D&D 5E Party optimisation vs Character optimisation

[DaveDash]

Have everybody multiclass equal split, then go Fighter N/Wizard N.

Bounded accuracy should mean your skills remain relevant to a much higher degree than in any previous edition.

An Abjurer/Fighter would make for quite a tanky Fighter who, can self "heal", and be excellent at shutting down enemy casters.

 

[evilbob]

I definitely agree that the game isn't about damage. The trick with the ranger, though, is they have very little party synergy. Anything they can do, someone else can do better. A fighter does more damage - no question. (Even a paladin, I'm reasonably sure.) A cleric or druid can cover all the spell utility and some skills, and a rouge or bard can handle the remaining skill utility. They just don't do anything unique, and their lack of martial prowess is supposed to be covered by their spells, but their spells are flat awful - mostly because every single one that's any good (except conjure barrage and conjure volley) requires concentration. I was wondering if they actually did more damage than most classes and I was missing it, or otherwise did something to make them more party-friendly (other than scout ahead - like the rouge or nearly any other class with spells can do, except better). How would a ranger help if someone were swallowed, for example - or a meteor swarm was coming, or any of those other situations. What makes them special, if anything?

 

[CapnZapp]

An Abjurer/Fighter would make for quite a tanky Fighter who, can self "heal", and be excellent at shutting down enemy casters.

Sure.

My main point, though, is that in any campaign where ANY non-monster character MUST choose two classes and keep them at equal level should allow workable fighter-wizards.

The observation being that the ONLY thing preventing a Fighter 10/Wizard 10 build from being awesome is if you allow Wizard 20s in the same party

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I definitely agree that the game isn't about damage. The trick with the ranger, though, is they have very little party synergy. Anything they can do, someone else can do better. A fighter does more damage - no question. (Even a paladin, I'm reasonably sure.) A cleric or druid can cover all the spell utility and some skills, and a rouge or bard can handle the remaining skill utility. They just don't do anything unique

"Anything they can do, someone else [could have done] better" isn't really a problem in my opinion, since there is always an opportunity cost to anything. Yes, you could get Pass Without Trace with a druid instead of a ranger, but then you'd have weaker ranged damage and no access to Volley AoE effects. You'd have more healing/reincarnation spells (but not more Concentration) and less weapon damage (no Hunter's Mark, no Sharpshooter, no Horde Breaker). You decide for yourself which one you'd rather have, and either way it's a bit of an agonizing decision IMO, which means that WotC did rangers right. Every class has a little bit of something that makes you wish you had one around, but a party only has so many PCs in it...

In any case, the ranger's shtick is "3 attacks per round from level 5 onward, with Sharpshooter, and then at level 9 add a pack of wolves and then Volley for AoE". High-level rangers unfortunately don't add anything great so you'd probably want to multi-class after level 11 or so.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Sure.

My main point, though, is that in any campaign where ANY non-monster character MUST choose two classes and keep them at equal level should allow workable fighter-wizards.

The observation being that the ONLY thing preventing a Fighter 10/Wizard 10 build from being awesome is if you allow Wizard 20s in the same party

I've rolled some sets of stats that tempt me to make a Fighter 12/Necromancer 6/Warlock 2, which would probably be more fun than a Wizard 20, not just at the end but all through the lifecycle. You're extremely MAD which is why you have to roll good stats for it, but if I were going to make a solo character that's the one I would want to play.

 

[evilbob]

"Anything they can do, someone else [could have done] better"

I knew when I wrote it that sentence would get picked on, but I couldn't come up with a better way to phrase that. What I mean is: they can't do anything well. Any other character can outclass them. They suffer from the jack-of-all-trades problem something serious. Even taking all the things they can do into consideration, other classes can still outshine them in pretty much every way.

3 attacks at level 5 if you're dual wielding, or if two things are standing near each other and you're ranged and have horde breaker (or 4 attacks if you're dual wielding AND two things are standing near each other and you have horde breaker), all of which can add 1d6 to the damage from what is basically your only spell - yeah, that's pretty amazing! And then... that's it! As you said, other than conjure animal cheese and the occasional AoE (which any serious casting class would look at you and just say, "how cute," especially given your lack of spell slots), rangers just don't add anything. Sorry this is going sort of off-topic, but the most consistent praise I hear for the ranger is that they are great candidates for multiclassing. Anyway, just wanted to see if anyone with some high-level party tactical experience had any thoughts on a high-level straight-classed ranger. Sounds like no one has really given that a try.

 

[DaveDash]

I knew when I wrote it that sentence would get picked on, but I couldn't come up with a better way to phrase that. What I mean is: they can't do anything well. Any other character can outclass them. They suffer from the jack-of-all-trades problem something serious. Even taking all the things they can do into consideration, other classes can still outshine them in pretty much every way.

3 attacks at level 5 if you're dual wielding, or if two things are standing near each other and you're ranged and have horde breaker (or 4 attacks if you're dual wielding AND two things are standing near each other and you have horde breaker), all of which can add 1d6 to the damage from what is basically your only spell - yeah, that's pretty amazing! And then... that's it! As you said, other than conjure animal cheese and the occasional AoE (which any serious casting class would look at you and just say, "how cute," especially given your lack of spell slots), rangers just don't add anything. Sorry this is going sort of off-topic, but the most consistent praise I hear for the ranger is that they are great candidates for multiclassing. Anyway, just wanted to see if anyone with some high-level party tactical experience had any thoughts on a high-level straight-classed ranger. Sounds like no one has really given that a try.

You play the Ranger because you like being a bad arse with a bow and still be good at the exploration pillar of the game.

Rangers don't do better single target damage as a Fighter but they can do better AoE damage. They can also do as much damage with hunters mark + sharpshooter + a splash of Rogue, and in fact they're probably a strong candidate for a group optimisation build than having a Rogue in your party.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I knew when I wrote it that sentence would get picked on, but I couldn't come up with a better way to phrase that. What I mean is: they can't do anything well. Any other character can outclass them. They suffer from the jack-of-all-trades problem something serious. Even taking all the things they can do into consideration, other classes can still outshine them in pretty much every way.

3 attacks at level 5 if you're dual wielding, or if two things are standing near each other and you're ranged and have horde breaker (or 4 attacks if you're dual wielding AND two things are standing near each other and you have horde breaker), all of which can add 1d6 to the damage from what is basically your only spell - yeah, that's pretty amazing! And then... that's it! As you said, other than conjure animal cheese and the occasional AoE (which any serious casting class would look at you and just say, "how cute," especially given your lack of spell slots), rangers just don't add anything. Sorry this is going sort of off-topic, but the most consistent praise I hear for the ranger is that they are great candidates for multiclassing. Anyway, just wanted to see if anyone with some high-level party tactical experience had any thoughts on a high-level straight-classed ranger. Sounds like no one has really given that a try.

+4 to hit for 62.5 points of damage at 5th level isn't peanuts, especially at the cost of no resources except three arrows (15 copper pieces). However, you're right that the ranger is front-loaded with most of his good stuff early on, and in a game with multiclassing it is tempting to multiclass. Honestly I feel like most of the martial classes except the monk have this problem. Paladins get their signature ability at 6th level and from then on you kind of want to turn into a dragon sorcerer instead so you get more smiting and more versatile spells. At least in the paladin's case you have some neat higher-level spells to tempt you, but the ranger's high-level spells aren't that great. The ranger's 1st through 3rd level spells are fantastic though (and Elemental Evil adds Absorb Elements at 1st level) and I don't think Conjure Animals is cheese. Conjure Animals and Pass Without Trace are the reasons I might play a Ranger instead of an Eldritch Knight. Scratch those and it becomes hands-down-fighter-wins.

So, yeah, I sort of agree with you, at least about Ranger 20. But I would play a Ranger 9 without hesitation. (Ranger 9/Arcane Trickster 11 is tempting.) Would definitely like to hear from someone who has played a Ranger 20 for a while though.

 

[Celtavian]

+4 to hit for 62.5 points of damage at 5th level isn't peanuts, especially at the cost of no resources except three arrows (15 copper pieces). However, you're right that the ranger is front-loaded with most of his good stuff early on, and in a game with multiclassing it is tempting to multiclass. Honestly I feel like most of the martial classes except the monk have this problem. Paladins get their signature ability at 6th level and from then on you kind of want to turn into a dragon sorcerer instead so you get more smiting and more versatile spells. At least in the paladin's case you have some neat higher-level spells to tempt you, but the ranger's high-level spells aren't that great. The ranger's 1st through 3rd level spells are fantastic though (and Elemental Evil adds Absorb Elements at 1st level) and I don't think Conjure Animals is cheese. Conjure Animals and Pass Without Trace are the reasons I might play a Ranger instead of an Eldritch Knight. Scratch those and it becomes hands-down-fighter-wins.

So, yeah, I sort of agree with you, at least about Ranger 20. But I would play a Ranger 9 without hesitation. (Ranger 9/Arcane Trickster 11 is tempting.) Would definitely like to hear from someone who has played a Ranger 20 for a while though.

Doesn't the paladin smite ability only allow smiting with paladin spells?

 

[Celtavian]

Have everybody multiclass equal split, then go Fighter N/Wizard N.

Bounded accuracy should mean your skills remain relevant to a much higher degree than in any previous edition.

It still wouldn't be Anomander Rake. I'd have to do like the old days and make some stuff up after heavily researching his capabilities. Then I'd have to allow all the other players to make a crazy character. The worst part is I would have to run it because of the amount of work necessary to challenge characters that powerful. I don't have the desire as a DM to put that much work in.