Is there anything a PHB Ranger could do that a PHB cleric couldn't do better?
tracking,navigation through hard and favored terrain,fight,survive attacks,nature spells,sense enemies and a few other things like hitting with an attack!!!
a cleric is just a paladin that uses more spells instead of fighting,a ranger is a druid that can fight good.also cleric subclassses include extra spells, where the beast masters gives assistance with a pet and the hunter has many fighting skills.
the only two things in which a cleric bests the ranger are godly magic and privileges being high in religious ranks,but even in the last rangers are strong too,since ranger are like the special police agency.
You said godly magic. That’s 75% of the cleric. Support, healing, damage, utility. The ranger only has damage. They’d have similar AC, and the other class features of cleric are much better than ranger.
But really, let’s just stop fighting. I do not think the class features of ranger are bad, they just apply in very few circumstances and campaigns. I believe that Tasha’s ranger is better mainly because of the optional features’ broad uses.
You said godly magic. That’s 75% of the cleric. Support, healing, damage, utility. The ranger only has damage. They’d have similar AC, and the other class features of cleric are much better than ranger.
yes,that is at least 75% of the cleric,but I mean it works other(other kind of spells) than mage,bard or nature magic.I don’t know many cleric spells that can deal damage to every kind of enemy,most are against evil or undead.ranger also has features that help tracking,getting through hard terrain and sense an enemy(I repeat every kind of enemy)also I was talking about hit points, but ranger uses scale armor much and proficiency with all weapons.and seriously which other functions that don’t are against undead and evil does a cleric have?! .also “much better than ranger”without explanation and comparisation is subjective
But really, let’s just stop fighting. I do not think the class features of ranger are bad, they just apply in very few circumstances and campaigns. I believe that Tasha’s ranger is better mainly because of the optional features’ broad uses.
first,I wouldn’t call it a fight.I try to keep it a normal discussion.second:you repeat what you say all the time,but my point is that they are in much more than a “very few” circumstances useful.third:this is very near to literally saying:”I am right,here is what I say all the time,it is a compromise and now we stop”you can’t stop without at least saying you understand I don’t think the same,even worse you make it sound like a compromise or something I think too.fourth:I think phb is better than tashas,because the roleplay idea of the functions is destroyed and because it is just to easy to have functions apllying to every last thing.for example;if you have mountain as favored terrain and the quickest route to the enemy is through forest,you can hire a guide and be frustrated oryou can guide your party to the enemy through the mountains.you don’t need to discuss with your dm,also because that needs you to have the same dm and campaign and only use your character in there,you can just be inventive
The thing, the PHB Ranger has several of their class abilities that are extremely dependent on the DM running the game in certain way in order to be useful...a way that is often only appealing to those who are playing a Ranger. Pay attention to WildBill's scenarios a few posts back that show how Rangers can be awesome...the vast majority of those I'd only ever do in order to make a Ranger feel useful. If they had no Ranger, those obstacles wouldn't be there. Nobody really wants to mess about counting rations at my table, nobody wants to listen to my wax lyrical about the different kinds of mushrooms, and the elk trail might add flavour...but most of my players just want to get on with the story. Get from A to B, maybe have an encounter with wolves or yetis or owlbears or something...then arrive. If there isn't a Ranger, I'll gloss over it.
Which is is the bummer part of the class. I have to provide challenges for the party that I wouldn't otherwise provide. Most classes are a positive to the group - Clerics mean less resources devoted to healing, Barbarians mean the party gets a mobile wall to put up in front of the casters, and so forth. Rangers effectively mean more challenges, and therefore the risk of failure. They're the only class that actively introduce problems - other classes may cause issues by padding numbers without pulling their weight, but Rangers have parts of their class that will actively make the campaign harder.
I can do that in-depth wilderness part of the game, and I can make it fun, but most of my players are just not interested - including the Rangers. If you enjoy that aspect of play, then great for you. For my table, and from what I've heard I daresay most tables, they're just voids in the class that I either have to fill with homebrew, just ignore or make the campaign be more punishing to justify them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
One of the problems with discussions like this is the lack of consideration for time and place. When we examine the PHB ranger to other classes we often make the mistake of comparing it to later subclasses that didn’t exist when it was written - like the scout rogue ( the nature cleric was a PHB option). In comparison to the other PHB classes it holds its own quite well. Yes the nature cleric can take 1 of the 3 nature skills but the ranger typically gets 2 so it’s still ahead. In fact, because the PHB ranger was so strong folks wanted to duplicate it in other classes and that is where the problems began. The scout rogue came out n Xanther granting the scout full expertise in nature and survival overshadowing the ranger’s abilities and suddenly the ranger was substantially weaker because he scout was Made too powerful. Had it been granted a choice of nature or survival without expertise ( until later levels when the rogue could use one of its later expertises) we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion. Tasha’s replaced the now outclassed features with some combat improvements but should have simply granted the ranger two base expertises to use ( if desired) for nature and survival which would have brought it back to being on par or superior. The ODD ranger is effectively superior to the ODD scout rogue because of its 2 attacks, fighting style and spell abilities which is where it should be. The PHB ranger was arguably better than a nature cleric as a GISH/martial character (granted that as a pure caster the cleric was better- simply by virtue of being a full caster not a half caster), there was no other similar role class/subclass to compare it to initially. It was a multiclass as a single class - 90% of a fighter, 50% of a rogue and 30% of a Druid (no wildshape but a possible animal companion) which combined made it in many ways better than any character type. Today we are back to that with the ODD ranger. As a DM I’ve had all the rangers in my campaign upgrade to ODD ( or as close to it as DDB let’s us get).
One of the problems with discussions like this is the lack of consideration for time and place. When we examine the PHB ranger to other classes we often make the mistake of comparing it to later subclasses that didn’t exist when it was written - like the scout rogue ( the nature cleric was a PHB option). In comparison to the other PHB classes it holds its own quite well. Yes the nature cleric can take 1 of the 3 nature skills but the ranger typically gets 2 so it’s still ahead. In fact, because the PHB ranger was so strong folks wanted to duplicate it in other classes and that is where the problems began. The scout rogue came out n Xanther granting the scout full expertise in nature and survival overshadowing the ranger’s abilities and suddenly the ranger was substantially weaker because he scout was Made too powerful. Had it been granted a choice of nature or survival without expertise ( until later levels when the rogue could use one of its later expertises) we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion. Tasha’s replaced the now outclassed features with some combat improvements but should have simply granted the ranger two base expertises to use ( if desired) for nature and survival which would have brought it back to being on par or superior. The ODD ranger is effectively superior to the ODD scout rogue because of its 2 attacks, fighting style and spell abilities which is where it should be. The PHB ranger was arguably better than a nature cleric as a GISH/martial character (granted that as a pure caster the cleric was better- simply by virtue of being a full caster not a half caster), there was no other similar role class/subclass to compare it to initially. It was a multiclass as a single class - 90% of a fighter, 50% of a rogue and 30% of a Druid (no wildshape but a possible animal companion) which combined made it in many ways better than any character type. Today we are back to that with the ODD ranger. As a DM I’ve had all the rangers in my campaign upgrade to ODD ( or as close to it as DDB let’s us get).
This is not what i’m saying. I‘m not comparing it to subclasses, I’m comparing it to the base PHB classes, which it is not even close to power-wise. The features are only useful in a small number of scenarios, many of which take away from other players’ fun. Skills hardly matter, and scout isn’t even in OD&D. And you’re saying Tasha’s ranger is bad? It is completely superior to PHB ranger.
So, finding clean food and drink is easily done with Purify Food and Drink (level 1; Ritual; Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Artificer [oddly not Ranger]) or Goodberry (level 1; Druid, Ranger). So most casters can completely bypass the need for this, especially Druid and Cleric who can prepare this by the day and cast PFD for no cost.
A Rogue or Bard with Expertise in Survival is arguably a better tracker/survivalist as they can operate in ANY terrain, not just favored.
Lastly, there are precious few Cleric spells that only affect evil or undead. I would invite you to look at Guiding Bolt ,Spiritual Weapon, and Spirit Guardians (an absolute meat grinder of a spell) for some pretty low level damage dealing spells that are not at all affected by the enemy's alignment or creature type.
Betbad, I think that you are quite misinformed on other classes, and trying to make comparisons from a place of ignorance is not doing you any favors.
first:he said “what a CLERIC can’t do better”
second:rangers have advantage in favored,they can track everywhere.
thirth:navigating and guiding isn’t just finding clean food and water,also finding safe places,finding water and food at all,because the spell is just purification,findin a good route through hard terrain and evading danger.doing every a ranger can do in favored terrain better than the ranger with cleric,costs so much spells you can’t do anything at all when encountering enemies ,if it is possible.think about the roman expeditions to parthia and arabia,or the persian against kush,surving and moving was so hard that they were partially literal trampled by the parthians,arabians and kushites.a ranger can do most things more than a few times.when a cleric, that isn’t so high level it can use tens of spells at the same time,navigates through a forest and is attacked he probaly dies or is stranded in the forest by lack of spell slots.a cleric can’t do the same(or like he said better) as a ranger altogether.a cleric out of spellslots falls down to weak cantrips with 1d8 as damage,the only in the turn most rangers do better.when spending all spell slots clerics can’t do much.the cleric only has cantrips and simple weapons left as options to do after using everything.there isn’t a last feature that isn’t expendable
fourth:I don’t say they don’t have all target spells,I only say a cleric can’t beat a ranger in damage and I meaned they just don’t have features that aren’t spellcasting,channel divinity,intervene or destroy undead.literally half of the base cleric features is against evil or undead.intervene is even worse than spellcasting in times it can be used,with low chance and one week waiting time.
fifth:I don’t think I am the misinformed or ignorant here
I think one of the main problems with the 5E Ranger is well discussed - that being a lot of their abilities are too situational. To be fair, it is also a problem that has been well adjusted in subsequent Ranger re-designs. It is just that these changes need to be clearly put into the core rules rather than supplements.
The other problem, and I think why Rangers are often mistaken as weak, is largely because most of their best abilities are buried in the spell lists and many D&D fans still can’t see the Ranger as a spell casting Class. As such, they often just overlook the potency of some of these spells.
So, finding clean food and drink is easily done with Purify Food and Drink (level 1; Ritual; Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Artificer [oddly not Ranger]) or Goodberry (level 1; Druid, Ranger). So most casters can completely bypass the need for this, especially Druid and Cleric who can prepare this by the day and cast PFD for no cost.
A Rogue or Bard with Expertise in Survival is arguably a better tracker/survivalist as they can operate in ANY terrain, not just favored.
Lastly, there are precious few Cleric spells that only affect evil or undead. I would invite you to look at Guiding Bolt ,Spiritual Weapon, and Spirit Guardians (an absolute meat grinder of a spell) for some pretty low level damage dealing spells that are not at all affected by the enemy's alignment or creature type.
Betbad, I think that you are quite misinformed on other classes, and trying to make comparisons from a place of ignorance is not doing you any favors.
first:he said “what a CLERIC can’t do better”
second:rangers have advantage in favored,they can track everywhere.
thirth:navigating and guiding isn’t just finding clean food and water,also finding safe places,finding water and food at all,because the spell is just purification,findin a good route through hard terrain and evading danger.doing every a ranger can do in favored terrain better than the ranger with cleric,costs so much spells you can’t do anything at all when encountering enemies ,if it is possible.think about the roman expeditions to parthia and arabia,or the persian against kush,surving and moving was so hard that they were partially literal trampled by the parthians,arabians and kushites.a ranger can do most things more than a few times.when a cleric, that isn’t so high level it can use tens of spells at the same time,navigates through a forest and is attacked he probaly dies or is stranded in the forest by lack of spell slots.a cleric can’t do the same(or like he said better) as a ranger altogether.a cleric out of spellslots falls down to weak cantrips with 1d8 as damage,the only in the turn most rangers do better.when spending all spell slots clerics can’t do much.the cleric only has cantrips and simple weapons left as options to do after using everything.there isn’t a last feature that isn’t expendable
fourth:I don’t say they don’t have all target spells,I only say a cleric can’t beat a ranger in damage and I meaned they just don’t have features that aren’t spellcasting,channel divinity,intervene or destroy undead.literally half of the base cleric features is against evil or undead.intervene is even worse than spellcasting in times it can be used,with low chance and one week waiting time.
fifth:I don’t think I am the misinformed or ignorant here
Okay, you literally said "I don’t know many cleric spells that can deal damage to every kind of enemy,most are against evil or undead." I was just explaining how you were wrong.
A Rogue or a Bard with Expertise in Survival and/or Nature is better than the Ranger in every terrain except their favored one. And better at tracking every enemy except their favored one. Now, if your campaign occurs entirely in the woods and your enemies are only goblins, a Ranger with those specific favored terrain/enemy is really going to shine. But deviate from that, and half of their features are now useless.
I think you are more uninformed than you think, because Clerics have great cantrips that scale with level (not only 1d8). Toll the Dead is fantastic with a d12 damage die and targeting a Wis save. So even if they did spend ALL of their spells (basically never happens) they can do damage and still cast Purify Food and Drink as it can be cast as a ritual. Additionally, a Cleric can just Create Food and Water so you won't have to find any if the campaign really calls for this level of exploration.
Lastly, Clerics get their subclass at level 1, and at level 2 already have a different way to use their Channel Divinity (only feature that specifically targets undead). So they are a very subclass dependent class. Comparing their base class features to the base class Ranger is not a fair comparison. Many of them get access to Heavy Armor, and many get access to Martial Weapons. Some get bonus magic damage to every single attack, some get to add their Wis mod to cantrip damage.
So, I think you'll find a Cleric can consistently out-damage a ranger, and if they start level 1 as a Rogue, they can have Expertise in Survival and Nature and out-Ranger the Ranger in 90% of all terrains with 90% of all enemies.
first:well I don’t think clerics have so much magic that is stronger than ranger
second:see one
three:I am not talking subclasses,because when talking subclasses a ranger has features unique,like the companion,so.
fourth:yes,there are certain,good rolled and built, clerics that can defeat certain,bad rolled and built, rangers in certain situations
fifth:seriously,multiclasses? it isn’t a cleric if it starts rogue,you can also outmagic a cleric by multiclassing with druid,a level 18 ranger with two levels druid is good by the way, or wizard.this is enormous bullshit.
So, finding clean food and drink is easily done with Purify Food and Drink (level 1; Ritual; Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Artificer [oddly not Ranger]) or Goodberry (level 1; Druid, Ranger). So most casters can completely bypass the need for this, especially Druid and Cleric who can prepare this by the day and cast PFD for no cost.
A Rogue or Bard with Expertise in Survival is arguably a better tracker/survivalist as they can operate in ANY terrain, not just favored.
Lastly, there are precious few Cleric spells that only affect evil or undead. I would invite you to look at Guiding Bolt ,Spiritual Weapon, and Spirit Guardians (an absolute meat grinder of a spell) for some pretty low level damage dealing spells that are not at all affected by the enemy's alignment or creature type.
Betbad, I think that you are quite misinformed on other classes, and trying to make comparisons from a place of ignorance is not doing you any favors.
first:he said “what a CLERIC can’t do better”
second:rangers have advantage in favored,they can track everywhere.
thirth:navigating and guiding isn’t just finding clean food and water,also finding safe places,finding water and food at all,because the spell is just purification,findin a good route through hard terrain and evading danger.doing every a ranger can do in favored terrain better than the ranger with cleric,costs so much spells you can’t do anything at all when encountering enemies ,if it is possible.think about the roman expeditions to parthia and arabia,or the persian against kush,surving and moving was so hard that they were partially literal trampled by the parthians,arabians and kushites.a ranger can do most things more than a few times.when a cleric, that isn’t so high level it can use tens of spells at the same time,navigates through a forest and is attacked he probaly dies or is stranded in the forest by lack of spell slots.a cleric can’t do the same(or like he said better) as a ranger altogether.a cleric out of spellslots falls down to weak cantrips with 1d8 as damage,the only in the turn most rangers do better.when spending all spell slots clerics can’t do much.the cleric only has cantrips and simple weapons left as options to do after using everything.there isn’t a last feature that isn’t expendable
fourth:I don’t say they don’t have all target spells,I only say a cleric can’t beat a ranger in damage and I meaned they just don’t have features that aren’t spellcasting,channel divinity,intervene or destroy undead.literally half of the base cleric features is against evil or undead.intervene is even worse than spellcasting in times it can be used,with low chance and one week waiting time.
fifth:I don’t think I am the misinformed or ignorant here
Okay, you literally said "I don’t know many cleric spells that can deal damage to every kind of enemy,most are against evil or undead." I was just explaining how you were wrong.
A Rogue or a Bard with Expertise in Survival and/or Nature is better than the Ranger in every terrain except their favored one. And better at tracking every enemy except their favored one. Now, if your campaign occurs entirely in the woods and your enemies are only goblins, a Ranger with those specific favored terrain/enemy is really going to shine. But deviate from that, and half of their features are now useless.
I think you are more uninformed than you think, because Clerics have great cantrips that scale with level (not only 1d8). Toll the Dead is fantastic with a d12 damage die and targeting a Wis save. So even if they did spend ALL of their spells (basically never happens) they can do damage and still cast Purify Food and Drink as it can be cast as a ritual. Additionally, a Cleric can just Create Food and Water so you won't have to find any if the campaign really calls for this level of exploration.
Lastly, Clerics get their subclass at level 1, and at level 2 already have a different way to use their Channel Divinity (only feature that specifically targets undead). So they are a very subclass dependent class. Comparing their base class features to the base class Ranger is not a fair comparison. Many of them get access to Heavy Armor, and many get access to Martial Weapons. Some get bonus magic damage to every single attack, some get to add their Wis mod to cantrip damage.
So, I think you'll find a Cleric can consistently out-damage a ranger, and if they start level 1 as a Rogue, they can have Expertise in Survival and Nature and out-Ranger the Ranger in 90% of all terrains with 90% of all enemies.
first:well I don’t think clerics have so much magic that is stronger than ranger
second:see one
three:I am not talking subclasses,because when talking subclasses a ranger has features unique,like the companion,so.
fourth:yes,there are certain,good rolled and built, clerics that can defeat certain,bad rolled and built, rangers in certain situations
fifth:seriously,multiclasses? it isn’t a cleric if it starts rogue,you can also outmagic a cleric by multiclassing with druid,a level 18 ranger with two levels druid is good by the way, or wizard.this is enormous bullshit.
First: absolutely not, cleric has higher level spells and gain Spell levels quicker, and cleric has cantrips and a better spell list.
Third: we’re talking about PHB stuff, right? Let’s compare hunter ranger(beast master is trash) to, say, war domain cleric. Hunter gets 1d8 extra damage per turn. War domain gets armor and weapon proficiency, 2 spells, an extra attack wis/LR, channel Divinity. Which one seems better?
fourth: yes, there are certain well rolled and built rangers that can defeat certain bad rolled and built clerics. (:
fifth: Druid/Ranger isn’t very good because the best armor you can wear is studded leather, and ranger/wizard isn’t good because you need 2 high stats
Also, you might want to consider using spaces when you type.
Only bit I will add to the Ranger/Cleric debate is that talking about ANY melee abilities, the Cleric is second once you reach level 5. Sure, toss out spells and the like, then head into a dungeon, cave, or other area where a LR is difficult/impossible to achieve and see which holds up better. Comparing classes whose roles are vastly different will always show a major tilt one way or the other, depending on which aspect you're looking at.
Also, Rangers are every bit as useful and good in the group as any other class. If you can't see it, well, don't play with folks who roll a Ranger. The entire "Oh only in THIS situation" doesn't fly, unless the Ranger picks poorly, or the DM plain out sucks. If there isn't a little something for every member of the party, the DM is a little slack.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Imagine ( and others), what I was/am saying is to be careful about the timing of comparisons. When the PHB came out (2014) the only 2 class/class+subclasses that were comparable to the ranger more or less were the nature cleric and the Druid. You could make a nature based rogue by using 2 of their 3 skill proficiencies but that meant sacrifing a lot. Because the exploration arm is so badly played/supported anything explorational/nature oriented is/was iffy/ situational at best ess u eye actually talked t your DM about the campaign and what terrains and enemies to take or used some intelligence to select based on your region ( sword cast north = forests and mountain terrains, humanoids gave you 2 ( really 3 as you know your win race and culture also) s you pick a common for the area species ( I typically TPK eves or humans) and either orcs or goblinoids whch ever was most common in that area (orcs near Waterdeep and Silverymoon, goblinoids if around Cormyr etc.) Beasts as a starting ranger then picking u others based on the PC’s history . Given that the ranger was significantly better than either the cleric or the Druid (strangely enough) since his class features gave him expertise in all but name with his chosen terrains and foes. The nature rogue was effectively no better even if he took nature and survival and used his initial expertises on both of them. Otherwise they were inferior in terms of skills as were the Druid and nature cleric that have no form of expertise. At spells especially nature spells, the Druid, as a full caster specialized in primal magic was the best with the nature cleric, also a full caster, in second with the ranger clearly in third place as a (not so poor) caster. Of course the fact that the ranger had spells made it far superior to the nature rogue which had none. Similarly while the ranger was limited to medium armor that still provided enough to keep them well defended in combat. Their martial abilities were pretty much the same as a fighter but more oriented to the striker role than the tank/nova damage roles and generally superior to the rogue’s combat abilities. All around a very formidable individual. In a three legged game they were the best at one leg and decent to superior at the other two. NOT a weak sister! That idea seems to have come in with Xanther’s and the scout rogue that instead of getting 4-5 ( counting 1 or 2 from the background selected) skills and 4 expertises now got 6-7 skills and 6 expertises render it clearly superior to the ranger in the expo,ration leg skill wise. The ranger really is/was still superior as both a martial and a spellcaster making it superior overall. If anything, what Tasha’s did was strengthen the ranger as a martial and caster while weakening it further as an explorer. What ODD has done is give it back parity in exploration with the scout rogue ( both can have expertise in stealth, nature, survival and one (+ for the rogue) other skill while keeping most of the Tasha’s combat improvements and adding a bit to its spell casting strength. The one drawback of the ODD ranger is that it doesn’t get access to the primal evocation spells that it really should have. ( For that I can always multiclass into sorceror for a level or three). The ranger was never actually weak but having the scout rogue overshadow it in the exploration leg where it (and the Druid) should have been king made it seem weak to those that ignored its casting and combat abilities. With ODD we see the ranger return to being the king of the wilderness as well as being improved as both a martial and a caster making it , again, a clearly superior adventurer.
So, finding clean food and drink is easily done with Purify Food and Drink (level 1; Ritual; Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Artificer [oddly not Ranger]) or Goodberry (level 1; Druid, Ranger). So most casters can completely bypass the need for this, especially Druid and Cleric who can prepare this by the day and cast PFD for no cost.
A Rogue or Bard with Expertise in Survival is arguably a better tracker/survivalist as they can operate in ANY terrain, not just favored.
Lastly, there are precious few Cleric spells that only affect evil or undead. I would invite you to look at Guiding Bolt ,Spiritual Weapon, and Spirit Guardians (an absolute meat grinder of a spell) for some pretty low level damage dealing spells that are not at all affected by the enemy's alignment or creature type.
Betbad, I think that you are quite misinformed on other classes, and trying to make comparisons from a place of ignorance is not doing you any favors.
first:he said “what a CLERIC can’t do better”
second:rangers have advantage in favored,they can track everywhere.
thirth:navigating and guiding isn’t just finding clean food and water,also finding safe places,finding water and food at all,because the spell is just purification,findin a good route through hard terrain and evading danger.doing every a ranger can do in favored terrain better than the ranger with cleric,costs so much spells you can’t do anything at all when encountering enemies ,if it is possible.think about the roman expeditions to parthia and arabia,or the persian against kush,surving and moving was so hard that they were partially literal trampled by the parthians,arabians and kushites.a ranger can do most things more than a few times.when a cleric, that isn’t so high level it can use tens of spells at the same time,navigates through a forest and is attacked he probaly dies or is stranded in the forest by lack of spell slots.a cleric can’t do the same(or like he said better) as a ranger altogether.a cleric out of spellslots falls down to weak cantrips with 1d8 as damage,the only in the turn most rangers do better.when spending all spell slots clerics can’t do much.the cleric only has cantrips and simple weapons left as options to do after using everything.there isn’t a last feature that isn’t expendable
fourth:I don’t say they don’t have all target spells,I only say a cleric can’t beat a ranger in damage and I meaned they just don’t have features that aren’t spellcasting,channel divinity,intervene or destroy undead.literally half of the base cleric features is against evil or undead.intervene is even worse than spellcasting in times it can be used,with low chance and one week waiting time.
fifth:I don’t think I am the misinformed or ignorant here
Okay, you literally said "I don’t know many cleric spells that can deal damage to every kind of enemy,most are against evil or undead." I was just explaining how you were wrong.
A Rogue or a Bard with Expertise in Survival and/or Nature is better than the Ranger in every terrain except their favored one. And better at tracking every enemy except their favored one. Now, if your campaign occurs entirely in the woods and your enemies are only goblins, a Ranger with those specific favored terrain/enemy is really going to shine. But deviate from that, and half of their features are now useless.
I think you are more uninformed than you think, because Clerics have great cantrips that scale with level (not only 1d8). Toll the Dead is fantastic with a d12 damage die and targeting a Wis save. So even if they did spend ALL of their spells (basically never happens) they can do damage and still cast Purify Food and Drink as it can be cast as a ritual. Additionally, a Cleric can just Create Food and Water so you won't have to find any if the campaign really calls for this level of exploration.
Lastly, Clerics get their subclass at level 1, and at level 2 already have a different way to use their Channel Divinity (only feature that specifically targets undead). So they are a very subclass dependent class. Comparing their base class features to the base class Ranger is not a fair comparison. Many of them get access to Heavy Armor, and many get access to Martial Weapons. Some get bonus magic damage to every single attack, some get to add their Wis mod to cantrip damage.
So, I think you'll find a Cleric can consistently out-damage a ranger, and if they start level 1 as a Rogue, they can have Expertise in Survival and Nature and out-Ranger the Ranger in 90% of all terrains with 90% of all enemies.
first:well I don’t think clerics have so much magic that is stronger than ranger
second:see one
three:I am not talking subclasses,because when talking subclasses a ranger has features unique,like the companion,so.
fourth:yes,there are certain,good rolled and built, clerics that can defeat certain,bad rolled and built, rangers in certain situations
fifth:seriously,multiclasses? it isn’t a cleric if it starts rogue,you can also outmagic a cleric by multiclassing with druid,a level 18 ranger with two levels druid is good by the way, or wizard.this is enormous bullshit.
First: absolutely not, cleric has higher level spells and gain Spell levels quicker, and cleric has cantrips and a better spell list.
Third: we’re talking about PHB stuff, right? Let’s compare hunter ranger(beast master is trash) to, say, war domain cleric. Hunter gets 1d8 extra damage per turn. War domain gets armor and weapon proficiency, 2 spells, an extra attack wis/LR, channel Divinity. Which one seems better?
fourth: yes, there are certain well rolled and built rangers that can defeat certain bad rolled and built clerics. (:
fifth: Druid/Ranger isn’t very good because the best armor you can wear is studded leather, and ranger/wizard isn’t good because you need 2 high stats
Also, you might want to consider using spaces when you type.
first:I mean damage magic that is stronger than ranger damage features
thirth:only in one dnd the 1d8 is the only option for hunter’s prey,the others are reaction and etra attack on near enemy.ranger hunter doesn’t have less proficiency or attacks than war domain cleric and also gets defense options to choose from two times and multiattack.so yes the hunter ranger is better.
fourth:no an average rolled ranger can defeat an average cleric.you just take my statement and switch ranger with cleric,and pretend it is what you think I say
five:yep,same also with rogue/cleric and my point is that talking about multiclass in class comparison isn’t the normal example of fair discussion
So, finding clean food and drink is easily done with Purify Food and Drink (level 1; Ritual; Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Artificer [oddly not Ranger]) or Goodberry (level 1; Druid, Ranger). So most casters can completely bypass the need for this, especially Druid and Cleric who can prepare this by the day and cast PFD for no cost.
A Rogue or Bard with Expertise in Survival is arguably a better tracker/survivalist as they can operate in ANY terrain, not just favored.
Lastly, there are precious few Cleric spells that only affect evil or undead. I would invite you to look at Guiding Bolt ,Spiritual Weapon, and Spirit Guardians (an absolute meat grinder of a spell) for some pretty low level damage dealing spells that are not at all affected by the enemy's alignment or creature type.
Betbad, I think that you are quite misinformed on other classes, and trying to make comparisons from a place of ignorance is not doing you any favors.
first:he said “what a CLERIC can’t do better”
second:rangers have advantage in favored,they can track everywhere.
thirth:navigating and guiding isn’t just finding clean food and water,also finding safe places,finding water and food at all,because the spell is just purification,findin a good route through hard terrain and evading danger.doing every a ranger can do in favored terrain better than the ranger with cleric,costs so much spells you can’t do anything at all when encountering enemies ,if it is possible.think about the roman expeditions to parthia and arabia,or the persian against kush,surving and moving was so hard that they were partially literal trampled by the parthians,arabians and kushites.a ranger can do most things more than a few times.when a cleric, that isn’t so high level it can use tens of spells at the same time,navigates through a forest and is attacked he probaly dies or is stranded in the forest by lack of spell slots.a cleric can’t do the same(or like he said better) as a ranger altogether.a cleric out of spellslots falls down to weak cantrips with 1d8 as damage,the only in the turn most rangers do better.when spending all spell slots clerics can’t do much.the cleric only has cantrips and simple weapons left as options to do after using everything.there isn’t a last feature that isn’t expendable
fourth:I don’t say they don’t have all target spells,I only say a cleric can’t beat a ranger in damage and I meaned they just don’t have features that aren’t spellcasting,channel divinity,intervene or destroy undead.literally half of the base cleric features is against evil or undead.intervene is even worse than spellcasting in times it can be used,with low chance and one week waiting time.
fifth:I don’t think I am the misinformed or ignorant here
Okay, you literally said "I don’t know many cleric spells that can deal damage to every kind of enemy,most are against evil or undead." I was just explaining how you were wrong.
A Rogue or a Bard with Expertise in Survival and/or Nature is better than the Ranger in every terrain except their favored one. And better at tracking every enemy except their favored one. Now, if your campaign occurs entirely in the woods and your enemies are only goblins, a Ranger with those specific favored terrain/enemy is really going to shine. But deviate from that, and half of their features are now useless.
I think you are more uninformed than you think, because Clerics have great cantrips that scale with level (not only 1d8). Toll the Dead is fantastic with a d12 damage die and targeting a Wis save. So even if they did spend ALL of their spells (basically never happens) they can do damage and still cast Purify Food and Drink as it can be cast as a ritual. Additionally, a Cleric can just Create Food and Water so you won't have to find any if the campaign really calls for this level of exploration.
Lastly, Clerics get their subclass at level 1, and at level 2 already have a different way to use their Channel Divinity (only feature that specifically targets undead). So they are a very subclass dependent class. Comparing their base class features to the base class Ranger is not a fair comparison. Many of them get access to Heavy Armor, and many get access to Martial Weapons. Some get bonus magic damage to every single attack, some get to add their Wis mod to cantrip damage.
So, I think you'll find a Cleric can consistently out-damage a ranger, and if they start level 1 as a Rogue, they can have Expertise in Survival and Nature and out-Ranger the Ranger in 90% of all terrains with 90% of all enemies.
first:well I don’t think clerics have so much magic that is stronger than ranger
second:see one
three:I am not talking subclasses,because when talking subclasses a ranger has features unique,like the companion,so.
fourth:yes,there are certain,good rolled and built, clerics that can defeat certain,bad rolled and built, rangers in certain situations
fifth:seriously,multiclasses? it isn’t a cleric if it starts rogue,you can also outmagic a cleric by multiclassing with druid,a level 18 ranger with two levels druid is good by the way, or wizard.this is enormous bullshit.
First: absolutely not, cleric has higher level spells and gain Spell levels quicker, and cleric has cantrips and a better spell list.
Third: we’re talking about PHB stuff, right? Let’s compare hunter ranger(beast master is trash) to, say, war domain cleric. Hunter gets 1d8 extra damage per turn. War domain gets armor and weapon proficiency, 2 spells, an extra attack wis/LR, channel Divinity. Which one seems better?
fourth: yes, there are certain well rolled and built rangers that can defeat certain bad rolled and built clerics. (:
fifth: Druid/Ranger isn’t very good because the best armor you can wear is studded leather, and ranger/wizard isn’t good because you need 2 high stats
Also, you might want to consider using spaces when you type.
first:I mean damage magic that is stronger than ranger damage features
thirth:only in one dnd the 1d8 is the only option for hunter’s prey,the others are reaction and etra attack on near enemy.ranger hunter doesn’t have less proficiency or attacks than war domain cleric and also gets defense options to choose from two times and multiattack.so yes the hunter ranger is better.
fourth:no an average rolled ranger can defeat an average cleric.you just take my statement and switch ranger with cleric,and pretend it is what you think I say
five:yep,same also with rogue/cleric and my point is that talking about multiclass in class comparison isn’t the normal example of fair discussion
First: yeah, cleric doesn’t have many damage spells, but they have channel Divinity and if you want damage you can choose light or war for your domain. However, damage isn’t everything and clerics have better healing and support spells.
third(you say thirth?): 1d8 extra dmg per turn is arguably the best option (war domain channel Divinity adds 10 to an attack roll, which is stronger). And I was comparing the subclasses at level 3, not in all. Later, war domain gets the ability to use its channel Divinity on Allies, an extra 1d8 (2d8 at lvl 14) damage on every attack, and resistance to the 3 most common damage types in the game. Which seems better now?
fourth: no, I was just saying that your statement is wrong and saying the opposite of it. So yes, there are certain well rolled and built rangers that can defeat certain bad rolled and built clerics in certain situations.
fifth: I agree that we shouldn’t use multiclasses (though cleric is a great dip), but medium armor is better for cleric/rogues unless you have 20 dex. Ranger/druids can‘t wear metal armor.
You do, in fact, seem rather uninformed. Also, did you notice my previous comment? PLEASE USE SPACES WHEN YOU TYPE.
So, finding clean food and drink is easily done with Purify Food and Drink (level 1; Ritual; Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Artificer [oddly not Ranger]) or Goodberry (level 1; Druid, Ranger). So most casters can completely bypass the need for this, especially Druid and Cleric who can prepare this by the day and cast PFD for no cost.
A Rogue or Bard with Expertise in Survival is arguably a better tracker/survivalist as they can operate in ANY terrain, not just favored.
Lastly, there are precious few Cleric spells that only affect evil or undead. I would invite you to look at Guiding Bolt ,Spiritual Weapon, and Spirit Guardians (an absolute meat grinder of a spell) for some pretty low level damage dealing spells that are not at all affected by the enemy's alignment or creature type.
Betbad, I think that you are quite misinformed on other classes, and trying to make comparisons from a place of ignorance is not doing you any favors.
first:he said “what a CLERIC can’t do better”
second:rangers have advantage in favored,they can track everywhere.
thirth:navigating and guiding isn’t just finding clean food and water,also finding safe places,finding water and food at all,because the spell is just purification,findin a good route through hard terrain and evading danger.doing every a ranger can do in favored terrain better than the ranger with cleric,costs so much spells you can’t do anything at all when encountering enemies ,if it is possible.think about the roman expeditions to parthia and arabia,or the persian against kush,surving and moving was so hard that they were partially literal trampled by the parthians,arabians and kushites.a ranger can do most things more than a few times.when a cleric, that isn’t so high level it can use tens of spells at the same time,navigates through a forest and is attacked he probaly dies or is stranded in the forest by lack of spell slots.a cleric can’t do the same(or like he said better) as a ranger altogether.a cleric out of spellslots falls down to weak cantrips with 1d8 as damage,the only in the turn most rangers do better.when spending all spell slots clerics can’t do much.the cleric only has cantrips and simple weapons left as options to do after using everything.there isn’t a last feature that isn’t expendable
fourth:I don’t say they don’t have all target spells,I only say a cleric can’t beat a ranger in damage and I meaned they just don’t have features that aren’t spellcasting,channel divinity,intervene or destroy undead.literally half of the base cleric features is against evil or undead.intervene is even worse than spellcasting in times it can be used,with low chance and one week waiting time.
fifth:I don’t think I am the misinformed or ignorant here
Okay, you literally said "I don’t know many cleric spells that can deal damage to every kind of enemy,most are against evil or undead." I was just explaining how you were wrong.
A Rogue or a Bard with Expertise in Survival and/or Nature is better than the Ranger in every terrain except their favored one. And better at tracking every enemy except their favored one. Now, if your campaign occurs entirely in the woods and your enemies are only goblins, a Ranger with those specific favored terrain/enemy is really going to shine. But deviate from that, and half of their features are now useless.
I think you are more uninformed than you think, because Clerics have great cantrips that scale with level (not only 1d8). Toll the Dead is fantastic with a d12 damage die and targeting a Wis save. So even if they did spend ALL of their spells (basically never happens) they can do damage and still cast Purify Food and Drink as it can be cast as a ritual. Additionally, a Cleric can just Create Food and Water so you won't have to find any if the campaign really calls for this level of exploration.
Lastly, Clerics get their subclass at level 1, and at level 2 already have a different way to use their Channel Divinity (only feature that specifically targets undead). So they are a very subclass dependent class. Comparing their base class features to the base class Ranger is not a fair comparison. Many of them get access to Heavy Armor, and many get access to Martial Weapons. Some get bonus magic damage to every single attack, some get to add their Wis mod to cantrip damage.
So, I think you'll find a Cleric can consistently out-damage a ranger, and if they start level 1 as a Rogue, they can have Expertise in Survival and Nature and out-Ranger the Ranger in 90% of all terrains with 90% of all enemies.
first:well I don’t think clerics have so much magic that is stronger than ranger
second:see one
three:I am not talking subclasses,because when talking subclasses a ranger has features unique,like the companion,so.
fourth:yes,there are certain,good rolled and built, clerics that can defeat certain,bad rolled and built, rangers in certain situations
fifth:seriously,multiclasses? it isn’t a cleric if it starts rogue,you can also outmagic a cleric by multiclassing with druid,a level 18 ranger with two levels druid is good by the way, or wizard.this is enormous bullshit.
First: absolutely not, cleric has higher level spells and gain Spell levels quicker, and cleric has cantrips and a better spell list.
Third: we’re talking about PHB stuff, right? Let’s compare hunter ranger(beast master is trash) to, say, war domain cleric. Hunter gets 1d8 extra damage per turn. War domain gets armor and weapon proficiency, 2 spells, an extra attack wis/LR, channel Divinity. Which one seems better?
fourth: yes, there are certain well rolled and built rangers that can defeat certain bad rolled and built clerics. (:
fifth: Druid/Ranger isn’t very good because the best armor you can wear is studded leather, and ranger/wizard isn’t good because you need 2 high stats
Also, you might want to consider using spaces when you type.
first:I mean damage magic that is stronger than ranger damage features
thirth:only in one dnd the 1d8 is the only option for hunter’s prey,the others are reaction and etra attack on near enemy.ranger hunter doesn’t have less proficiency or attacks than war domain cleric and also gets defense options to choose from two times and multiattack.so yes the hunter ranger is better.
fourth:no an average rolled ranger can defeat an average cleric.you just take my statement and switch ranger with cleric,and pretend it is what you think I say
five:yep,same also with rogue/cleric and my point is that talking about multiclass in class comparison isn’t the normal example of fair discussion
First: yeah, cleric doesn’t have many damage spells, but they have channel Divinity and if you want damage you can choose light or war for your domain. However, damage isn’t everything and clerics have better healing and support spells.
third(you say thirth?): 1d8 extra dmg per turn is arguably the best option (war domain channel Divinity adds 10 to an attack roll, which is stronger). And I was comparing the subclasses at level 3, not in all. Later, war domain gets the ability to use its channel Divinity on Allies, an extra 1d8 (2d8 at lvl 14) damage on every attack, and resistance to the 3 most common damage types in the game. Which seems better now?
fourth: no, I was just saying that your statement is wrong and saying the opposite of it. So yes, there are certain well rolled and built rangers that can defeat certain bad rolled and built clerics in certain situations.
fifth: I agree that we shouldn’t use multiclasses (though cleric is a great dip), but medium armor is better for cleric/rogues unless you have 20 dex. Ranger/druids can‘t wear metal armor.
You do, in fact, seem rather uninformed. Also, did you notice my previous comment? PLEASE USE SPACES WHEN YOU TYPE.
first:my whole point is the fact that the one who started this debate said:”is there anything a ranger can do what a cleric can’t do better”so for start damage.
third:still hunter ranger,because you aren’t sticked to one choice from the moment you choose the subclass.and I think horde breaker,the anti-opportunity attack feature(forgot the name),whirlwind and stand against the tide is a great combination for moving over the battlefield,adding one extra attack per turn and many bend enemy opportunity attacks to whirlwind.you can hit each character in range of moving your total speed with enemies per 5 feet.if there are everywhere 4 enemies and youuse the full 30 feet in a direct line you hit at least six enemies each two times + one time .which means thirteen attacks per turn + two attacks for every other enemy in a five feet radius from any point were you stood in the turn.that best that semi-rage on allies by far unless you use it on an entire army instead of your party
fourth:you can’t opposit a statement and start with “yes”.linguistically and juridically that is twisting someones words.
fifth:this isn’t about dips or something,so shut up on this point
sure,the one that thinks temporary 1d8 damage for allies and +10 hit chance for the character,using all uses of the functions until a long rest, is better than all features of the ranger,including mass attacks and halving enemy damage is the well informed
and I USE SPACES BETWEEN WHAT I SAY, SEE THE SPACES BETWEEN FIRST AND THIRD AND THIRD AND FOURTH AND FOURTH AND FIFTH AND FIFTH AND THE POINT ABOUT BEING INFORMED AND THE POINT ABOUT BEING INFORMED AND THIS,BECAUSE THAT ARE FIVE LINES,IF YOU MEAN BETWEEN THE WORDS,LOOK IMBECILE.BEFORE YOU ASK MY CAPSLOCK ISN’T STUCK.see!AND OF COURSE I NOTICED BECAUSE I LITERALLY QUOTED IT!!!.MOST TIMES I READ BEFORE REACTING,YOU SEEM TO DO NOT
So, finding clean food and drink is easily done with Purify Food and Drink (level 1; Ritual; Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Artificer [oddly not Ranger]) or Goodberry (level 1; Druid, Ranger). So most casters can completely bypass the need for this, especially Druid and Cleric who can prepare this by the day and cast PFD for no cost.
A Rogue or Bard with Expertise in Survival is arguably a better tracker/survivalist as they can operate in ANY terrain, not just favored.
Lastly, there are precious few Cleric spells that only affect evil or undead. I would invite you to look at Guiding Bolt ,Spiritual Weapon, and Spirit Guardians (an absolute meat grinder of a spell) for some pretty low level damage dealing spells that are not at all affected by the enemy's alignment or creature type.
Betbad, I think that you are quite misinformed on other classes, and trying to make comparisons from a place of ignorance is not doing you any favors.
first:he said “what a CLERIC can’t do better”
second:rangers have advantage in favored,they can track everywhere.
thirth:navigating and guiding isn’t just finding clean food and water,also finding safe places,finding water and food at all,because the spell is just purification,findin a good route through hard terrain and evading danger.doing every a ranger can do in favored terrain better than the ranger with cleric,costs so much spells you can’t do anything at all when encountering enemies ,if it is possible.think about the roman expeditions to parthia and arabia,or the persian against kush,surving and moving was so hard that they were partially literal trampled by the parthians,arabians and kushites.a ranger can do most things more than a few times.when a cleric, that isn’t so high level it can use tens of spells at the same time,navigates through a forest and is attacked he probaly dies or is stranded in the forest by lack of spell slots.a cleric can’t do the same(or like he said better) as a ranger altogether.a cleric out of spellslots falls down to weak cantrips with 1d8 as damage,the only in the turn most rangers do better.when spending all spell slots clerics can’t do much.the cleric only has cantrips and simple weapons left as options to do after using everything.there isn’t a last feature that isn’t expendable
fourth:I don’t say they don’t have all target spells,I only say a cleric can’t beat a ranger in damage and I meaned they just don’t have features that aren’t spellcasting,channel divinity,intervene or destroy undead.literally half of the base cleric features is against evil or undead.intervene is even worse than spellcasting in times it can be used,with low chance and one week waiting time.
fifth:I don’t think I am the misinformed or ignorant here
Okay, you literally said "I don’t know many cleric spells that can deal damage to every kind of enemy,most are against evil or undead." I was just explaining how you were wrong.
A Rogue or a Bard with Expertise in Survival and/or Nature is better than the Ranger in every terrain except their favored one. And better at tracking every enemy except their favored one. Now, if your campaign occurs entirely in the woods and your enemies are only goblins, a Ranger with those specific favored terrain/enemy is really going to shine. But deviate from that, and half of their features are now useless.
I think you are more uninformed than you think, because Clerics have great cantrips that scale with level (not only 1d8). Toll the Dead is fantastic with a d12 damage die and targeting a Wis save. So even if they did spend ALL of their spells (basically never happens) they can do damage and still cast Purify Food and Drink as it can be cast as a ritual. Additionally, a Cleric can just Create Food and Water so you won't have to find any if the campaign really calls for this level of exploration.
Lastly, Clerics get their subclass at level 1, and at level 2 already have a different way to use their Channel Divinity (only feature that specifically targets undead). So they are a very subclass dependent class. Comparing their base class features to the base class Ranger is not a fair comparison. Many of them get access to Heavy Armor, and many get access to Martial Weapons. Some get bonus magic damage to every single attack, some get to add their Wis mod to cantrip damage.
So, I think you'll find a Cleric can consistently out-damage a ranger, and if they start level 1 as a Rogue, they can have Expertise in Survival and Nature and out-Ranger the Ranger in 90% of all terrains with 90% of all enemies.
first:well I don’t think clerics have so much magic that is stronger than ranger
second:see one
three:I am not talking subclasses,because when talking subclasses a ranger has features unique,like the companion,so.
fourth:yes,there are certain,good rolled and built, clerics that can defeat certain,bad rolled and built, rangers in certain situations
fifth:seriously,multiclasses? it isn’t a cleric if it starts rogue,you can also outmagic a cleric by multiclassing with druid,a level 18 ranger with two levels druid is good by the way, or wizard.this is enormous bullshit.
First: absolutely not, cleric has higher level spells and gain Spell levels quicker, and cleric has cantrips and a better spell list.
Third: we’re talking about PHB stuff, right? Let’s compare hunter ranger(beast master is trash) to, say, war domain cleric. Hunter gets 1d8 extra damage per turn. War domain gets armor and weapon proficiency, 2 spells, an extra attack wis/LR, channel Divinity. Which one seems better?
fourth: yes, there are certain well rolled and built rangers that can defeat certain bad rolled and built clerics. (:
fifth: Druid/Ranger isn’t very good because the best armor you can wear is studded leather, and ranger/wizard isn’t good because you need 2 high stats
Also, you might want to consider using spaces when you type.
first:I mean damage magic that is stronger than ranger damage features
thirth:only in one dnd the 1d8 is the only option for hunter’s prey,the others are reaction and etra attack on near enemy.ranger hunter doesn’t have less proficiency or attacks than war domain cleric and also gets defense options to choose from two times and multiattack.so yes the hunter ranger is better.
fourth:no an average rolled ranger can defeat an average cleric.you just take my statement and switch ranger with cleric,and pretend it is what you think I say
five:yep,same also with rogue/cleric and my point is that talking about multiclass in class comparison isn’t the normal example of fair discussion
First: yeah, cleric doesn’t have many damage spells, but they have channel Divinity and if you want damage you can choose light or war for your domain. However, damage isn’t everything and clerics have better healing and support spells.
third(you say thirth?): 1d8 extra dmg per turn is arguably the best option (war domain channel Divinity adds 10 to an attack roll, which is stronger). And I was comparing the subclasses at level 3, not in all. Later, war domain gets the ability to use its channel Divinity on Allies, an extra 1d8 (2d8 at lvl 14) damage on every attack, and resistance to the 3 most common damage types in the game. Which seems better now?
fourth: no, I was just saying that your statement is wrong and saying the opposite of it. So yes, there are certain well rolled and built rangers that can defeat certain bad rolled and built clerics in certain situations.
fifth: I agree that we shouldn’t use multiclasses (though cleric is a great dip), but medium armor is better for cleric/rogues unless you have 20 dex. Ranger/druids can‘t wear metal armor.
You do, in fact, seem rather uninformed. Also, did you notice my previous comment? PLEASE USE SPACES WHEN YOU TYPE.
first:my whole point is the fact that the one who started this debate said:”is there anything a ranger can do what a cleric can’t do better”so for start damage.
third:still hunter ranger,because you aren’t sticked to one choice from the moment you choose the subclass.and I think horde breaker,the anti-opportunity attack feature(forgot the name),whirlwind and stand against the tide is a great combination for moving over the battlefield,adding one extra attack per turn and many bend enemy opportunity attacks to whirlwind.you can hit each character in range of moving your total speed with enemies per 5 feet.if there are everywhere 4 enemies and youuse the full 30 feet in a direct line you hit at least six enemies each two times + one time .which means thirteen attacks per turn + two attacks for every other enemy in a five feet radius from any point were you stood in the turn.that best that semi-rage on allies by far unless you use it on an entire army instead of your party
fourth:you can’t opposit a statement and start with “yes”.linguistically and juridically that is twisting someones words.
fifth:this isn’t about dips or something,so shut up on this point
sure,the one that thinks temporary 1d8 damage for allies and +10 hit chance for the character,using all uses of the functions until a long rest, is better than all features of the ranger,including mass attacks and halving enemy damage is the well informed
and I USE SPACES BETWEEN WHAT I SAY, SEE THE SPACES BETWEEN FIRST AND THIRD AND THIRD AND FOURTH AND FOURTH AND FIFTH AND FIFTH AND THE POINT ABOUT BEING INFORMED AND THE POINT ABOUT BEING INFORMED AND THIS,BECAUSE THAT ARE FIVE LINES,IF YOU MEAN BETWEEN THE WORDS,LOOK IMBECILE.BEFORE YOU ASK MY CAPSLOCK ISN’T STUCK.see!AND OF COURSE I NOTICED BECAUSE I LITERALLY QUOTED IT!!!.MOST TIMES I READ BEFORE REACTING,YOU SEEM TO DO NOT
First: agreed, clerics don’t have as good damage
Third: cleric also has much more flexibility in subclass choice than ranger, as ranger has only one good subclass in PHB and cleric has 7, all focused on different things.
Fourth: I just copied your statement, I’m sorry if I offended you.
Fifth: I know, I was just pointing out that cleric dips are better for rangers than Druid dips.
Sixth: War domain is actually one of the worst PHB cleric domains. Light domain gets fireball in addition to healing and defending other party members. Also, I wasn’t the one who originally said that cleric subclasses are better than ranger subclasses, and I think it depends on the subclass. For example, maybe none of the PHB domains are as good as hunter, but a few subclasses from other sources, such as Peace domain or twilight domain, are better than any ranger subclass. Sadly we’re only looking at PHB.
I meant spaces after commas, periods, and colons. If you look at your mostly capitalized rant above, you will see that almost none of your punctuation has spaces after it.
When comparing you do sort of need to compare “apples to apples” not “oranges”. That means war, light and life domain clerics are out and you’re comparing the PHB ranger to a nature domain cleric so that all the pieces line up - nature skills, spell casting , martial abilities. Similarly you have to compare the ranger to any other class that has taken at least one of survival and nature and preferably both. The only class/subclasses that can do that are the Druid, the PHB rogue doesn’t have those skills available. The reason the PHB ranger felt weak to many is that by the style of play at the table(s) they neutered one third of the character- the third that made it unique. Take away social interactions and the bard is suddenly a useless class, take away melee combat and the Paladin, fighter and barbarian become much less effective, cut all casters down to half casting and magic no longer rules the table. Even with that table nerf the ranger with just their martial and casting abilities turns out to be a very strong classs. Not quite as strong a martial as fighter/barbarian/Paladin but just a slight notch below and definitely above even the clerics and Druids in pure martial ability. Being a half caster with limited spell selection meant that the full casters were clearly better at magic but the ranger’s magic was good enough - especially at higher levels- to make them effective casters. The combination of effective combat and magic made them a much stronger class than many folks gave them credit for being. Even after Xanther’s and the scout rogue came out these arguments held up as while the scout was superior to the ranger in (the neutered) exploration skills (something it really shouldn’t have been) it didn’t have the magic or the pure martial abilities to match. Tasha’s options for the ranger basically shook off the exploration leg while slightly improving the martial and moderately improving the magical abilities of rangers. With ODD we have sort of come full circle - the ranger can now choose to take full expertise in nature and survival bringing them back to being the best at the exploration leg. Only the scoutvrogue can match them and the scout doesn’t have the magic or martial abilities rendering it weaker overall. At the same time the ranger doesn’t have to choose nature and survival as skills or for their expertise and can focus elsewhere with those potentially strengthening its abilities elsewhere. It’s one weakness is it’s inability to use primal evocation spells which as a primal martial Gish should be it’s gotos. I can see the possibility of optional rules (as opposed to the house rules I’m sure will/are happening)allowing the ranger class to choose the class of spells they get turning the ranger class into a true Gish class with the exploration leg still being available for those table/players that want it. In many respects the ranger is actually the strongest class but building it on standard array is an auto nerf as it is always a MAD build to do right- you need Dex, Wis, and Con to start and then, depending on the build your after, either strength or Charisma of 13+ and you are only going to get that without totally nerfing the other stats by rolling.
tracking,navigation through hard and favored terrain,fight,survive attacks,nature spells,sense enemies and a few other things like hitting with an attack!!!
a cleric is just a paladin that uses more spells instead of fighting,a ranger is a druid that can fight good.also cleric subclassses include extra spells, where the beast masters gives assistance with a pet and the hunter has many fighting skills.
the only two things in which a cleric bests the ranger are godly magic and privileges being high in religious ranks,but even in the last rangers are strong too,since ranger are like the special police agency.
You said godly magic. That’s 75% of the cleric. Support, healing, damage, utility. The ranger only has damage. They’d have similar AC, and the other class features of cleric are much better than ranger.
But really, let’s just stop fighting. I do not think the class features of ranger are bad, they just apply in very few circumstances and campaigns. I believe that Tasha’s ranger is better mainly because of the optional features’ broad uses.
yes,that is at least 75% of the cleric,but I mean it works other(other kind of spells) than mage,bard or nature magic.I don’t know many cleric spells that can deal damage to every kind of enemy,most are against evil or undead.ranger also has features that help tracking,getting through hard terrain and sense an enemy(I repeat every kind of enemy)also I was talking about hit points, but ranger uses scale armor much and proficiency with all weapons.and seriously which other functions that don’t are against undead and evil does a cleric have?! .also “much better than ranger”without explanation and comparisation is subjective
first,I wouldn’t call it a fight.I try to keep it a normal discussion.second:you repeat what you say all the time,but my point is that they are in much more than a “very few” circumstances useful.third:this is very near to literally saying:”I am right,here is what I say all the time,it is a compromise and now we stop”you can’t stop without at least saying you understand I don’t think the same,even worse you make it sound like a compromise or something I think too.fourth:I think phb is better than tashas,because the roleplay idea of the functions is destroyed and because it is just to easy to have functions apllying to every last thing.for example;if you have mountain as favored terrain and the quickest route to the enemy is through forest,you can hire a guide and be frustrated oryou can guide your party to the enemy through the mountains.you don’t need to discuss with your dm,also because that needs you to have the same dm and campaign and only use your character in there,you can just be inventive
The thing, the PHB Ranger has several of their class abilities that are extremely dependent on the DM running the game in certain way in order to be useful...a way that is often only appealing to those who are playing a Ranger. Pay attention to WildBill's scenarios a few posts back that show how Rangers can be awesome...the vast majority of those I'd only ever do in order to make a Ranger feel useful. If they had no Ranger, those obstacles wouldn't be there. Nobody really wants to mess about counting rations at my table, nobody wants to listen to my wax lyrical about the different kinds of mushrooms, and the elk trail might add flavour...but most of my players just want to get on with the story. Get from A to B, maybe have an encounter with wolves or yetis or owlbears or something...then arrive. If there isn't a Ranger, I'll gloss over it.
Which is is the bummer part of the class. I have to provide challenges for the party that I wouldn't otherwise provide. Most classes are a positive to the group - Clerics mean less resources devoted to healing, Barbarians mean the party gets a mobile wall to put up in front of the casters, and so forth. Rangers effectively mean more challenges, and therefore the risk of failure. They're the only class that actively introduce problems - other classes may cause issues by padding numbers without pulling their weight, but Rangers have parts of their class that will actively make the campaign harder.
I can do that in-depth wilderness part of the game, and I can make it fun, but most of my players are just not interested - including the Rangers. If you enjoy that aspect of play, then great for you. For my table, and from what I've heard I daresay most tables, they're just voids in the class that I either have to fill with homebrew, just ignore or make the campaign be more punishing to justify them.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
One of the problems with discussions like this is the lack of consideration for time and place. When we examine the PHB ranger to other classes we often make the mistake of comparing it to later subclasses that didn’t exist when it was written - like the scout rogue ( the nature cleric was a PHB option). In comparison to the other PHB classes it holds its own quite well. Yes the nature cleric can take 1 of the 3 nature skills but the ranger typically gets 2 so it’s still ahead. In fact, because the PHB ranger was so strong folks wanted to duplicate it in other classes and that is where the problems began. The scout rogue came out n Xanther granting the scout full expertise in nature and survival overshadowing the ranger’s abilities and suddenly the ranger was substantially weaker because he scout was Made too powerful. Had it been granted a choice of nature or survival without expertise ( until later levels when the rogue could use one of its later expertises) we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion. Tasha’s replaced the now outclassed features with some combat improvements but should have simply granted the ranger two base expertises to use ( if desired) for nature and survival which would have brought it back to being on par or superior. The ODD ranger is effectively superior to the ODD scout rogue because of its 2 attacks, fighting style and spell abilities which is where it should be.
The PHB ranger was arguably better than a nature cleric as a GISH/martial character (granted that as a pure caster the cleric was better- simply by virtue of being a full caster not a half caster), there was no other similar role class/subclass to compare it to initially. It was a multiclass as a single class - 90% of a fighter, 50% of a rogue and 30% of a Druid (no wildshape but a possible animal companion) which combined made it in many ways better than any character type. Today we are back to that with the ODD ranger. As a DM I’ve had all the rangers in my campaign upgrade to ODD ( or as close to it as DDB let’s us get).
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
This is not what i’m saying. I‘m not comparing it to subclasses, I’m comparing it to the base PHB classes, which it is not even close to power-wise. The features are only useful in a small number of scenarios, many of which take away from other players’ fun. Skills hardly matter, and scout isn’t even in OD&D. And you’re saying Tasha’s ranger is bad? It is completely superior to PHB ranger.
first:he said “what a CLERIC can’t do better”
second:rangers have advantage in favored,they can track everywhere.
thirth:navigating and guiding isn’t just finding clean food and water,also finding safe places,finding water and food at all,because the spell is just purification,findin a good route through hard terrain and evading danger.doing every a ranger can do in favored terrain better than the ranger with cleric,costs so much spells you can’t do anything at all when encountering enemies ,if it is possible.think about the roman expeditions to parthia and arabia,or the persian against kush,surving and moving was so hard that they were partially literal trampled by the parthians,arabians and kushites.a ranger can do most things more than a few times.when a cleric, that isn’t so high level it can use tens of spells at the same time,navigates through a forest and is attacked he probaly dies or is stranded in the forest by lack of spell slots.a cleric can’t do the same(or like he said better) as a ranger altogether.a cleric out of spellslots falls down to weak cantrips with 1d8 as damage,the only in the turn most rangers do better.when spending all spell slots clerics can’t do much.the cleric only has cantrips and simple weapons left as options to do after using everything.there isn’t a last feature that isn’t expendable
fourth:I don’t say they don’t have all target spells,I only say a cleric can’t beat a ranger in damage and I meaned they just don’t have features that aren’t spellcasting,channel divinity,intervene or destroy undead.literally half of the base cleric features is against evil or undead.intervene is even worse than spellcasting in times it can be used,with low chance and one week waiting time.
fifth:I don’t think I am the misinformed or ignorant here
Sorry, if I’ve come into the conversation late.
I think one of the main problems with the 5E Ranger is well discussed - that being a lot of their abilities are too situational. To be fair, it is also a problem that has been well adjusted in subsequent Ranger re-designs. It is just that these changes need to be clearly put into the core rules rather than supplements.
The other problem, and I think why Rangers are often mistaken as weak, is largely because most of their best abilities are buried in the spell lists and many D&D fans still can’t see the Ranger as a spell casting Class. As such, they often just overlook the potency of some of these spells.
first:well I don’t think clerics have so much magic that is stronger than ranger
second:see one
three:I am not talking subclasses,because when talking subclasses a ranger has features unique,like the companion,so.
fourth:yes,there are certain,good rolled and built, clerics that can defeat certain,bad rolled and built, rangers in certain situations
fifth:seriously,multiclasses? it isn’t a cleric if it starts rogue,you can also outmagic a cleric by multiclassing with druid,a level 18 ranger with two levels druid is good by the way, or wizard.this is enormous bullshit.
First: absolutely not, cleric has higher level spells and gain Spell levels quicker, and cleric has cantrips and a better spell list.
Third: we’re talking about PHB stuff, right? Let’s compare hunter ranger(beast master is trash) to, say, war domain cleric. Hunter gets 1d8 extra damage per turn. War domain gets armor and weapon proficiency, 2 spells, an extra attack wis/LR, channel Divinity. Which one seems better?
fourth: yes, there are certain well rolled and built rangers that can defeat certain bad rolled and built clerics. (:
fifth: Druid/Ranger isn’t very good because the best armor you can wear is studded leather, and ranger/wizard isn’t good because you need 2 high stats
Also, you might want to consider using spaces when you type.
Only bit I will add to the Ranger/Cleric debate is that talking about ANY melee abilities, the Cleric is second once you reach level 5. Sure, toss out spells and the like, then head into a dungeon, cave, or other area where a LR is difficult/impossible to achieve and see which holds up better. Comparing classes whose roles are vastly different will always show a major tilt one way or the other, depending on which aspect you're looking at.
Also, Rangers are every bit as useful and good in the group as any other class. If you can't see it, well, don't play with folks who roll a Ranger. The entire "Oh only in THIS situation" doesn't fly, unless the Ranger picks poorly, or the DM plain out sucks. If there isn't a little something for every member of the party, the DM is a little slack.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Imagine ( and others), what I was/am saying is to be careful about the timing of comparisons. When the PHB came out (2014) the only 2 class/class+subclasses that were comparable to the ranger more or less were the nature cleric and the Druid. You could make a nature based rogue by using 2 of their 3 skill proficiencies but that meant sacrifing a lot. Because the exploration arm is so badly played/supported anything explorational/nature oriented is/was iffy/ situational at best ess u eye actually talked t your DM about the campaign and what terrains and enemies to take or used some intelligence to select based on your region ( sword cast north = forests and mountain terrains, humanoids gave you 2 ( really 3 as you know your win race and culture also) s you pick a common for the area species ( I typically TPK eves or humans) and either orcs or goblinoids whch ever was most common in that area (orcs near Waterdeep and Silverymoon, goblinoids if around Cormyr etc.) Beasts as a starting ranger then picking u others based on the PC’s history . Given that the ranger was significantly better than either the cleric or the Druid (strangely enough) since his class features gave him expertise in all but name with his chosen terrains and foes. The nature rogue was effectively no better even if he took nature and survival and used his initial expertises on both of them. Otherwise they were inferior in terms of skills as were the Druid and nature cleric that have no form of expertise. At spells especially nature spells, the Druid, as a full caster specialized in primal magic was the best with the nature cleric, also a full caster, in second with the ranger clearly in third place as a (not so poor) caster. Of course the fact that the ranger had spells made it far superior to the nature rogue which had none. Similarly while the ranger was limited to medium armor that still provided enough to keep them well defended in combat. Their martial abilities were pretty much the same as a fighter but more oriented to the striker role than the tank/nova damage roles and generally superior to the rogue’s combat abilities. All around a very formidable individual. In a three legged game they were the best at one leg and decent to superior at the other two. NOT a weak sister! That idea seems to have come in with Xanther’s and the scout rogue that instead of getting 4-5 ( counting 1 or 2 from the background selected) skills and 4 expertises now got 6-7 skills and 6 expertises render it clearly superior to the ranger in the expo,ration leg skill wise. The ranger really is/was still superior as both a martial and a spellcaster making it superior overall. If anything, what Tasha’s did was strengthen the ranger as a martial and caster while weakening it further as an explorer. What ODD has done is give it back parity in exploration with the scout rogue ( both can have expertise in stealth, nature, survival and one (+ for the rogue) other skill while keeping most of the Tasha’s combat improvements and adding a bit to its spell casting strength. The one drawback of the ODD ranger is that it doesn’t get access to the primal evocation spells that it really should have. ( For that I can always multiclass into sorceror for a level or three). The ranger was never actually weak but having the scout rogue overshadow it in the exploration leg where it (and the Druid) should have been king made it seem weak to those that ignored its casting and combat abilities. With ODD we see the ranger return to being the king of the wilderness as well as being improved as both a martial and a caster making it , again, a clearly superior adventurer.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
first:I mean damage magic that is stronger than ranger damage features
thirth:only in one dnd the 1d8 is the only option for hunter’s prey,the others are reaction and etra attack on near enemy.ranger hunter doesn’t have less proficiency or attacks than war domain cleric and also gets defense options to choose from two times and multiattack.so yes the hunter ranger is better.
fourth:no an average rolled ranger can defeat an average cleric.you just take my statement and switch ranger with cleric,and pretend it is what you think I say
five:yep,same also with rogue/cleric and my point is that talking about multiclass in class comparison isn’t the normal example of fair discussion
First: yeah, cleric doesn’t have many damage spells, but they have channel Divinity and if you want damage you can choose light or war for your domain. However, damage isn’t everything and clerics have better healing and support spells.
third(you say thirth?): 1d8 extra dmg per turn is arguably the best option (war domain channel Divinity adds 10 to an attack roll, which is stronger). And I was comparing the subclasses at level 3, not in all. Later, war domain gets the ability to use its channel Divinity on Allies, an extra 1d8 (2d8 at lvl 14) damage on every attack, and resistance to the 3 most common damage types in the game. Which seems better now?
fourth: no, I was just saying that your statement is wrong and saying the opposite of it. So yes, there are certain well rolled and built rangers that can defeat certain bad rolled and built clerics in certain situations.
fifth: I agree that we shouldn’t use multiclasses (though cleric is a great dip), but medium armor is better for cleric/rogues unless you have 20 dex. Ranger/druids can‘t wear metal armor.
You do, in fact, seem rather uninformed. Also, did you notice my previous comment? PLEASE USE SPACES WHEN YOU TYPE.
first:my whole point is the fact that the one who started this debate said:”is there anything a ranger can do what a cleric can’t do better”so for start damage.
third:still hunter ranger,because you aren’t sticked to one choice from the moment you choose the subclass.and I think horde breaker,the anti-opportunity attack feature(forgot the name),whirlwind and stand against the tide is a great combination for moving over the battlefield,adding one extra attack per turn and many bend enemy opportunity attacks to whirlwind.you can hit each character in range of moving your total speed with enemies per 5 feet.if there are everywhere 4 enemies and youuse the full 30 feet in a direct line you hit at least six enemies each two times + one time .which means thirteen attacks per turn + two attacks for every other enemy in a five feet radius from any point were you stood in the turn.that best that semi-rage on allies by far unless you use it on an entire army instead of your party
fourth:you can’t opposit a statement and start with “yes”.linguistically and juridically that is twisting someones words.
fifth:this isn’t about dips or something,so shut up on this point
sure,the one that thinks temporary 1d8 damage for allies and +10 hit chance for the character,using all uses of the functions until a long rest, is better than all features of the ranger,including mass attacks and halving enemy damage is the well informed
and I USE SPACES BETWEEN WHAT I SAY, SEE THE SPACES BETWEEN FIRST AND THIRD AND THIRD AND FOURTH AND FOURTH AND FIFTH AND FIFTH AND THE POINT ABOUT BEING INFORMED AND THE POINT ABOUT BEING INFORMED AND THIS,BECAUSE THAT ARE FIVE LINES,IF YOU MEAN BETWEEN THE WORDS,LOOK IMBECILE.BEFORE YOU ASK MY CAPSLOCK ISN’T STUCK.see!AND OF COURSE I NOTICED BECAUSE I LITERALLY QUOTED IT!!!.MOST TIMES I READ BEFORE REACTING,YOU SEEM TO DO NOT
First: agreed, clerics don’t have as good damage
Third: cleric also has much more flexibility in subclass choice than ranger, as ranger has only one good subclass in PHB and cleric has 7, all focused on different things.
Fourth: I just copied your statement, I’m sorry if I offended you.
Fifth: I know, I was just pointing out that cleric dips are better for rangers than Druid dips.
Sixth: War domain is actually one of the worst PHB cleric domains. Light domain gets fireball in addition to healing and defending other party members. Also, I wasn’t the one who originally said that cleric subclasses are better than ranger subclasses, and I think it depends on the subclass. For example, maybe none of the PHB domains are as good as hunter, but a few subclasses from other sources, such as Peace domain or twilight domain, are better than any ranger subclass. Sadly we’re only looking at PHB.
I meant spaces after commas, periods, and colons. If you look at your mostly capitalized rant above, you will see that almost none of your punctuation has spaces after it.
When comparing you do sort of need to compare “apples to apples” not “oranges”. That means war, light and life domain clerics are out and you’re comparing the PHB ranger to a nature domain cleric so that all the pieces line up - nature skills, spell casting , martial abilities. Similarly you have to compare the ranger to any other class that has taken at least one of survival and nature and preferably both. The only class/subclasses that can do that are the Druid, the PHB rogue doesn’t have those skills available. The reason the PHB ranger felt weak to many is that by the style of play at the table(s) they neutered one third of the character- the third that made it unique. Take away social interactions and the bard is suddenly a useless class, take away melee combat and the Paladin, fighter and barbarian become much less effective, cut all casters down to half casting and magic no longer rules the table. Even with that table nerf the ranger with just their martial and casting abilities turns out to be a very strong classs. Not quite as strong a martial as fighter/barbarian/Paladin but just a slight notch below and definitely above even the clerics and Druids in pure martial ability. Being a half caster with limited spell selection meant that the full casters were clearly better at magic but the ranger’s magic was good enough - especially at higher levels- to make them effective casters. The combination of effective combat and magic made them a much stronger class than many folks gave them credit for being. Even after Xanther’s and the scout rogue came out these arguments held up as while the scout was superior to the ranger in (the neutered) exploration skills (something it really shouldn’t have been) it didn’t have the magic or the pure martial abilities to match. Tasha’s options for the ranger basically shook off the exploration leg while slightly improving the martial and moderately improving the magical abilities of rangers. With ODD we have sort of come full circle - the ranger can now choose to take full expertise in nature and survival bringing them back to being the best at the exploration leg. Only the scoutvrogue can match them and the scout doesn’t have the magic or martial abilities rendering it weaker overall. At the same time the ranger doesn’t have to choose nature and survival as skills or for their expertise and can focus elsewhere with those potentially strengthening its abilities elsewhere. It’s one weakness is it’s inability to use primal evocation spells which as a primal martial Gish should be it’s gotos. I can see the possibility of optional rules (as opposed to the house rules I’m sure will/are happening)allowing the ranger class to choose the class of spells they get turning the ranger class into a true Gish class with the exploration leg still being available for those table/players that want it. In many respects the ranger is actually the strongest class but building it on standard array is an auto nerf as it is always a MAD build to do right- you need Dex, Wis, and Con to start and then, depending on the build your after, either strength or Charisma of 13+ and you are only going to get that without totally nerfing the other stats by rolling.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I don’t want to keep arguing. Can we agree to disagree agree here? We obviously all have different opinions.