance of hunter’s mark.
Paladins can do a lot of damage, on command, against a single target, using most of their (long rest) resources.
That’s it.