It all started with early Everquest in game jabs at Rangers.
Where no raid could ever be considered completed without the obligatory call of "Ranger Down!!11!!" I was recruited to several to ensure the role was filled. My Ranger had a pair of wicked swords that had insane damage and speed, thus I would invariably draw aggro at some stage, and....Ranger in EQ were majorly squishy.
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.
I didn’t play video games back then (actually I don’t play them much today either) I know that rangers were not considered weak in 1e - 3.x e that idea only seems to have developed in 5e mostly post Xanthers.
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.
third:yes,but a ranger. hunter has optional features,standard ranger too
fourth:that is not copying that is twisting
fifth:that is subjective,so end it.
sixth:you started about war domain being superior to hunter
as long as you don’t stop twisting my words, I don’t want grammar correction from you
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.
third:yes,but a ranger. hunter has optional features,standard ranger too
fourth:that is not copying that is twisting
fifth:that is subjective,so end it.
sixth:you started about war domain being superior to hunter
as long as you don’t stop twisting my words, I don’t want grammar correction from you
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.
third:yes,but a ranger. hunter has optional features,standard ranger too
fourth:that is not copying that is twisting
fifth:that is subjective,so end it.
sixth:you started about war domain being superior to hunter
as long as you don’t stop twisting my words, I don’t want grammar correction from you
Sure. Now let’s compare MToF Shadar-Kai to MToF Eladrin. New debate. Eladrin’s teleport has short rest recharge, but Shadar-Kai has necrotic resistance. My vote is for Shadar-Kai. And please use better spacing out and punctuation this time.
You can’t force him to shut up, but you can just ignore him and move on, you wanted to agree to disagree I’m fine with that, your fine with that if he wants to keep posting let him as far as we should be concerned it’s a dead thread now.
Then can Betbadandbeyond stop arguing about a discussion we already closed?
stop saying we,linguistically,if you don’t explicitly include the second person and you speak of a third,you automatically include the third person when saying we.(I am the third,you first and wi something the second)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yes
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Yay!
#peacecleric
It all started with early Everquest in game jabs at Rangers.
Where no raid could ever be considered completed without the obligatory call of "Ranger Down!!11!!" I was recruited to several to ensure the role was filled. My Ranger had a pair of wicked swords that had insane damage and speed, thus I would invariably draw aggro at some stage, and....Ranger in EQ were majorly squishy.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I didn’t play video games back then (actually I don’t play them much today either) I know that rangers were not considered weak in 1e - 3.x e that idea only seems to have developed in 5e mostly post Xanthers.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
third:yes,but a ranger. hunter has optional features,standard ranger too
fourth:that is not copying that is twisting
fifth:that is subjective,so end it.
sixth:you started about war domain being superior to hunter
as long as you don’t stop twisting my words, I don’t want grammar correction from you
no,you literally agreed the statement you defended wasn’t right and I want your apologies about point four
a) He already did - "Fourth: I just copied your statement, I’m sorry if I offended you."
b) Really? Get over it, it's a debate on a forum
We closed this debate…
you,did I didn’t
Sure. Now let’s compare MToF Shadar-Kai to MToF Eladrin. New debate. Eladrin’s teleport has short rest recharge, but Shadar-Kai has necrotic resistance. My vote is for Shadar-Kai. And please use better spacing out and punctuation this time.
Please move it to a different thread
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Then can Betbadandbeyond stop arguing about a discussion we already closed?
You can’t force him to shut up, but you can just ignore him and move on, you wanted to agree to disagree I’m fine with that, your fine with that if he wants to keep posting let him as far as we should be concerned it’s a dead thread now.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Okay bye. I can hear you.
stop saying we,linguistically,if you don’t explicitly include the second person and you speak of a third,you automatically include the third person when saying we.(I am the third,you first and wi something the second)