That's certainly one opinion. It brings up some good points to consider, but it should be remembered that damage isn't the "be all, end all" of viability. Ranger offers plenty of things that fighters and barbarians don't. Even Ranger damage isn't bad, especially in games that don't have feats that give fighters and barbarians lots of flat damage with GWM and/or PAM.
You probably won't regularly top the damage charts as a melee Ranger and probably only will with a AOE build on a ranged ranger, but you'll have plenty of other things that you can do to help out while not being a complete burden in the damage department.
Next, not all DMs will allow the revised Ranger, so find out if it's allowed from your DM before getting your hopes set on it. It isn't supported by DnDBeyond and will require homebrewing to approximate it on a DnDBeyond character sheet. It is more friendly towards damage, while retaining some Ranger feel.
My recommendation is to find out what the shortcomings of the Ranger are as well as the advantages and see if you can live with it all. The truth about the Ranger is somewhere between the pro- and anti-Ranger parties and having an informed expectation about what you are getting into will lead to the most enjoyable experience.
Recommendations about Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer: use general options for your level one choices unless you know what terrain or enemies you will be fighting. Getting a DM to give you some guidance on those choices, maybe narrowing the field to not include options that aren't present at all in the adventure can help. Otherwise, humanoids, especially goblins and orcs, are common enemies in many adventures as are beasts and undead. Forests, grasslands, coasts, and mountains are probably the most common terrains. You can add additional options as you level up to fit what the campaign has emphasized.
This is a late post, I'm aware. Chances are whichever campaign you were preparing for is done. But just to inform newer players, here's a word of advice:
Rangers themselves are not viable. You need to be in a specific location, fighting a specific type of monster, of a specific size and specific shape, to even have a chance of matching any other classes dpr. If one of those things are missing, your relevancy has been thrown out the window.
That being said, If you are playing a revised ranger, you are miles ahead of the game when it comes to your combat usefulness than the ordinary ranger. It takes out the guesswork, and puts in reliable ways to deal respectable damage over time.
The revised ranger is a very, very dead concept. TCoE's optional class features basically make everything you've said to this point completely moot. But while we are kicking the original ranger features, I want to point out that favored enemy and natural explorer did not offer a single combat benefit anyway and was all about information a traveling.
A ranger on their own, revised or not, won't compare to a barbarian in melee. A large portion of their spell list is devoted to your archery skills. That being said, If you want to opt for a melee build with a ranger feel, I would say put the majority of your levels in fighter. A fighter 11/ranger 9 would be a great build, but you can always sacrifice a level or two of ranger for more of what the fighter has to offer. My next piece of advice is to dual wield for more attacks. Two scimitars is the best you can do without the dual wielder feat.
Yeah, the ranger with Tasha's options feels very good to me. Nobody is ever going to try to fix Beast Master's core shortfalls, but I think that grabbing Expertise, improved speed, THP, and Exhaustion mitigation by giving up Natural Explorer suddenly shoots other Rangers (and indirectly.... Berserker/Ranger MCs are actually viable now!?) up quite a few power levels. "Favored Foe" is a little awkward, but is nice to fall back on instead of Hunter's Mark too, actually making Rangers feel more like utility casters since they don't have to learn that spell (but probably still should). And the additional spell choices are pretty good too, though I wish they'd gotten a few more that didn't check for a save DC, since so many rangers don't max their Wisdom as a primary caster.
I feel like on lower levels (1-8) rangers are fine. The problems come later on.
In certain adventures, the original natural explorer might be very usefull, especially earlier on. After playing 6 levels as a ranger in Out of the Abyss natural explorer (underdark) has been very usefull.
Other than tradition, I really don't see why barbarian and ranger are even different classes. Both are lightly armoured, martial warriors with a connection to the wild, granting proficiencies in survival and nature. Honestly, I think there should just be one class, that allows you to specialize in either strength weapon-based attacks, or dexterity/stealth as you level up.
The ranger sacrifices martial prowess for a really underwhelming set of spells. Just go with barbarian or rogue and roleplay the Bear Grylls angle.
Other than tradition, I really don't see why barbarian and ranger are even different classes. Both are lightly armoured, martial warriors with a connection to the wild, granting proficiencies in survival and nature. Honestly, I think there should just be one class, that allows you to specialize in either strength weapon-based attacks, or dexterity/stealth as you level up.
The ranger sacrifices martial prowess for a really underwhelming set of spells. Just go with barbarian or rogue and roleplay the Bear Grylls angle.
You and I have really different ideas about what makes a barbarian and what makes a Ranger. I've played a nature based barbarian and that wouldn't be close to the same concept I'd try to hit with a Ranger. That said there are many subclasses that have similar themes that you can use to scratch the itch that your character wants to be. A barbarian might be able to do that for one player, a scout rogue might be able to do it for another, and a Ranger might be able to do it for a third player. That says more about the player and their preferences than it does about the class and that's not to say anything derogatory about the player. Different people lean into different aspects of each class and that's what makes or breaks the experience for them.
I think melee works best with Hunter ranger and stuff like Horde Breaker where you can wade into a lot of creatures and attack mobs.
DEX melee works best as you cant get heavy armor so you are stuck with picking it up as a feat or dipping a level in fighter (which isnt a terrible idea to get an extra fighting style)
I think Hunter only works on Ranged builds, because it's too difficult/speculative to ensure that the battlefield is properly configured to get full value out of the melee Hunter's multiple attack options.
I think Hunter only works on Ranged builds, because it's too difficult/speculative to ensure that the battlefield is properly configured to get full value out of the melee Hunter's multiple attack options.
Horde breaker is definitely easier on a ranged ranger, but it's possible. Colossus Slayer is better from a usage standpoint as it's easier to ensure its availability. However, using chokepoints, control spells like Entangle, or other ways to control enemy movement can help to ensure horde breaker's usefulness. It requires that the party works together since Rangers can't reliably ensure some of that control, but it works in the favor of the party defensively and improves the efficiency of the party.
I think Hunter only works on Ranged builds, because it's too difficult/speculative to ensure that the battlefield is properly configured to get full value out of the melee Hunter's multiple attack options.
This is fair too...I think it works better with ranged.
Gloomstalker is the other one I think works really well for melee.
I think Hunter only works on Ranged builds, because it's too difficult/speculative to ensure that the battlefield is properly configured to get full value out of the melee Hunter's multiple attack options.
Hunter is far more useful in melee than you think. Multiattack Defense and others are very valuable and a lot more potent tanks than fighters in many cases.
This is a late post, I'm aware. Chances are whichever campaign you were preparing for is done. But just to inform newer players, here's a word of advice:
Rangers themselves are not viable. You need to be in a specific location, fighting a specific type of monster, of a specific size and specific shape, to even have a chance of matching any other classes dpr. If one of those things are missing, your relevancy has been thrown out the window.
That being said, If you are playing a revised ranger, you are miles ahead of the game when it comes to your combat usefulness than the ordinary ranger. It takes out the guesswork, and puts in reliable ways to deal respectable damage over time.
The revised ranger is a very, very dead concept. TCoE's optional class features basically make everything you've said to this point completely moot. But while we are kicking the original ranger features, I want to point out that favored enemy and natural explorer did not offer a single combat benefit anyway and was all about information a traveling.
A ranger on their own, revised or not, won't compare to a barbarian in melee. A large portion of their spell list is devoted to your archery skills. That being said, If you want to opt for a melee build with a ranger feel, I would say put the majority of your levels in fighter. A fighter 11/ranger 9 would be a great build, but you can always sacrifice a level or two of ranger for more of what the fighter has to offer. My next piece of advice is to dual wield for more attacks. Two scimitars is the best you can do without the dual wielder feat.
Tl;dr there are not that many spells that require archery.
That said, fighter levels and dual wielding isn't a bad idea for melee builds, and was probably mentioned over the years.
… until level 20, and Foe Slayer - which is one of the single most potent Level 20 abilities in the game, adding 25-50% damage output. It just sucks you have to wait to level 20.
A quick homebrew could be giving it at earlier levels - it’s tied to Wisdom, so there’s some potential there.
Is that satire? You think a level 20 feature that adds +5 damage or +5 to hit once per turn, IF it's against a limited number of creature types, is one of the most potent capstones?
It certainly has some use for a Sharpshooter or GWM build to ensure an attack lands, but I would not really say it comes close to the percentages you're throwing out there.
Is that satire? You think a level 20 feature that adds +5 damage or +5 to hit once per turn, IF it's against a limited number of creature types, is one of the most potent capstones?
It certainly has some use for a Sharpshooter or GWM build to ensure an attack lands, but I would not really say it comes close to the percentages you're throwing out there.
A 25% increased hit chance or a flat +5 damage is pretty potent. Combined with max dex and proficiency bonus, the bonus to hit is +16 and archery fighting style can push that to +18. +11 can hit a 15 on a 4 or greater. Being able to add the +5 on a 2 or 3 after the roll adds whatever damage the weapon can deal, the dex bonus, likely hunters mark and whatever else the ranger might have. With sharpshooter, that includes the +10. Anything better is getting the +5. This assumes that you have max wisdom. It's even better against higher ACs.
It is only on one attack per each of your turns and only against your Favored enemies or whatever is marked by your Favored Foe. Still that includes the options you choose at 1st, 6th, and 14th levels. That should give a good base to allow for frequent application. It can be saved for a second attack (or third or fourth, depending on horde breaker and two weapon fighting) to maximize the increase by ensuring that the +5 damage only is applied to the final attack of each turn and applying it to any miss otherwise.
It's a capstone though. They're supposed to be good. You could take out the "favored" restrictions entirely and it still would be about middle of the pack as capstones go.
Also, assuming a Ranger maxes wisdom is a big assumption. The opportunity cost there shouldn't be understated.
It's a capstone though. They're supposed to be good. You could take out the "favored" restrictions entirely and it still would be about middle of the pack as capstones go.
Also, assuming a Ranger maxes wisdom is a big assumption. The opportunity cost there shouldn't be understated.
Getting a 16/16 or a 17/15 on dex and wisdom is easier than ever and maxing both still leaves an ASI for a feat like Sharpshooter. There's no guarantee for sure, and getting a +3 or +4 isn't as nice, but both are achievable if more feats are needed.
Is that satire? You think a level 20 feature that adds +5 damage or +5 to hit once per turn, IF it's against a limited number of creature types, is one of the most potent capstones?
It certainly has some use for a Sharpshooter or GWM build to ensure an attack lands, but I would not really say it comes close to the percentages you're throwing out there.
I did up a spreadsheet and analyzed it with all the probabilities. It absolutely adds 25-50% output on overall damage vs Favored Enemies.
That's certainly one opinion. It brings up some good points to consider, but it should be remembered that damage isn't the "be all, end all" of viability. Ranger offers plenty of things that fighters and barbarians don't. Even Ranger damage isn't bad, especially in games that don't have feats that give fighters and barbarians lots of flat damage with GWM and/or PAM.
You probably won't regularly top the damage charts as a melee Ranger and probably only will with a AOE build on a ranged ranger, but you'll have plenty of other things that you can do to help out while not being a complete burden in the damage department.
Next, not all DMs will allow the revised Ranger, so find out if it's allowed from your DM before getting your hopes set on it. It isn't supported by DnDBeyond and will require homebrewing to approximate it on a DnDBeyond character sheet. It is more friendly towards damage, while retaining some Ranger feel.
My recommendation is to find out what the shortcomings of the Ranger are as well as the advantages and see if you can live with it all. The truth about the Ranger is somewhere between the pro- and anti-Ranger parties and having an informed expectation about what you are getting into will lead to the most enjoyable experience.
Recommendations about Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer: use general options for your level one choices unless you know what terrain or enemies you will be fighting. Getting a DM to give you some guidance on those choices, maybe narrowing the field to not include options that aren't present at all in the adventure can help. Otherwise, humanoids, especially goblins and orcs, are common enemies in many adventures as are beasts and undead. Forests, grasslands, coasts, and mountains are probably the most common terrains. You can add additional options as you level up to fit what the campaign has emphasized.
The revised ranger is a very, very dead concept. TCoE's optional class features basically make everything you've said to this point completely moot. But while we are kicking the original ranger features, I want to point out that favored enemy and natural explorer did not offer a single combat benefit anyway and was all about information a traveling.
As for spells, absorb elements, Ensnaring strike, Hunter's mark, Zephyr strike, spike growth, wind wall, steel wind strike, and wrath of nature (8 out of 14 damaging spells) don't involve arrows. And conjure barrage and conjure volley can be cast with a thrown melee weapon. Leaving 3 spells (not counting swift quiver so it isn't a complete list) that absolutely require arrows and 1 spell that only requires the ammunition, not the attack.
Tl;dr there are not that many spells that require archery.
That said, fighter levels and dual wielding isn't a bad idea for melee builds, and was probably mentioned over the years.
Yeah, the ranger with Tasha's options feels very good to me. Nobody is ever going to try to fix Beast Master's core shortfalls, but I think that grabbing Expertise, improved speed, THP, and Exhaustion mitigation by giving up Natural Explorer suddenly shoots other Rangers (and indirectly.... Berserker/Ranger MCs are actually viable now!?) up quite a few power levels. "Favored Foe" is a little awkward, but is nice to fall back on instead of Hunter's Mark too, actually making Rangers feel more like utility casters since they don't have to learn that spell (but probably still should). And the additional spell choices are pretty good too, though I wish they'd gotten a few more that didn't check for a save DC, since so many rangers don't max their Wisdom as a primary caster.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I feel like on lower levels (1-8) rangers are fine. The problems come later on.
In certain adventures, the original natural explorer might be very usefull, especially earlier on. After playing 6 levels as a ranger in Out of the Abyss natural explorer (underdark) has been very usefull.
Other than tradition, I really don't see why barbarian and ranger are even different classes. Both are lightly armoured, martial warriors with a connection to the wild, granting proficiencies in survival and nature. Honestly, I think there should just be one class, that allows you to specialize in either strength weapon-based attacks, or dexterity/stealth as you level up.
The ranger sacrifices martial prowess for a really underwhelming set of spells. Just go with barbarian or rogue and roleplay the Bear Grylls angle.
You and I have really different ideas about what makes a barbarian and what makes a Ranger. I've played a nature based barbarian and that wouldn't be close to the same concept I'd try to hit with a Ranger. That said there are many subclasses that have similar themes that you can use to scratch the itch that your character wants to be. A barbarian might be able to do that for one player, a scout rogue might be able to do it for another, and a Ranger might be able to do it for a third player. That says more about the player and their preferences than it does about the class and that's not to say anything derogatory about the player. Different people lean into different aspects of each class and that's what makes or breaks the experience for them.
Kinda back to the original question....
I think melee works best with Hunter ranger and stuff like Horde Breaker where you can wade into a lot of creatures and attack mobs.
DEX melee works best as you cant get heavy armor so you are stuck with picking it up as a feat or dipping a level in fighter (which isnt a terrible idea to get an extra fighting style)
I think Hunter only works on Ranged builds, because it's too difficult/speculative to ensure that the battlefield is properly configured to get full value out of the melee Hunter's multiple attack options.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Horde breaker is definitely easier on a ranged ranger, but it's possible. Colossus Slayer is better from a usage standpoint as it's easier to ensure its availability. However, using chokepoints, control spells like Entangle, or other ways to control enemy movement can help to ensure horde breaker's usefulness. It requires that the party works together since Rangers can't reliably ensure some of that control, but it works in the favor of the party defensively and improves the efficiency of the party.
This is fair too...I think it works better with ranged.
Gloomstalker is the other one I think works really well for melee.
Hunter is far more useful in melee than you think. Multiattack Defense and others are very valuable and a lot more potent tanks than fighters in many cases.
… until level 20, and Foe Slayer - which is one of the single most potent Level 20 abilities in the game, adding 25-50% damage output. It just sucks you have to wait to level 20.
A quick homebrew could be giving it at earlier levels - it’s tied to Wisdom, so there’s some potential there.
Is that satire? You think a level 20 feature that adds +5 damage or +5 to hit once per turn, IF it's against a limited number of creature types, is one of the most potent capstones?
It certainly has some use for a Sharpshooter or GWM build to ensure an attack lands, but I would not really say it comes close to the percentages you're throwing out there.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Yeah... I'm not sold on Foe Slayer myself.
I think I would rather suggest levels of fighter myself as battlemaster adds a lot to the build. Especially for melee.
A 25% increased hit chance or a flat +5 damage is pretty potent. Combined with max dex and proficiency bonus, the bonus to hit is +16 and archery fighting style can push that to +18. +11 can hit a 15 on a 4 or greater. Being able to add the +5 on a 2 or 3 after the roll adds whatever damage the weapon can deal, the dex bonus, likely hunters mark and whatever else the ranger might have. With sharpshooter, that includes the +10. Anything better is getting the +5. This assumes that you have max wisdom. It's even better against higher ACs.
It is only on one attack per each of your turns and only against your Favored enemies or whatever is marked by your Favored Foe. Still that includes the options you choose at 1st, 6th, and 14th levels. That should give a good base to allow for frequent application. It can be saved for a second attack (or third or fourth, depending on horde breaker and two weapon fighting) to maximize the increase by ensuring that the +5 damage only is applied to the final attack of each turn and applying it to any miss otherwise.
It's a capstone though. They're supposed to be good. You could take out the "favored" restrictions entirely and it still would be about middle of the pack as capstones go.
Also, assuming a Ranger maxes wisdom is a big assumption. The opportunity cost there shouldn't be understated.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Getting a 16/16 or a 17/15 on dex and wisdom is easier than ever and maxing both still leaves an ASI for a feat like Sharpshooter. There's no guarantee for sure, and getting a +3 or +4 isn't as nice, but both are achievable if more feats are needed.
I did up a spreadsheet and analyzed it with all the probabilities. It absolutely adds 25-50% output on overall damage vs Favored Enemies.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rGG3NrOCUEQmQs1_03_iFdL-K0nOfekqvooyclGvxVg