I think you would be better off picking up CBE instead of maxing WIS....as you can use your handcrossbow up close!
or picking up something that would help with maintaining concentration as Ranger has a lot of spells that rely on concentration and if you are going to be in melee.
Rangers get ASI/Feats at: 4, 8, 12, 16, 19
ASI at 4 and 8 are generally for getting Dex to 20 (Or picking up Sharpshooter/CBE if ranged build or another feat for melee)
12 is sharpshooter/CBE if ranged, feat for melee build? or DEX max
16 is where you would start to increase wisdom but I think that you would be better off with Resilient CON as you can keep up spells like Conjure Animals, Guardian of Nature longer with a better save. Those spells would be awesome for a melee based ranger so I think you get better value here as you have this benefit for more time.
19 would be your last shot to increase WIS which may not be a bad call at this point but you might get a better value out of another feat.
I think you would be better off picking up CBE instead of maxing WIS....as you can use your handcrossbow up close!
or picking up something that would help with maintaining concentration as Ranger has a lot of spells that rely on concentration and if you are going to be in melee.
Rangers get ASI/Feats at: 4, 8, 12, 16, 19
ASI at 4 and 8 are generally for getting Dex to 20 (Or picking up Sharpshooter/CBE if ranged build or another feat for melee)
12 is sharpshooter/CBE if ranged, feat for melee build? or DEX max
16 is where you would start to increase wisdom but I think that you would be better off with Resilient CON as you can keep up spells like Conjure Animals, Guardian of Nature longer with a better save. Those spells would be awesome for a melee based ranger so I think you get better value here as you have this benefit for more time.
19 would be your last shot to increase WIS which may not be a bad call at this point but you might get a better value out of another feat.
It's all about your preferences. If you want to max foe slayer and spells like Healing Spirit, then maxing wisdom is preferable.
It's not often a great concern because people are smitten with damage and campaigns don't often go to 20. If people want to play a support role, they default to bard, cleric, or wizard, and maybe consider a sorcerer, druid or warlock.
Ranger seems like it's a bit more of a gishy flavored class, and gish subclasses are often maligned because they should be able to cast or attack, but being able to both well would mean that many people would just play those and never go to a full martial. Paladin gets a pass because it had great single target damage and it's always on abilities are useful in combat and its easily compatible with PAM and GWM. Ranger was designed with exploration and multiple target attacks in mind, and those are aspects of the game that many players eschew. Ranger is easily compatible with Sharpshooter, but a Rogue or Fighter gets flashier combat bonuses than Ranger and the perceived bonuses to those classes are weighted as greater than the perceived bonuses from Ranger. Thus, Ranger gets maligned like EK, Sword Bard, or any other non Paladin gishy build that doesn't offer a SAD enabling ability like Hexblade or Battlesmith. Shillelagh doesn't count since it's a cantrip, had been limited to Druid for a long time (the exceptions being classes that would key off of charisma instead of wisdom), and its limited to making a melee weapon a d8 and only allowing two different types of weapons. Ranger has too many things working against it to get the free pass as a class that many other gishy subclasses get.
Fair enough...depends on what you want the melee to do to...damage, control, or a mix.
Spells that require a save (Entangle) you would be better off with a higher WIS too.
Yes. Entangle was a lovely addition that Tasha provided the Ranger kit. It's better on a druid thanks to their better spell slot progression, but having the option is nice. I think that many players just prefer doing damage to offering support unless they are in one of those support classes and that's the reason why many Rangers eschew Wisdom. If Foe Slayer were earlier in the progression, I think maxing Wisdom would be a higher priority as they'd get more usage out of it, depending on where it landed.
Fair enough...depends on what you want the melee to do to...damage, control, or a mix.
Spells that require a save (Entangle) you would be better off with a higher WIS too.
Yes. Entangle was a lovely addition that Tasha provided the Ranger kit. It's better on a druid thanks to their better spell slot progression, but having the option is nice. I think that many players just prefer doing damage to offering support unless they are in one of those support classes and that's the reason why many Rangers eschew Wisdom. If Foe Slayer were earlier in the progression, I think maxing Wisdom would be a higher priority as they'd get more usage out of it, depending on where it landed.
Yeah I liked the adds I think they add a lot to the tool kit.
I really don't know where you're coming from with that.
Things in the Ranger's toolkit that synergize with two weapon fighting:
Two Weapon Fighting style is one of the styles they can pick
Hunter's Mark is a spell on the Ranger Spell List, which provides bonus damage for every hit in a turn
Things in the Ranger's toolkit that conflict with two weapon fighting:
About half of the ranger subclasses require using your Bonus Action to enact your level 3 feature (but not Fey Wanderer, Gloom Stalker, Hunter, Swarmkeeper), competing with TWF action economy
All of the subclass level 3 damage features only apply on one hit/turn, so additional TWF hits provides no synergy
The ranger capstone only applies to one hit/turn, so TWF provides no synergy
Casting Hunter's Mark is a Bonus Action, competing with TWF action economy
The Favored Foe ranger variant option only applies to one hit/turn, so TWF provides no synergy
Rangers wear medium armor, which provides AC no higher than light armor unless you use a shield.
Rangers have Shield proficiency.
Other classes, like Rogue, Paladin, or Battlemaster Fighter, care far more about landing multiple hits, or having many attacks so as to guarantee at least one hit, because they have special damage sources or maneuvers that they need to pin to an attack. Ranger has no particular reason to favor three attacks over two, other than the exact same cost/benefit analysis that every other martial class generally faces. Ranger gets no special abilities within its kit that make TWF any easier than any other class finds it either (no extra weapon draws, for example). If anything, if a Ranger plays as a ranged/melee hybrid who might want to occasionally switch from bow to melee... TWF is much harder to do that with than a polearm would be.
I really don't know where you're coming from with that.
Things in the Ranger's toolkit that synergize with two weapon fighting:
Two Weapon Fighting style is one of the styles they can pick
Hunter's Mark is a spell on the Ranger Spell List, which provides bonus damage for every hit in a turn
Things in the Ranger's toolkit that conflict with two weapon fighting:
About half of the ranger subclasses require using your Bonus Action to enact your level 3 feature (but not Fey Wanderer, Gloom Stalker, Hunter, Swarmkeeper), competing with TWF action economy
All of the subclass level 3 damage features only apply on one hit/turn, so additional TWF hits provides no synergy
The ranger capstone only applies to one hit/turn, so TWF provides no synergy
Casting Hunter's Mark is a Bonus Action, competing with TWF action economy
The Favored Foe ranger variant option only applies to one hit/turn, so TWF provides no synergy
Rangers wear medium armor, which provides AC no higher than light armor unless you use a shield.
Rangers have Shield proficiency.
Other classes, like Rogue, Paladin, or Battlemaster Fighter, care far more about landing multiple hits, or having many attacks so as to guarantee at least one hit, because they have special damage sources or maneuvers that they need to pin to an attack. Ranger has no particular reason to favor three attacks over two, other than the exact same cost/benefit analysis that every other martial class generally faces. Ranger gets no special abilities within its kit that make TWF any easier than any other class finds it either (no extra weapon draws, for example). If anything, if a Ranger plays as a ranged/melee hybrid who might want to occasionally switch from bow to melee... TWF is much harder to do that with than a polearm would be.
1. They start with two shortswords on their loadout or two simple melee weapons
2. They get two weapon fighting but not great weapon fighting style.
3. Hunters Mark is the big one for me....its a signiture ability and while it does take a BA to cast/move it can last multiple fights thanks to the duration.
4. They are actively discouraged from STR builds due to lack of heavy armor options and the aforementioned lack of GWF so you are left with rapier (which they do not get as an option to start)
5. No shield to start or option to get a shield to start.
6. Quick build: You can make a ranger quickly by following these suggestions. First, make Dexterity your highest ability score, followed by Wisdom. (Some rangers who focus on two-weapon fighting make Strength higher than Dexterity.) Second, choose the outlander background.
I am not saying its a good idea...in fact I agree with you that dueling is probably the way to go. However its fairly clear that with early characters they are encouraging the TWF more in rangers with the options given to you early on and the suggestions they make.
The level 1 starting equipment has no meaningful significance towards how you should build your character beyond the first session of play.
Medium armor actively discourages Dexterity builds for melee Rangers. A ranger who is maxing their AC to use a ranged weapon, or finesse weapons, will have the same AC wearing light armor, with no disadvantage on Stealth checks. But also, Dex builds are not better or worse at TWF than Str builds, so I'm not sure I follow what that has to do with it?
A Dex 20 ranger, with one feat (Dual Wielder, which provides no +1 stat), wearing medium armor, has 18 AC. That would be 19 AC if they used their Shield instead.
A Str 20 ranger, with one feat (Heavily Armored, which provides +1 Str), wearing heavy armor, has 18 AC. That would 20 AC if they used their Shield instead.
A melee-only ranger SHOULD be a sword n' board user. A ranged/melee switch ranger SHOULD be a polearm/bow or sword/bow user. Two Weapon Fighting is a trap.
The level 1 starting equipment has no meaningful significance towards how you should build your character beyond the first session of play.
Medium armor actively discourages Dexterity builds for melee Rangers. A ranger who is maxing their AC to use a ranged weapon, or finesse weapons, will have the same AC wearing light armor, with no disadvantage on Stealth checks. But also, Dex builds are not better or worse at TWF than Str builds, so I'm not sure I follow what that has to do with it?
A Dex 20 ranger, with one feat (Dual Wielder, which provides no +1 stat), wearing medium armor, has 18 AC. That would be 19 AC if they used their Shield instead.
A Str 20 ranger, with one feat (Heavily Armored, which provides +1 Str), wearing heavy armor, has 18 AC. That would 20 AC if they used their Shield instead.
A melee-only ranger SHOULD be a sword n' board user. A ranged/melee switch ranger SHOULD be a polearm/bow or sword/bow user. Two Weapon Fighting is a trap.
Can't disagree with TWF being a trap. I agree
I do think they WANT you to pick TWF though as they hint at it and basically give you the set up at level 1 to build it that way. I agree you SHOULDN"T let that influence you but they do kinda push you in that direction.
The reason it matters is that Ranger does not have a good reason to start as STR build really at all due to its restrictions...but it can work if you want it to but your DEX will already need to be 14 so you will be MAD.
Overall if I went STR Ranger I would go with GWM instead of Sword/Board as you put out the same damage with DEX sword/board and only give up 1 AC. Instead you get better stealth, initiative, DEX saves, Acrobatics.....
Rapier + Shield + Dueling gives you the same as Longsword + Shield+ Dueling
You could do Polearm master and do spear/shield but as you stated your BA is already so stacked as a ranger its hard to justify.
Your spreadsheet is weird, but it does look thorough!
I went in with the idea that Foe Slayer was really bad, but I wanted to know the impact of a +5 to hit - and because you can decide *after* you roll, the +5 has a really good chance of converting a miss into a hit, which makes a huge difference. And if all else fails, you can use as +5 damage on your last hit.
The primary issues being - this class feature should come in a little earlier, because not many campaigns hit the 20th level.
It is highly affected by Sharpshooter and higher ACs, because the harder it is for you to hit, the better that +5 To hit comes in handy. So, if you wanted to build for this, definitely put effort into those Feats and stuff like Horde Breaker, anything that ups the number of attacks per round.
It feels dishonest for me to tear apart the dex-based dual wielder using a PAM str build, which still uses a bonus action attack... but PAM and strength are less feat intensive than dual wielder is, so the point stands, that TWF is the least effective way to build a melee ranger.
I'll be generous and assume you start with a 17 Dex, and 16 Wisdom. (In reality, your starting Wisdom as a Ranger is more likely 15 or 14 in favor of starting with higher constitution).
2: Two-Weapon Fighting style, while dual wielding short swords. Defense fighting style isn't even really an option, if you're intending to go into TWF. AC no more than 17.
4: Piercer +1 Dex, or ASI +1 Dex&Con (18 dex, 16 wisdom). You're still dual wielding short swords, with an AC of no more than 17.
8: ASI +2 Dex. You're still dual wielding short swords, with an AC of no more than 17
12: Dual Wielder. You're finally dual wielding rapiers, with an AC of 18.... but you're already in T3?
16: At this point in the game, Medium Armor Master hardly matters, +1 AC isn't going to make a difference against end-game monsters... but why not, AC 19 at last.
19: A final +2 Wisdom, since you're in spitting distance of your capstone and suddenly care more about it?
So you're left with, at level 20: AC 19, doing a base 1d8+5 x 3 (avg 29ish). The first round of combat casting Hunter's Mark, -1d8+5, but add an extra 1d6 on the other two attacks. And +4 from your capstone, I suppose. The subclasses vary too much to make a generalization about whether you then have a second setup round, or if you added 1d6 more on one attack that first round, but.... as a vanilla ranger, you're doing about 30-40 damage your first round of combat, and about 40-50 on following rounds. That's not striker damage.
Same assumptions for starting stats (but Str instead of Dex), building for PAM.
2: You wield a Spear and use a Shield if you care about style (you'll commit to spear at 12 with PAM), but a longsword if you're just looking for just low level efficiency. AC of probably 17 or 18, if you have 10 dex, depending on what the best mundane armor you've found is, and whether you're taking Dueling (+2 damage/hit) or Defensive (+1 AC) fighting style
4: Heavily Armored +1 Str (18 Str, 16 Wis). AC 21 with a Spear/Sword and Shield if Defensive, or 20 with Dueling.
8: ASI +2 Str (20 Str, 16 Wis).
12: PAM. You often still wield a Spear and use a Shield, but now can make 3 attacks/round (1d6, 1d6, 1d4). If you took Defensive style (but probably not if you took Dueling), you also start carrying a Pike for fights where you're willing to take -2 AC in favor of doing 1d10, 1d10, 1d4.
16: GWM, if you took Defensive fighting style. Unless you've got a good magic shield, AC is less important these days, probably more of a Pike guy. Wisdom +2 if you took Dueling?
19: Wisdom +2
So, if you went Defense fighting style at level 20 you're left with: AC 21 (which you've had since level 4), doing a base of 1d6+5 x 2 + 1d4+5 (avg. 25ish). Or drop the Shield, for AC 19 (which you've had since level 4, not level 16), doing a base of 1d10+5 x 2 +1d4 +5 (avg 29ish). The first round of combat casting Hunter's Mark, -1d4+5, but add an extra 1d6 to the other two attacks. +4 from a capstone (but more likely, +4 to hit on a GWM +10 damage swing). As a vanilla ranger, and using your GWM, you're doing 40-50ish the first round of combat and 60-70ish on subsequent rounds. That's striker damage AND you've had a realistic AC your whole life AND youre not constantly being harassed about whether you have a hand free to use material and somatic spell components. Dueling guy does probably more similar damage to the Dual Wielder, but again, has had AC 20 since like level 4 instead of 19 AC at 16.
Two-weapon fighting is bad, because it's too feat and fighting style intensive, and takes too long to build for. It's always bad, but sometimes that badness is outweighed by needing an extra bonus action attack but PAM isn't an option (i.e. Rogues). If you aren't a Rogue, I honestly can't think of a single situation where dual wielding is more in your favor than a Shield+PAM build would be. It's bad on a Fighter too, but at least Fighters start with Heavy Armor and don't have to fritter around with unlocking it or patching up Medium Armor Master + Dual Wielder to halfway salvage their AC.
Drizzt isn't a Ranger, he's a Fighter or Fighter/Rogue. Minsc uses a greatsword. Aragorn is a skilled outdoorsman and leader, but doesn't dual wield. Dual Wielding Rangers just aren't a thing, and I don't get what the pop culture reference is that makes people think they are supposed to be exceptionally suited for it.
For all the comments that say rangers are designed to be played a certain way, no they aren't. They are designed to have options, just like most other classes.
Some options are more optimal than others, bit optimization is not a design concern and far from defines a class.
I went in with the idea that Foe Slayer was really bad, but I wanted to know the impact of a +5 to hit - and because you can decide *after* you roll, the +5 has a really good chance of converting a miss into a hit, which makes a huge difference. And if all else fails, you can use as +5 damage on your last hit.
The primary issues being - this class feature should come in a little earlier, because not many campaigns hit the 20th level.
It is highly affected by Sharpshooter and higher ACs, because the harder it is for you to hit, the better that +5 To hit comes in handy. So, if you wanted to build for this, definitely put effort into those Feats and stuff like Horde Breaker, anything that ups the number of attacks per round.
So what you're saying is... Rangers make great Improvised Weapon Longbow Bash Sharpshooter + GWM users? :p
It feels dishonest for me to tear apart the dex-based dual wielder using a PAM str build, which still uses a bonus action attack... but PAM and strength are less feat intensive than dual wielder is, so the point stands, that TWF is the least effective way to build a melee ranger.
I'll be generous and assume you start with a 17 Dex, and 16 Wisdom. (In reality, your starting Wisdom as a Ranger is more likely 15 or 14 in favor of starting with higher constitution).
2: Two-Weapon Fighting style, while dual wielding short swords. Defense fighting style isn't even really an option, if you're intending to go into TWF. AC no more than 17.
4: Piercer +1 Dex, or ASI +1 Dex&Con (18 dex, 16 wisdom). You're still dual wielding short swords, with an AC of no more than 17.
8: ASI +2 Dex. You're still dual wielding short swords, with an AC of no more than 17
12: Dual Wielder. You're finally dual wielding rapiers, with an AC of 18.... but you're already in T3?
16: At this point in the game, Medium Armor Master hardly matters, +1 AC isn't going to make a difference against end-game monsters... but why not, AC 19 at last.
19: A final +2 Wisdom, since you're in spitting distance of your capstone and suddenly care more about it?
So you're left with, at level 20: AC 19, doing a base 1d8+5 x 3 (avg 29ish). The first round of combat casting Hunter's Mark, -1d8+5, but add an extra 1d6 on the other two attacks. And +4 from your capstone, I suppose. The subclasses vary too much to make a generalization about whether you then have a second setup round, or if you added 1d6 more on one attack that first round, but.... as a vanilla ranger, you're doing about 30-40 damage your first round of combat, and about 40-50 on following rounds. That's not striker damage.
Same assumptions for starting stats (but Str instead of Dex), building for PAM.
2: You wield a Spear and use a Shield if you care about style (you'll commit to spear at 12 with PAM), but a longsword if you're just looking for just low level efficiency. AC of probably 17 or 18, if you have 10 dex, depending on what the best mundane armor you've found is, and whether you're taking Dueling (+2 damage/hit) or Defensive (+1 AC) fighting style
4: Heavily Armored +1 Str (18 Str, 16 Wis). AC 21 with a Spear/Sword and Shield if Defensive, or 20 with Dueling.
8: ASI +2 Str (20 Str, 16 Wis).
12: PAM. You often still wield a Spear and use a Shield, but now can make 3 attacks/round (1d6, 1d6, 1d4). If you took Defensive style (but probably not if you took Dueling), you also start carrying a Pike for fights where you're willing to take -2 AC in favor of doing 1d10, 1d10, 1d4.
16: GWM, if you took Defensive fighting style. Unless you've got a good magic shield, AC is less important these days, probably more of a Pike guy. Wisdom +2 if you took Dueling?
19: Wisdom +2
So, if you went Defense fighting style at level 20 you're left with: AC 21 (which you've had since level 4), doing a base of 1d6+5 x 2 + 1d4+5 (avg. 25ish). Or drop the Shield, for AC 19 (which you've had since level 4, not level 16), doing a base of 1d10+5 x 2 +1d4 +5 (avg 29ish). The first round of combat casting Hunter's Mark, -1d4+5, but add an extra 1d6 to the other two attacks. +4 from a capstone (but more likely, +4 to hit on a GWM +10 damage swing). As a vanilla ranger, and using your GWM, you're doing 40-50ish the first round of combat and 60-70ish on subsequent rounds. That's striker damage AND you've had a realistic AC your whole life AND youre not constantly being harassed about whether you have a hand free to use material and somatic spell components. Dueling guy does probably more similar damage to the Dual Wielder, but again, has had AC 20 since like level 4 instead of 19 AC at 16.
Two-weapon fighting is bad, because it's too feat and fighting style intensive, and takes too long to build for. It's always bad, but sometimes that badness is outweighed by needing an extra bonus action attack but PAM isn't an option (i.e. Rogues). If you aren't a Rogue, I honestly can't think of a single situation where dual wielding is more in your favor than a Shield+PAM build would be. It's bad on a Fighter too, but at least Fighters start with Heavy Armor and don't have to fritter around with unlocking it or patching up Medium Armor Master + Dual Wielder to halfway salvage their AC.
Drizzt isn't a Ranger, he's a Fighter or Fighter/Rogue. Minsc uses a greatsword. Aragorn is a skilled outdoorsman and leader, but doesn't dual wield. Dual Wielding Rangers just aren't a thing, and I don't get what the pop culture reference is that makes people think they are supposed to be exceptionally suited for it.
A pike doesn't work with the bonus action attack of PAM, just the reaction attack. You'll want a halberd or glaive instead.
I'd probably eschew medium armor master at that point getting wisdom +2 or something to help with damage or control. I understand going with piercer for rapiers, but I might be more interested in scimitars for slasher and maybe even a club for Shillelagh/crusher shenanigans.
PAM/GWM is certainly the easy answer for damage but it starts leaving a bad taste in your mouth when every character starts to feel like the same as the last one. It's completely different because the last one was a half-orc barbarian and this one is a mountain dwarf Ranger, but it's exactly the same because I'm primarily using the same two feats.
That said, it's probably better to start with a good damage build and save the more eccentric builds for when you've got a little more experience. Still that has nothing to do with a build being viable or not.
Your spreadsheet is weird, but it does look thorough!
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I think you would be better off picking up CBE instead of maxing WIS....as you can use your handcrossbow up close!
or picking up something that would help with maintaining concentration as Ranger has a lot of spells that rely on concentration and if you are going to be in melee.
Rangers get ASI/Feats at: 4, 8, 12, 16, 19
ASI at 4 and 8 are generally for getting Dex to 20 (Or picking up Sharpshooter/CBE if ranged build or another feat for melee)
12 is sharpshooter/CBE if ranged, feat for melee build? or DEX max
16 is where you would start to increase wisdom but I think that you would be better off with Resilient CON as you can keep up spells like Conjure Animals, Guardian of Nature longer with a better save. Those spells would be awesome for a melee based ranger so I think you get better value here as you have this benefit for more time.
19 would be your last shot to increase WIS which may not be a bad call at this point but you might get a better value out of another feat.
It's all about your preferences. If you want to max foe slayer and spells like Healing Spirit, then maxing wisdom is preferable.
It's not often a great concern because people are smitten with damage and campaigns don't often go to 20. If people want to play a support role, they default to bard, cleric, or wizard, and maybe consider a sorcerer, druid or warlock.
Ranger seems like it's a bit more of a gishy flavored class, and gish subclasses are often maligned because they should be able to cast or attack, but being able to both well would mean that many people would just play those and never go to a full martial. Paladin gets a pass because it had great single target damage and it's always on abilities are useful in combat and its easily compatible with PAM and GWM. Ranger was designed with exploration and multiple target attacks in mind, and those are aspects of the game that many players eschew. Ranger is easily compatible with Sharpshooter, but a Rogue or Fighter gets flashier combat bonuses than Ranger and the perceived bonuses to those classes are weighted as greater than the perceived bonuses from Ranger. Thus, Ranger gets maligned like EK, Sword Bard, or any other non Paladin gishy build that doesn't offer a SAD enabling ability like Hexblade or Battlesmith. Shillelagh doesn't count since it's a cantrip, had been limited to Druid for a long time (the exceptions being classes that would key off of charisma instead of wisdom), and its limited to making a melee weapon a d8 and only allowing two different types of weapons. Ranger has too many things working against it to get the free pass as a class that many other gishy subclasses get.
Fair enough...depends on what you want the melee to do to...damage, control, or a mix.
Spells that require a save (Entangle) you would be better off with a higher WIS too.
Yes. Entangle was a lovely addition that Tasha provided the Ranger kit. It's better on a druid thanks to their better spell slot progression, but having the option is nice. I think that many players just prefer doing damage to offering support unless they are in one of those support classes and that's the reason why many Rangers eschew Wisdom. If Foe Slayer were earlier in the progression, I think maxing Wisdom would be a higher priority as they'd get more usage out of it, depending on where it landed.
Yeah I liked the adds I think they add a lot to the tool kit.
A two-weapon fighting Ranger is absolutely viable.
I actually feel like this is the "intended" route if that's a thing in 5e.... But I could be off.
Just seems like they encourage twf in ranger.
I really don't know where you're coming from with that.
Things in the Ranger's toolkit that synergize with two weapon fighting:
Things in the Ranger's toolkit that conflict with two weapon fighting:
Other classes, like Rogue, Paladin, or Battlemaster Fighter, care far more about landing multiple hits, or having many attacks so as to guarantee at least one hit, because they have special damage sources or maneuvers that they need to pin to an attack. Ranger has no particular reason to favor three attacks over two, other than the exact same cost/benefit analysis that every other martial class generally faces. Ranger gets no special abilities within its kit that make TWF any easier than any other class finds it either (no extra weapon draws, for example). If anything, if a Ranger plays as a ranged/melee hybrid who might want to occasionally switch from bow to melee... TWF is much harder to do that with than a polearm would be.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
1. They start with two shortswords on their loadout or two simple melee weapons
2. They get two weapon fighting but not great weapon fighting style.
3. Hunters Mark is the big one for me....its a signiture ability and while it does take a BA to cast/move it can last multiple fights thanks to the duration.
4. They are actively discouraged from STR builds due to lack of heavy armor options and the aforementioned lack of GWF so you are left with rapier (which they do not get as an option to start)
5. No shield to start or option to get a shield to start.
6. Quick build: You can make a ranger quickly by following these suggestions. First, make Dexterity your highest ability score, followed by Wisdom. (Some rangers who focus on two-weapon fighting make Strength higher than Dexterity.) Second, choose the outlander background.
I am not saying its a good idea...in fact I agree with you that dueling is probably the way to go. However its fairly clear that with early characters they are encouraging the TWF more in rangers with the options given to you early on and the suggestions they make.
The level 1 starting equipment has no meaningful significance towards how you should build your character beyond the first session of play.
Medium armor actively discourages Dexterity builds for melee Rangers. A ranger who is maxing their AC to use a ranged weapon, or finesse weapons, will have the same AC wearing light armor, with no disadvantage on Stealth checks. But also, Dex builds are not better or worse at TWF than Str builds, so I'm not sure I follow what that has to do with it?
A Dex 20 ranger, with one feat (Dual Wielder, which provides no +1 stat), wearing medium armor, has 18 AC. That would be 19 AC if they used their Shield instead.
A Str 20 ranger, with one feat (Heavily Armored, which provides +1 Str), wearing heavy armor, has 18 AC. That would 20 AC if they used their Shield instead.
A melee-only ranger SHOULD be a sword n' board user. A ranged/melee switch ranger SHOULD be a polearm/bow or sword/bow user. Two Weapon Fighting is a trap.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Can't disagree with TWF being a trap. I agree
I do think they WANT you to pick TWF though as they hint at it and basically give you the set up at level 1 to build it that way. I agree you SHOULDN"T let that influence you but they do kinda push you in that direction.
The reason it matters is that Ranger does not have a good reason to start as STR build really at all due to its restrictions...but it can work if you want it to but your DEX will already need to be 14 so you will be MAD.
Overall if I went STR Ranger I would go with GWM instead of Sword/Board as you put out the same damage with DEX sword/board and only give up 1 AC. Instead you get better stealth, initiative, DEX saves, Acrobatics.....
Rapier + Shield + Dueling gives you the same as Longsword + Shield+ Dueling
You could do Polearm master and do spear/shield but as you stated your BA is already so stacked as a ranger its hard to justify.
I went in with the idea that Foe Slayer was really bad, but I wanted to know the impact of a +5 to hit - and because you can decide *after* you roll, the +5 has a really good chance of converting a miss into a hit, which makes a huge difference. And if all else fails, you can use as +5 damage on your last hit.
The primary issues being - this class feature should come in a little earlier, because not many campaigns hit the 20th level.
It is highly affected by Sharpshooter and higher ACs, because the harder it is for you to hit, the better that +5 To hit comes in handy. So, if you wanted to build for this, definitely put effort into those Feats and stuff like Horde Breaker, anything that ups the number of attacks per round.
It feels dishonest for me to tear apart the dex-based dual wielder using a PAM str build, which still uses a bonus action attack... but PAM and strength are less feat intensive than dual wielder is, so the point stands, that TWF is the least effective way to build a melee ranger.
I'll be generous and assume you start with a 17 Dex, and 16 Wisdom. (In reality, your starting Wisdom as a Ranger is more likely 15 or 14 in favor of starting with higher constitution).
So you're left with, at level 20: AC 19, doing a base 1d8+5 x 3 (avg 29ish). The first round of combat casting Hunter's Mark, -1d8+5, but add an extra 1d6 on the other two attacks. And +4 from your capstone, I suppose. The subclasses vary too much to make a generalization about whether you then have a second setup round, or if you added 1d6 more on one attack that first round, but.... as a vanilla ranger, you're doing about 30-40 damage your first round of combat, and about 40-50 on following rounds. That's not striker damage.
Same assumptions for starting stats (but Str instead of Dex), building for PAM.
So, if you went Defense fighting style at level 20 you're left with: AC 21 (which you've had since level 4), doing a base of 1d6+5 x 2 + 1d4+5 (avg. 25ish). Or drop the Shield, for AC 19 (which you've had since level 4, not level 16), doing a base of 1d10+5 x 2 +1d4 +5 (avg 29ish). The first round of combat casting Hunter's Mark, -1d4+5, but add an extra 1d6 to the other two attacks. +4 from a capstone (but more likely, +4 to hit on a GWM +10 damage swing). As a vanilla ranger, and using your GWM, you're doing 40-50ish the first round of combat and 60-70ish on subsequent rounds. That's striker damage AND you've had a realistic AC your whole life AND youre not constantly being harassed about whether you have a hand free to use material and somatic spell components. Dueling guy does probably more similar damage to the Dual Wielder, but again, has had AC 20 since like level 4 instead of 19 AC at 16.
Two-weapon fighting is bad, because it's too feat and fighting style intensive, and takes too long to build for. It's always bad, but sometimes that badness is outweighed by needing an extra bonus action attack but PAM isn't an option (i.e. Rogues). If you aren't a Rogue, I honestly can't think of a single situation where dual wielding is more in your favor than a Shield+PAM build would be. It's bad on a Fighter too, but at least Fighters start with Heavy Armor and don't have to fritter around with unlocking it or patching up Medium Armor Master + Dual Wielder to halfway salvage their AC.
Drizzt isn't a Ranger, he's a Fighter or Fighter/Rogue. Minsc uses a greatsword. Aragorn is a skilled outdoorsman and leader, but doesn't dual wield. Dual Wielding Rangers just aren't a thing, and I don't get what the pop culture reference is that makes people think they are supposed to be exceptionally suited for it.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
For all the comments that say rangers are designed to be played a certain way, no they aren't. They are designed to have options, just like most other classes.
Some options are more optimal than others, bit optimization is not a design concern and far from defines a class.
That's fair.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Me either to be honest but I've seen quite a few... It's a cool look but I would rather do rapier+shield myself or great weapon.
PAM is a good build as you can usually reliably get your reaction attack too.
So what you're saying is... Rangers make great Improvised Weapon Longbow Bash Sharpshooter + GWM users? :p
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Here's my pick for STR melee ranger:
https://ddb.ac/characters/45147025/AFyYos
A pike doesn't work with the bonus action attack of PAM, just the reaction attack. You'll want a halberd or glaive instead.
I'd probably eschew medium armor master at that point getting wisdom +2 or something to help with damage or control. I understand going with piercer for rapiers, but I might be more interested in scimitars for slasher and maybe even a club for Shillelagh/crusher shenanigans.
PAM/GWM is certainly the easy answer for damage but it starts leaving a bad taste in your mouth when every character starts to feel like the same as the last one. It's completely different because the last one was a half-orc barbarian and this one is a mountain dwarf Ranger, but it's exactly the same because I'm primarily using the same two feats.
That said, it's probably better to start with a good damage build and save the more eccentric builds for when you've got a little more experience. Still that has nothing to do with a build being viable or not.