D&D 5E Melee Ranger Great Weapon Master

[Kobold Stew]

So I've been thinking about this question since I saw it posted last night, and I have the way *I* would make a melee ranger. Is it optimized? Absolutely not. Would it be fun? For me, yes. So thanks for the prompt.

Concept: a Wisdom-based melee ranger, using Shillelagh (partly because I personally dislike GWM and the -5/+10)

Stats: Alt Human, With Wisdom as the main stat, Dex at 14, Con as high as it can go; the rest to taste. Using the standard Array, that would give me 16 Wis, 14 Con, 14 Dex with a 12 10, 8 to be assigned. With point-buy, you could have 16/16/14, with 10/8/8. I'd probably just take 16/14/14/10/10/10.

Feat: The bonus feat would be Magic Initiate, Druid, which gives Shillelagh, another cantrip (Guidance, perhaps, or Produce Flame for a ranged attack), and a first-level spell (good spells in the druid list: Goodberry, Entangle, Healing Word, Longstrider etc.).

Fighting Style: Duelling gives +2 damage, so your 1-H Shillelagh attack does 1d8+5 magical bludgeoning damage. Eventually you'll wear a breastplate for AC 18 with a shield.

Dip?: I agree a 1-level fighter dip may be worthwhile. For this build, it gives the Con save (if taken first), Second Wind, and another fighting style. If I pursued this route, I would only do it if I had access to the Mariner fighting style from the Waterborne pdf (if allowed); AC with shield now 19, and you have a swim speed and a climb speed, which gives great maneuverability, and synergies if the spell taken was Longstrider.

Level 4: If your Shillelagh is empowering a quarterstaff being used 1-handed, you could increase the fun with Polearm Master (giving 1d8+5, 1d4+5 attacks), and extra opportunity attacks.

I think this this all works -- not super powerful, but I think it would be completely playable and fun.

 

[Zardnaar]

Looks like you are buying into my fighter level dip theory Mistwell.

You are more or less making a melee ranger how I would for what its worth. I saw something similar with a sword and board ranger and horde breaker.

One thing I have noticed is you can sometimes trip over bonus actioneconomy with thigns like moving hunters mark/hex tripping over things like cleave from GWM. Sentinel might be better in that regard IDK. You should be right as long as you do not go to overboard on bonus action stuff.
The fighter dip is very sexy on most gish builds IMHO unless you are a Paladin due to charisma to saves. Basically I think your build is nice and simple and on the right track. Faerie Fire over hunters mark could also work in some situations.

The heavy reliance on concentration saves (hex/hunters quarry) does tend to let 5E down for most of the gish classes and concepts and the fighter dip is a bit front loaded.

 

[Mistwell]

Looks like you are buying into my fighter level dip theory Mistwell.

Yes I am starting to see your point on that Zard.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yes I am starting to see your point on that Zard.

Yeah I figured out that the hard why. My 1st gish attempt with the default array was not so great due to MAD. The fighter level fixes that alongside rolling dice which can.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I don't think a platemail, twohanded sword guy with moderate dex is very rangery.

No stealth? No dual wield or bow? Seems more like a soldier/fighter to me. Why not play a fighter and take magic initiate to grab hunters mark?

 

[ExploderWizard]

If I was going to do this at all, then I would take a second level of fighter. Action surge is just too awesome to pass up for one more level.

 

[CapnZapp]

What I take away from this thread is that any two-handed melee ranger is really a fighter.

While that is okay from an in-game perspective (roll up a fighter with the Outlander background and go around calling yourself a ranger, and nobody will know the difference) it is less okay from a Character Builds & Optimization perspective, since it creates the (false) impression a good two-handed melee ranger can be had, when in reality nothing in particular is gained from choosing the ranger class and lots of the good stuff comes from multiclassing to/from fighter; indeed the thread title obscures the very fact that everything would gel so much better by simply choosing fighter with outdoorsy tendencies instead.

 

[Mistwell]

I don't think a platemail, twohanded sword guy with moderate dex is very rangery.

I understand. I disagree (and the class assumes sword and board in half-plate as one default by the way - why do you think they have proficiency with shield and Dueling as one of their four options to begin with?):

No stealth?

No stealth. Rangers get no bonus stealth abilities that I can recall. It's one skill they can choose, among many. It's not something built in as the expected default ranger. In fact they have proficiency with armor that gives disadvantage to stealth checks.

No dual wield or bow?

Correct. The default ranger assumes melee attacking with a single weapon as one potential default. That's why it has a sword and board choice right there in the primary description, and it's abilities all work with a single weapon. Dual wield and bow are other options, but I am working on a different one than those, and I think the ranger as written supports it. The only change really I am making is putting the shield down and holding the sword in two hands.

Seems more like a soldier/fighter to me. Why not play a fighter and take magic initiate to grab hunters mark?

It's more than hunter's mark. The primary point is making a melee ranger who attacks with a two handed weapon, and who is good against a horde (particularly a horde of their favored enemy). The "against a horde" elements mostly come from Ranger traits. Hunter's Mark helps as well, as do other Ranger spells at higher levels which also help with melee attacks and getting to your enemy and such.

What I take away from this thread is that any two-handed melee ranger is really a fighter.

While that is okay from an in-game perspective (roll up a fighter with the Outlander background and go around calling yourself a ranger, and nobody will know the difference) it is less okay from a Character Builds & Optimization perspective, since it creates the (false) impression a good two-handed melee ranger can be had, when in reality nothing in particular is gained from choosing the ranger class and lots of the good stuff comes from multiclassing to/from fighter; indeed the thread title obscures the very fact that everything would gel so much better by simply choosing fighter with outdoorsy tendencies instead.

I disagree. It takes only a single level of fighter. The only thing it's really getting from that is great weapon master. It gets some other things, but none of them are really part of the core concept here (half-plate is almost as good as full plate for instance, and not crucial for the concept; concentration saves being better does help - but it's helping to cast Ranger spells, so hardly a fighter concept). The core concept does however include being good against a horde, particularly a horde of your favored enemies. That's all Ranger.

 

[Barantor]

Why not go Oath of the Ancients for the 'nature' flare of ranger but get all the abilities that you are using the multiclass for fighter with? That way you get the two handed weapons, the heavy armor and some smites as well? I don't know if horde breaker is worth all this extra effort.

An Oath of the Ancients Paladin with Outlander background could get some of the same abilities and additional unique ones.

I've had more luck with a sword and board Ranger than trying to force a two handed weapon on them, once you can get the medium armor master feat it opens up stealth in medium armor and lets you have the equivalent of heavy armor bonuses without having the str requirement to wear it.

I made some premades for a one-shot I did for a group around a nature theme and one of the players loved the OotA paladin to the point that they want to start playing that in other games. Others with that group included a fey pact of the tome warlock with druid spells, a nature sphere cleric and a totem outlander barbarian.

Maybe instead of fighter you take paladin anyway? IMO it would require 3 levels of paladin, but it would end up with a pretty strong nature themed character that uses a lot of the Ranger utility and the Paladin heavy weapons.