So, what would be the most optimal strength based Ranger subclass?? Out of these two, i see potential in both just not sure. Any advice from people who have played them? I’m thinking either dual wielding Hunter. Or Duelist Monster slayer.
Monster Slayer needs their bonus action more so than Hunter...
My vote would be hunter. Strength based. Heavy weapon (halberd or great sword). Defense Fighting Style (AC will be the same as heavy armor or 1 point less, max). Hunter’s Mark. Colossus Slayer. Multi Attack Defense. Whirlwind Attack.
I know you said two weapon fighting, and that would work too. It’s a bit more swingy in terms of “consistent damage output” compared to a heavy weapon, but it technically has higher single target damage potential with a first turn setup.
I played a strength monster slayer ranger up to level 17 in a campaign. Because I needed the strength, constitution and some dexterity my wisdom was low so my DC for the monster slayer abilities was easy for enemies to succeed. Also I needed one round to cast hunters mark then a second round to cast the slayer ability to get extra damage. When an enemy died I needed two rounds to move my marks again.
I want to try the hunter ranger with the foe hunter variant from Tashas book. You can place foe hunter and colossus slayer on the same round and still have a bonus action.
So, what would be the most optimal strength based Ranger subclass?? Out of these two, i see potential in both just not sure. Any advice from people who have played them? I’m thinking either dual wielding Hunter. Or Duelist Monster slayer.
Monster Slayer needs their bonus action more so than Hunter...
idk. Just want opinions.
Why a strength build if not using a heavy weapon? A ranger can two weapon fight or wield a one handed d8 sword with either dexterity or strength. Are you wanting to use hand axes or focus on grappling?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, what would be the most optimal strength based Ranger subclass?? Out of these two, i see potential in both just not sure. Any advice from people who have played them? I’m thinking either dual wielding Hunter. Or Duelist Monster slayer.
Monster Slayer needs their bonus action more so than Hunter...
idk. Just want opinions.
My vote would be hunter. Strength based. Heavy weapon (halberd or great sword). Defense Fighting Style (AC will be the same as heavy armor or 1 point less, max). Hunter’s Mark. Colossus Slayer. Multi Attack Defense. Whirlwind Attack.
I know you said two weapon fighting, and that would work too. It’s a bit more swingy in terms of “consistent damage output” compared to a heavy weapon, but it technically has higher single target damage potential with a first turn setup.
I played a strength monster slayer ranger up to level 17 in a campaign. Because I needed the strength, constitution and some dexterity my wisdom was low so my DC for the monster slayer abilities was easy for enemies to succeed. Also I needed one round to cast hunters mark then a second round to cast the slayer ability to get extra damage. When an enemy died I needed two rounds to move my marks again.
I want to try the hunter ranger with the foe hunter variant from Tashas book. You can place foe hunter and colossus slayer on the same round and still have a bonus action.
Why a strength build if not using a heavy weapon? A ranger can two weapon fight or wield a one handed d8 sword with either dexterity or strength. Are you wanting to use hand axes or focus on grappling?