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.
And as I stated fighter and barb are doing nearly double that....
OptimusGrimus, Frank isn't calling out Paladins just because they use spell slots, but because what you get out of a spell slot is inefficient compared to a ranger using the same level spell slots. It's a valid point. Blasting is historically a second tier spellcasting option, which has not changed in 5e. Smites are just fancy melee blasts.
Yes, being able to pick your time to smite on a crit means it ends up being a lot more damage than on paper, but Paladin also doesn't get a 3rd level spell that can even shake a stick at Conjure Animals. Conjure Animals is so much more than damage. The name of the game is action economy. The more actions you take compared to your opponents the easier it is to be victorious. And you can verbally command them with no action. Still get to pump out those attacks while your beasties go to work. There's a reason a Paladin gets stronger second tier abilities from their class features. The Paladin doesn't have anything close to the power the ranger has in the spell department before level 13, and even then doesn't catch up.
In the end, despite them being cousin classes with the same skeleton, these classes are built for very different things. It's like comparing apples and oranges. The paladin is nova guy and the ranger is tactical guy.
So we have the “best” single target subclasses of fighter, barbarian, and ranger compared at tier 3 play.
Considering the ranger is doing 72% of the damage the fighter is doing, and 92% of the damage the barbarian is doing. That’s not nearly double. They can do all the other stuff in addition.
It shows that you pretty much have to use the puppies to even be competitive. This means you need to use a 3rd level spell and a generous DM giving you exactly what you want every time you conjure.
This is why its important to show the damage differences with spell selection...by giving up Conjure Animals you are leaving a LOT of damage on the table. To allow people to make informed choices they should understand what they are giving up.
Why would you “give up” this spell (conjure animals)? We don’t ask paladins to not smite with level 3 spells. A paladin gets 4d8 from a level 3 spell. Once.
Why would you “give up” this spell (conjure animals)? We don’t ask paladins to not smite with level 3 spells. A paladin gets 4d8 from a level 3 spell. Once.
Exactly....Do you realize that was my whole point all along? You don't give it up...its an auto pick literally every game.
The whole point of this thread is "are there spells ranger must take to stay viable?" and the answer is "Yes" if you want want any kind of comparable damage.
It shows that you pretty much have to use the puppies to even be competitive. This means you need to use a 3rd level spell and a generous DM giving you exactly what you want every time you conjure.
This is why its important to show the damage differences with spell selection...by giving up Conjure Animals you are leaving a LOT of damage on the table. To allow people to make informed choices they should understand what they are giving up.
Impressive straw man argument. So can I start using dagger dual-wielding paladins in MY comparisons to the ranger? What are we gonna compare next? Clerics with spirit guardians to druids that don't cast conjure animals? What an absurd point to try and make.
8 random summons from any reasonable DM are going to be very strong. Things don't have to be wolf pack elite to be good. You realize that's one of the strongest things you can do in the game right? It's not fair to compare things that are a bit weaker and automatically conclude they are not good enough.
It shows that you pretty much have to use the puppies to even be competitive. This means you need to use a 3rd level spell and a generous DM giving you exactly what you want every time you conjure.
This is why its important to show the damage differences with spell selection...by giving up Conjure Animals you are leaving a LOT of damage on the table. To allow people to make informed choices they should understand what they are giving up.
Impressive straw man argument. So can I start using dagger dual-wielding paladins in MY comparisons to the ranger? What are we gonna compare next? Clerics with spirit guardians to druids that don't cast conjure animals? What an absurd point to try and make.
8 random summons from any reasonable DM are going to be very strong. Things don't have to be wolf pack elite to be good. You realize that's one of the strongest things you can do in the game right? It's not fair to compare things that are a bit weaker and automatically conclude they are not good enough.
Good summary Frank
Its not really a stawman as a paladin always has smite but if they choose not to use it then its not really using a main feature of the class. Actually a dual welding paladin would get an extra chance to smite so thats not a bad use of weapons!
Ranger is a tougher nut as Conjure Animals is not a class feature but a spell choice. This means if someone is not aware of the of the spell they may choose something else and leave that damage on table.
And yes I agree its one of the strongest things you can do in the game and its also the only way a ranger can keep up damage wise past level 11. Its a double edged sword as they are a marital class that mostly has a focus on doing damage a good percentage of the time. I said I am actually sad that is the case as the ranger does not get enough damage options past 11th to make this something you can just avoid.
Cleric and Druid have higher level spells and a much wider spell variety to pick from while the ranger is limited by spells known. This is even worse for ranger then as hunters mark and conjure animals take up 2 of the 7 spells they know at 11th level. It gives them less versatility as they have to pick it if they want comparable damage to the figher/barb/pally.
Also summons are the decision of the DM and that is another reason I do not like them....you either get exactly what you want or the DM is a "jerk". Its not a great situation for either TBH.
How about 8 blood hawks or 4 war horses? Not as optimal as 8 wolves, but still more than keep up in the DPR. What kind of DMs are you playing with? What are they giving you, 8 mosquitoes? A fighter using action surge is making just as many dice rolls as 4-8 creatures.
I hear what you are saying. I do. But if you feel that rangers are “locked in” to conjure animals, and that is a “bad thing”, then ranger is not the class for you. How many wizards and sorcerers don’t take fireball?
Rangers are doing 70%-90% the same damage as barbarians, paladins, and fighters using little to no resources. Why is that an issue? What rangers can do, just through their spell list, can’t even be touched by the other three.
Pre rolling attacks (if attacking), using average damages, using 4 or less instead of 8 creatures, picking flying creatures that don’t take up space on the board, and more all make conjure animals not a big deal.
How about 8 blood hawks or 4 war horses? Not as optimal as 8 wolves, but still more than keep up in the DPR. What kind of DMs are you playing with? What are they giving you, 8 mosquitoes? A fighter using action surge is making just as many dice rolls as 4-8 creatures.
I hear what you are saying. I do. But if you feel that rangers are “locked in” to conjure animals, and that is a “bad thing”, then ranger is not the class for you. How many wizards and sorcerers don’t take fireball?
Rangers are doing 70%-90% the same damage as barbarians, paladins, and fighters using little to no resources. Why is that an issue? What rangers can do, just through their spell list, can’t even be touched by the other three.
Pre rolling attacks (if attacking), using average damages, using 4 or less instead of 8 creatures, picking flying creatures that don’t take up space on the board, and more all make conjure animals not a big deal.
I do actually think fireball is bad for the game as it is a must pick a lot of the time.
Sorcerer suffers more than wizard as wizards learn a lot more Spells and can add it to their book at any time.
I think any spell choice that is pretty much a must pick is kinda lame.
Eldtrich blast for warlocks... Healing word for clerics/druid/Bard.
The spells are very good but it creates the illusion of choice rather than real choice.
Ranger just suffers the worst as they learn so few spells.
And as I stated fighter and barb are doing nearly double that....
1. That is ALL the fighter can do. Shoot arrows.
2. Beast master with SS, longbow, and wolf: 2(2d4 + 2 + 5) + (1d8 + 5 + 1d6 + 5) = 52
OptimusGrimus, Frank isn't calling out Paladins just because they use spell slots, but because what you get out of a spell slot is inefficient compared to a ranger using the same level spell slots. It's a valid point. Blasting is historically a second tier spellcasting option, which has not changed in 5e. Smites are just fancy melee blasts.
Yes, being able to pick your time to smite on a crit means it ends up being a lot more damage than on paper, but Paladin also doesn't get a 3rd level spell that can even shake a stick at Conjure Animals. Conjure Animals is so much more than damage. The name of the game is action economy. The more actions you take compared to your opponents the easier it is to be victorious. And you can verbally command them with no action. Still get to pump out those attacks while your beasties go to work. There's a reason a Paladin gets stronger second tier abilities from their class features. The Paladin doesn't have anything close to the power the ranger has in the spell department before level 13, and even then doesn't catch up.
In the end, despite them being cousin classes with the same skeleton, these classes are built for very different things. It's like comparing apples and oranges. The paladin is nova guy and the ranger is tactical guy.
So we have the “best” single target subclasses of fighter, barbarian, and ranger compared at tier 3 play.
Considering the ranger is doing 72% of the damage the fighter is doing, and 92% of the damage the barbarian is doing. That’s not nearly double. They can do all the other stuff in addition.
So still under both...much like I was saying....
Compare with Conjure Animals with 8 wolves = 56 damage and you can still use your own attacks.
This puts them not only in the running with the Barb and Fighter using 0 resources but puts them way ahead actually.
Also I was using level 11 calculations as that is more realistic.
Level 17:
Zealot: 2(2d6+19) + 1d6 +8 = 63.5
Fighter: 72 damage Remains the same with no resource use. This is base fighter with 0 subclass features. If you add any you will increase damage.
Plus...PUPPIES!!!
🥰
It shows that you pretty much have to use the puppies to even be competitive. This means you need to use a 3rd level spell and a generous DM giving you exactly what you want every time you conjure.
This is why its important to show the damage differences with spell selection...by giving up Conjure Animals you are leaving a LOT of damage on the table. To allow people to make informed choices they should understand what they are giving up.
Why would you “give up” this spell (conjure animals)? We don’t ask paladins to not smite with level 3 spells. A paladin gets 4d8 from a level 3 spell. Once.
Generous DM? You mean not a dick DM? Axe Beak, Boar, Constrictor Snake, Draft Horse, Elk, Giant Badger, Giant Bat, Giant Centipede, Giant Frog, Giant Lizard, Giant Owl, Giant Poisonous Snake, Giant Wolf Spider, Panther, Riding Horse, Wolf. Any of these will provide tactical advantage. Help. Meat shield. Grapple. Restrained. Movement. Poison. Most will provide more damage output over 3-5 rounds than 4d8, even assuming to-hit chance and damage resistances.
Exactly....Do you realize that was my whole point all along? You don't give it up...its an auto pick literally every game.
The whole point of this thread is "are there spells ranger must take to stay viable?" and the answer is "Yes" if you want want any kind of comparable damage.
How necessary is Hunter's mark to ranger?
Very necessary levels 1-10.
Not so much levels 11-20 assuming feats are used.
“Ok, paladin. You HAVE to smite to keep up in the damage department.”
”I don’t want to! I want to be a healer, or controller, or supper caster!”
”Well, you can’t. You HAVE to do lots of damage to be viable.”
I said Hunters Mark is required to maintain damage before 11th level and after 11th level Conjure animals is required.
I am not sure where the disconnect is happening?
The disconnect is probably on my end.
If a player only wants to shoot arrows and do a lot of damage then ranger is a poor choice of class for them.
Impressive straw man argument. So can I start using dagger dual-wielding paladins in MY comparisons to the ranger? What are we gonna compare next? Clerics with spirit guardians to druids that don't cast conjure animals? What an absurd point to try and make.
8 random summons from any reasonable DM are going to be very strong. Things don't have to be wolf pack elite to be good. You realize that's one of the strongest things you can do in the game right? It's not fair to compare things that are a bit weaker and automatically conclude they are not good enough.
Good summary Frank
Wizards attacking with a dagger in melee is VERY suboptimal.
Its not really a stawman as a paladin always has smite but if they choose not to use it then its not really using a main feature of the class. Actually a dual welding paladin would get an extra chance to smite so thats not a bad use of weapons!
Ranger is a tougher nut as Conjure Animals is not a class feature but a spell choice. This means if someone is not aware of the of the spell they may choose something else and leave that damage on table.
And yes I agree its one of the strongest things you can do in the game and its also the only way a ranger can keep up damage wise past level 11. Its a double edged sword as they are a marital class that mostly has a focus on doing damage a good percentage of the time. I said I am actually sad that is the case as the ranger does not get enough damage options past 11th to make this something you can just avoid.
Cleric and Druid have higher level spells and a much wider spell variety to pick from while the ranger is limited by spells known. This is even worse for ranger then as hunters mark and conjure animals take up 2 of the 7 spells they know at 11th level. It gives them less versatility as they have to pick it if they want comparable damage to the figher/barb/pally.
Also summons are the decision of the DM and that is another reason I do not like them....you either get exactly what you want or the DM is a "jerk". Its not a great situation for either TBH.
How about 8 blood hawks or 4 war horses? Not as optimal as 8 wolves, but still more than keep up in the DPR. What kind of DMs are you playing with? What are they giving you, 8 mosquitoes? A fighter using action surge is making just as many dice rolls as 4-8 creatures.
I hear what you are saying. I do. But if you feel that rangers are “locked in” to conjure animals, and that is a “bad thing”, then ranger is not the class for you. How many wizards and sorcerers don’t take fireball?
Rangers are doing 70%-90% the same damage as barbarians, paladins, and fighters using little to no resources. Why is that an issue? What rangers can do, just through their spell list, can’t even be touched by the other three.
Pre rolling attacks (if attacking), using average damages, using 4 or less instead of 8 creatures, picking flying creatures that don’t take up space on the board, and more all make conjure animals not a big deal.
I do actually think fireball is bad for the game as it is a must pick a lot of the time.
Sorcerer suffers more than wizard as wizards learn a lot more Spells and can add it to their book at any time.
I think any spell choice that is pretty much a must pick is kinda lame.
Eldtrich blast for warlocks... Healing word for clerics/druid/Bard.
The spells are very good but it creates the illusion of choice rather than real choice.
Ranger just suffers the worst as they learn so few spells.
I can get behind that idea!