I really like the idea of a nature-themed warrior, who tracks, hunts and lives on the outskirts of society, but rangers seem kinda lackluster. There are a few different ways to flavor Barbarians or Monks to have a connection to nature. I like rangers for their RP aspects, but it just isn't very much fun being the weakest link at the table. Is there a way to create a melee ranger that is competitive with either the raw damage output of a barbarian or the support (stun locking mostly) of a monk?
So are you talking builds without multiclassing? I am not sure why you would not just play a barbarian or monk and grab a couple levels of ranger for the flavor. You would gain a fighting style, possibly an extra d8 damage with Colossus Slayer, and a few handy spells. It might not land on every board as an uber build but it would certainly be plenty viable.
I think you are mistaken about the Ranger's ability to keep up in the damage department. Rangers may have some issues, but being able to be a competitive damage dealer is not one of them. What really makes you think that they are noncompetitive?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
So are you talking builds without multiclassing? I am not sure why you would not just play a barbarian or monk and grab a couple levels of ranger for the flavor. You would gain a fighting style, possibly an extra d8 damage with Colossus Slayer, and a few handy spells. It might not land on every board as an uber build but it would certainly be plenty viable.
Well, would you look at that, an embarrassingly obvious solution lol... Any ideas what a Monk/Ranger build would look like? I'm imagining a Kensei monk focused on a spear or dual hatchets for a woodsman type vibe. I dont know.
I think you are mistaken about the Ranger's ability to keep up in the damage department. Rangers may have some issues, but being able to be a competitive damage dealer is not one of them. What really makes you think that they are noncompetitive?
All I know is that the Ranger I played with complained, like a lot, but I'm not too familiar with all of the game's mechanics. I'm still a noob; who has played less than a dozen games. I probably should've mentioned that earlier.
Was the ranger you played with before a beast master? They kind of stink. Rangers do have other issues, a lot of their class features are pretty poorly designed imo. That said, rangers can shell out decent damage if that's all you care about. I'd not hesitate to play a melee ranger and really rather doubt that I would feel I was the weak link in the party. My DM's GF played a ranger in one of our games a while back, and she was a murder machine. She went with the Hunter archetype and was making it rain with D8 damage rolls using colossus slayer. I don't think she even bothered with hunter's mark. I'd personally consider a variant human with Polearm Master and a glaive or halberd. I'd probably not bother with hunter's mark either, and hunter atchetype. I don't think that you'd find damage is a problem. You might get frustrated with other aspects of the ranger such as favored enemy, terrain and the like, but I dont think you'll ever think "man, my damage bites"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
One of my friends played a melee ranger in our last game - I believe he went with the Hunter archetype, and he used two whips as his primary weapons. (He was strongly inspired by Trevor Belmont from Castlevania.) My friend is a consummate min-maxer so he was able to get some grody damage output even with the less-than-optimal weapon choice.
I'm playing a monk/ranger in our current game who is melee-based; currently I have only two levels in ranger, so I haven't picked an archetype yet, but I plan to go with Horizon Walker. I picked the Duelist fighting style to get that boost to damage with my short sword will still allowing me to have a free hand for my Martial Arts/Flurry of Blows bonus attacks. He's been a pretty effective combatant so far!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"We're the perfect combination of expendable and unkillable!"
Everyone always mentions Colossus slayer for Hunter type rangers - and if you do a lot of fights against 1 enemy it's great - but I personally prefer Horde Breaker. A free extra attack is nothing to sneeze at, and if you want to be a melee ranger it's even more potent. Particularly if you use a glaive or whip to get the Reach property.
also, look at the gloomstalker subclass from XGtE. Extra initiative bonus, big ol pile of first turn damage, it's a hoot. Also, barbarians are pure damage machines, out of combat, they don't have a whole lot to offer.
Characters are more than how good they kill things!
make sure you take a dip into rogue and get 3 lvls and assassin. Team that with colossus slayer, if you can go first in every round you are getting advantage, but you get that also if the enemy is within 5 ft of your friend.
make sure you take a dip into rogue and get 3 lvls and assassin. Team that with colossus slayer, if you can go first in every round you are getting advantage, but you get that also if the enemy is within 5 ft of your friend.
No, you don't. You can get your sneak attack damage, but you don't get advantage.
The base ranger is lackluster, so it is very dependant on its subclass. The hunter and gloom stalker have decent damage. The beast master is a trap, it is very inefficient in combat.
If you just want a nature-y fighter, might I recommend a fighter with 3 levels rogue for scout? You will get free expertise in survival and nature, plus the normal rogue stuff.
So are you talking builds without multiclassing? I am not sure why you would not just play a barbarian or monk and grab a couple levels of ranger for the flavor. You would gain a fighting style, possibly an extra d8 damage with Colossus Slayer, and a few handy spells. It might not land on every board as an uber build but it would certainly be plenty viable.
Well, would you look at that, an embarrassingly obvious solution lol... Any ideas what a Monk/Ranger build would look like? I'm imagining a Kensei monk focused on a spear or dual hatchets for a woodsman type vibe. I dont know.
There are plenty of different ways to take it. I made what I call my Legolas build which was a elven kensai monk 12/hunter ranger 4/scout rogue 4. Start with 5 levels of monk then dive into ranger then rogue then finish with monk. Eventually you will be doing 1d8+5 with longsword or longbow plus the ability to increase either to a +3 magic bonus, add 1d8 for Colossus Slayer, a 1d6 for Hunter's Mark and 2d6 for sneak attack. In addition, you can do a stunning blow with your longsword, run across water or thin tree limbs, and have a whole host of other abilities. I think it would be fun but I doubt you would be owning combat.
A barbarian ranger would probably hit a lot harder. Try a totem barbarian 16/hunter ranger 4. Talk about a great theme! You are looking at swinging a great axe using great weapon master for 1d12 +19 before any magic or other effects. For this build I think I would go with horde breaker. You will get much more bang for your buck out that that extra attack plus if you toss a critical hit (or drop a creature to 0hp) then you can use your bonus action for yet another attack (that's up to 4 attacks). With the right magic items I think only the paladin would be out damaging you.
So are you talking builds without multiclassing? I am not sure why you would not just play a barbarian or monk and grab a couple levels of ranger for the flavor. You would gain a fighting style, possibly an extra d8 damage with Colossus Slayer, and a few handy spells. It might not land on every board as an uber build but it would certainly be plenty viable.
Well, would you look at that, an embarrassingly obvious solution lol... Any ideas what a Monk/Ranger build would look like? I'm imagining a Kensei monk focused on a spear or dual hatchets for a woodsman type vibe. I dont know.
I think you are mistaken about the Ranger's ability to keep up in the damage department. Rangers may have some issues, but being able to be a competitive damage dealer is not one of them. What really makes you think that they are noncompetitive?
All I know is that the Ranger I played with complained, like a lot, but I'm not too familiar with all of the game's mechanics. I'm still a noob; who has played less than a dozen games. I probably should've mentioned that earlier.
What I have learned from my years of D&D DMing is if you want to be a good damage dealer or character at all, don't multiclass into Ranger or Monk at all.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I can't say I agree with that at all. Rangers do nice damage when put together nicely. The problem with rangers is that beastmaster gives them a bad name. Archery rangers in particular can be very, very nasty customers, and I would strongly consider ranger 5/Rogue X as a multi-class, particularly as an archer.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I can't say I agree with that at all. Rangers do nice damage when put together nicely. The problem with rangers is that beastmaster gives them a bad name. Archery rangers in particular can be very, very nasty customers, and I would strongly consider ranger 5/Rogue X as a multi-class, particularly as an archer.
Yes, but the guy above said he'd never MC ranger for damage. I think that's a mistake. A ranger MC into rogue could be quite good as well for the same reason: colossus slayer and extra attack play nicely with sneak attack. You can risk hunter's mark as well, but if you take a hit, you can lose conc. That's the main reason why I think archers work better as damage dealers. You give up a bit of sneak attack damage for more opportunities to land sneak attack. I'd make that trade.
That said, if I were building a ranger, I'd be building a RANGER, not a MC. I'd probably go variant human with polearm master and a glaive or halberd, then take hunter for colossus slayer. The damage on it's going to be extremely competitive with most melee characters.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I meant, if you start out as a rogue, stay a rogue, don't multiclass into a ranger or monk, there's not much you can gain from it, it is better to stay as a rogue, or paladin, or whatever class you started as.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I really like the idea of a nature-themed warrior, who tracks, hunts and lives on the outskirts of society, but rangers seem kinda lackluster. There are a few different ways to flavor Barbarians or Monks to have a connection to nature. I like rangers for their RP aspects, but it just isn't very much fun being the weakest link at the table. Is there a way to create a melee ranger that is competitive with either the raw damage output of a barbarian or the support (stun locking mostly) of a monk?
So are you talking builds without multiclassing? I am not sure why you would not just play a barbarian or monk and grab a couple levels of ranger for the flavor. You would gain a fighting style, possibly an extra d8 damage with Colossus Slayer, and a few handy spells. It might not land on every board as an uber build but it would certainly be plenty viable.
Current Characters I am playing: Dr Konstantin van Wulf | Taegen Willowrun | Mad Magnar
Check out my homebrew: Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Feats
I think you are mistaken about the Ranger's ability to keep up in the damage department. Rangers may have some issues, but being able to be a competitive damage dealer is not one of them. What really makes you think that they are noncompetitive?
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Well, would you look at that, an embarrassingly obvious solution lol... Any ideas what a Monk/Ranger build would look like? I'm imagining a Kensei monk focused on a spear or dual hatchets for a woodsman type vibe. I dont know.
All I know is that the Ranger I played with complained, like a lot, but I'm not too familiar with all of the game's mechanics. I'm still a noob; who has played less than a dozen games. I probably should've mentioned that earlier.
Was the ranger you played with before a beast master? They kind of stink. Rangers do have other issues, a lot of their class features are pretty poorly designed imo. That said, rangers can shell out decent damage if that's all you care about. I'd not hesitate to play a melee ranger and really rather doubt that I would feel I was the weak link in the party. My DM's GF played a ranger in one of our games a while back, and she was a murder machine. She went with the Hunter archetype and was making it rain with D8 damage rolls using colossus slayer. I don't think she even bothered with hunter's mark. I'd personally consider a variant human with Polearm Master and a glaive or halberd. I'd probably not bother with hunter's mark either, and hunter atchetype. I don't think that you'd find damage is a problem. You might get frustrated with other aspects of the ranger such as favored enemy, terrain and the like, but I dont think you'll ever think "man, my damage bites"
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
One of my friends played a melee ranger in our last game - I believe he went with the Hunter archetype, and he used two whips as his primary weapons. (He was strongly inspired by Trevor Belmont from Castlevania.) My friend is a consummate min-maxer so he was able to get some grody damage output even with the less-than-optimal weapon choice.
I'm playing a monk/ranger in our current game who is melee-based; currently I have only two levels in ranger, so I haven't picked an archetype yet, but I plan to go with Horizon Walker. I picked the Duelist fighting style to get that boost to damage with my short sword will still allowing me to have a free hand for my Martial Arts/Flurry of Blows bonus attacks. He's been a pretty effective combatant so far!
"We're the perfect combination of expendable and unkillable!"
Everyone always mentions Colossus slayer for Hunter type rangers - and if you do a lot of fights against 1 enemy it's great - but I personally prefer Horde Breaker. A free extra attack is nothing to sneeze at, and if you want to be a melee ranger it's even more potent. Particularly if you use a glaive or whip to get the Reach property.
also, look at the gloomstalker subclass from XGtE. Extra initiative bonus, big ol pile of first turn damage, it's a hoot. Also, barbarians are pure damage machines, out of combat, they don't have a whole lot to offer.
Characters are more than how good they kill things!
make sure you take a dip into rogue and get 3 lvls and assassin. Team that with colossus slayer, if you can go first in every round you are getting advantage, but you get that also if the enemy is within 5 ft of your friend.
No, you don't. You can get your sneak attack damage, but you don't get advantage.
The base ranger is lackluster, so it is very dependant on its subclass. The hunter and gloom stalker have decent damage. The beast master is a trap, it is very inefficient in combat.
If you just want a nature-y fighter, might I recommend a fighter with 3 levels rogue for scout? You will get free expertise in survival and nature, plus the normal rogue stuff.
There are plenty of different ways to take it. I made what I call my Legolas build which was a elven kensai monk 12/hunter ranger 4/scout rogue 4. Start with 5 levels of monk then dive into ranger then rogue then finish with monk. Eventually you will be doing 1d8+5 with longsword or longbow plus the ability to increase either to a +3 magic bonus, add 1d8 for Colossus Slayer, a 1d6 for Hunter's Mark and 2d6 for sneak attack. In addition, you can do a stunning blow with your longsword, run across water or thin tree limbs, and have a whole host of other abilities. I think it would be fun but I doubt you would be owning combat.
A barbarian ranger would probably hit a lot harder. Try a totem barbarian 16/hunter ranger 4. Talk about a great theme! You are looking at swinging a great axe using great weapon master for 1d12 +19 before any magic or other effects. For this build I think I would go with horde breaker. You will get much more bang for your buck out that that extra attack plus if you toss a critical hit (or drop a creature to 0hp) then you can use your bonus action for yet another attack (that's up to 4 attacks). With the right magic items I think only the paladin would be out damaging you.
Current Characters I am playing: Dr Konstantin van Wulf | Taegen Willowrun | Mad Magnar
Check out my homebrew: Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Feats
I am going to start simple:
what tier (level groupings) will your campaign be at?
it does you NO good to give you level 20 designs and builds and end games. If your campaign only runs level 1-8.
Blank
What I have learned from my years of D&D DMing is if you want to be a good damage dealer or character at all, don't multiclass into Ranger or Monk at all.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I can't say I agree with that at all. Rangers do nice damage when put together nicely. The problem with rangers is that beastmaster gives them a bad name. Archery rangers in particular can be very, very nasty customers, and I would strongly consider ranger 5/Rogue X as a multi-class, particularly as an archer.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
He wanted a Melee ranger.
Blank
Yes, but the guy above said he'd never MC ranger for damage. I think that's a mistake. A ranger MC into rogue could be quite good as well for the same reason: colossus slayer and extra attack play nicely with sneak attack. You can risk hunter's mark as well, but if you take a hit, you can lose conc. That's the main reason why I think archers work better as damage dealers. You give up a bit of sneak attack damage for more opportunities to land sneak attack. I'd make that trade.
That said, if I were building a ranger, I'd be building a RANGER, not a MC. I'd probably go variant human with polearm master and a glaive or halberd, then take hunter for colossus slayer. The damage on it's going to be extremely competitive with most melee characters.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I meant, if you start out as a rogue, stay a rogue, don't multiclass into a ranger or monk, there's not much you can gain from it, it is better to stay as a rogue, or paladin, or whatever class you started as.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
If you go ranger up till 6 then hit rogue 3 you will deal massive damage 40+ Around
Paladins, barbarians, fighters, and most spellcasters can do much more at lower levels.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms