D&D 5E What are your experiences playing paladins/rangers?

[WhosAChaoticGoodBoy]

Two-handed:
4d6 + 2d8 + 6
= 14 (average) + 9 (avg.) + 6
= 29

Ah, I see -- this brings up something I've always been curious about, which is why people calculate damage as averages instead of as ranges as I'd done. Are averages more indicative of 'experimental data'? Meanwhile, why are averages of d6s and d8s expressed as 3.5 and 4.5, respectively?

I think I understand the mathematical reasoning behind something like, say http://www.mathwords.com/e/expected_value.htm but it just 'feels' unintuitive.

 

[Chaosmancer]

So, a lot of talk about Paladins so I'll ignore it in favor of talking about Rangers.

Most of the Ranger players I've seen are really stingy with their spells, there was one guy I didn't even know was a ranger, I think he cast a spell once during the entire campaign. I think that is all because of table habits though, a lot of people in my experience are just too cautious about using daily resources.

I do homebrew all rangers to prepare spells instead of learning them though, I feel it allows rangers more opportunities to use their more niche abilities if they can grab them when they come up. Also, Ranger's get quite a few good AOEs, so they are really well suited to dealing with Hordes of enemies.


The revised Beastmaster is currently seeing play, and the wolf is doing pretty decent. He's got decent AC and HP and hits decently hard. The player is very careful to avoid putting it in too much danger (it has spent a few combats not contributing either because it couldn't reach an enemy or the single enemy was too powerful, but it has also offered an extra body on the field, preventing attacks from targeting other members and locking down enemies that focus on it instead of one of the rogues)


I mostly see archers, though I did once have a melee dual-wielding hunter who was the best damage dealer and tank in the party at levels 2-5 (The only levels we played).

So overall, they play very solidly as a martial class that has a few magic tricks. Most powerful tricks in my experience?

Pass without Trace is amazingly powerful, +10 stealth makes even people with 0 dex and disadvantage decently stealthy, and in Dex heavy parties like I tend to see I end up with everyone rolling 25 or above.

Cure Wounds is good healing, not top tier, but very good and the healer feat makes anyone very good at healing.


So, at my tables, I've never felt they lacked anything (except when I had people insisting on playing the PHB Beastmaster instead of the revised) except that in the party I currently am running, the ranger's damage is up against a Barbarian with improved Crits, 3 Rogues (swashbuckler and 2 assassins) and a Monk/Druid monstrosity. So, her damage seems poor because everyone else averages 30 or more damage per attack, while she just ends up with a lot of 1d8 and 2d4 attacks spread around the field.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Not necessarily. I did the math on this.

Assuming 65% hit chance, Hunter's Mark (3.5 damage per hit) vs. 1st-level Divine Smite (9 damage, used when you confirm a hit/crit):

9/(.65*3.5) = 3.96. So basically you have to attack 4 times on average before you can fully expect Hunter's Mark to surpass one 1st-level Divine Smite in damage contribution. Also consider that dealing damage early in the battle is typically better than spreading it out over time.

A lot can also happen over the time you get to make 4 attacks. You could lose concentration on HM, for example. Or the enemy you HM-ed could get killed by an ally shortly after and you have to use another bonus action in a future round to mark a different one.

You make a lot of assumptions. Many paladins will have a higher chance to hit. Smites are more likely to waste damage through overkill than non-smites. It only takes two rounds to make four attacks, for most paladins, and the likelihood of losing concentration between the first round and the second round is not very significant (unless you're fighting a dragon or something). Saving a spell slot so that you can smite on a crit is not terribly conducive to front-loading damage, since crits are unpredictable.

You're also losing out due to the poor scaling of off-hand attacks. You can make up for the poor base damage by smiting an extra time per round, but you're still going to deal less on any round when you aren't doing that.

Again, you can wear a holy symbol around your neck. Then stow your off-hand weapon if you need to perform a somatic component that round, since you're not attacking with your off-hand anyway. Then draw your off-hand weapon again next round.

And grabbing your necklace doesn't count as your one free object interaction for the round? I guess you might have a DM who rules that way. It still means pre-committing your free object interaction on the next round, which may be unwise, and you still can't get both attacks on the first round of combat.

 

[Gladius Legis]

You make a lot of assumptions. Many paladins will have a higher chance to hit.

I always operate on attacking AC of 13 + your proficiency bonus. Typically works out to the average of the AC you're expected to attack in games.

Smites are more likely to waste damage through overkill than non-smites.

Which is why you don't smite something that is obviously a mook, or smite when the rest of your party has already clearly taken the monster close to death.

It only takes two rounds to make four attacks, for most paladins, and the likelihood of losing concentration between the first round and the second round is not very significant (unless you're fighting a dragon or something).

Lv. 6 Paladin with Resilient (CON), CON 14 and CHA 16 = +3 CHA +2 CON +3 proficiency +1 min roll = 9, failing DC 10 only on a roll of 1. So 5% chance to fail:

You take 4 attacks in a round. 2 of them hit every round, so 4 hits over 2 rounds. Chance you'll fail the concentration save (DC 10) at least once in those 2 rounds:

1-(1-.05)^4 = .185

So an 18.5% chance you'll lose concentration at some point in those 2 rounds, even with only failing on a 1. Not a huge chance to do so, but not insignificant.

And that was with Resilient (CON). Not all Paladins take that feat. If they don't, the chance of losing concentration within those two rounds jumps up tremendously. Failure chance per hit becomes 20 percent, so:

1-(1-.2)^4 = .59

59% without Resilient (CON) to lose concentration within those two rounds! That is significant.

And grabbing your necklace doesn't count as your one free object interaction for the round? I guess you might have a DM who rules that way.

Why would I need to grab my necklace? I'm wearing the thing constantly as an amulet, which is all you need to do to make the holy symbol function as a focus. (PHB p. 151: "To use the symbol in this way (spellcasting focus), the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield.")

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I always operate on attacking AC of 13 + your proficiency bonus. Typically works out to the average of the AC you're expected to attack in games.

Your expectations may not hold. As you make more and more assumptions, the likelihood of one of those assumptions derailing the entire chain increases.

You take 4 attacks in a round. 2 of them hit every round, so 4 hits over 2 rounds.

If you cast the spell on your first turn, then you only need to keep it up for one round before you get to make four attacks; the enemies don't get another turn until after you've had your second turn. And I'm not sure where you're getting that four attacks will be aimed at you, of which two will hit; that's one of those things which is going to vary wildly between encounters.

And that was with Resilient (CON). Not all Paladins take that feat. If they don't, the chance of losing concentration within those two rounds jumps up tremendously.

Unless they're high enough level to add their Charisma bonus, in which case they still only fail on a 1. Of the paladins who make two attacks per round, the ones who don't take that feat or add Charisma to saves fall into a very narrow window.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Unless they're high enough level to add their Charisma bonus, in which case they still only fail on a 1. Of the paladins who make two attacks per round, the ones who don't take that feat or add Charisma to saves fall into a very narrow window.

Look at the example again. I included the CHA bonus from Aura of Protection both times.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Look at the example again. I included the CHA bonus from Aura of Protection both times.

So you did. I guess I just didn't notice, since their stats were so low.

 

[Lanliss]

FWIW, I played a Paladin a little while back. He was an Ancients Paladin of Dionysus, and wielded a thorny-pinecone Morningstar to satisfy the Holy Symbol requirements. I probably could have gone Dual wielder on him, but I was one of the two front-liners in all of his sessions so I needed the AC from a shield. You could also just wield a weapon emblazoned with your holy symbol, or have it in your chest armor.

 

[Kannik]

I've been playing a Variant Human Polearm Master Oath of Vengeance Paladin (we are level 4 right now). Overall I haven't felt much like a caster class, with many of the spell slots going to smites, and those that I do spend feel more like special grants (akin to lay on hands, which has been very useful) than what traditionally feels like a spell to me. All of which is fine for me – I enjoy Paladins that feel mostly like fighters who gain a bit of extra oomph from their convictions than a caster who happens to melee really well. The smites and the spells/special grants have been very flavourful (RP and world/character-building wise) when played out.

I wouldn't say Shillelagh is worth it; playing with standard array and pushing Str/Cha it's worked out fine.

The Polearm Master feat has also worked out quite well, granting an "off-hand attack" that includes both the attribute bonus to damage as well as benefiting from Great Weapon Fighting (and a second chance to smite, in case the first attack misses or if you need an especially strong round). A nice tactical use is to move forward and attack with reach with the polearm, then step back. If the enemy closes to attack, you get another attack (as a reaction) as they enter your reach.

Thus far it's been a lot of fun playing this character.

gamingly,

Kannik

 

[Bacon Bits]

Ah, I see -- this brings up something I've always been curious about, which is why people calculate damage as averages instead of as ranges as I'd done. Are averages more indicative of 'experimental data'? Meanwhile, why are averages of d6s and d8s expressed as 3.5 and 4.5, respectively?

d6 = 3.5 because (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6) / 6 = 3.5. The mean value of a six sided die is 3.5.
d8 = 4.5 because (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8) / 8 = 4.5.

Single values are used because they're easier to calculate with than ranges. Additionally, over a large number of rolls, fair dice will tend to regress towards the mean because each result is equally likely. Since we're not typically concerned with the behavior of the dice in a single instance but instead care about the most general or consistent result, the average result is the most useful.

You can see this by going to anydice.com. Start with "output 5d6" and you'll see that the results are clumped around the middle. Change to "output 100d6", and you'll see that almost all the values are clumped betwen 290 and 410, even though the range is 100-600. Note that 100 * 3.5 = 350 is exactly in the middle of 290 and 410. So, yes, 100d6 = 100-600, but 100d6 = 290-410 with a probability of 99.93%. Heck, 100d6 = 330-370 with a probability of 76.99%. So ranges can get super misleading.

Finally, you can get mechanics that throw a wrench in the works. If you're using a Greatsword with Great Weapon Fighting style, you still deal between 2 and 12 damage. However, the reroll 1s and 2s really changes your average damage. Instead of each die being this:

(1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6) / 6 = 3.5

You have each die being this:

(3.5 + 3.5 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6) / 6 = 4.16666...

Since a 1 and a 2 mean "reroll" and you only reroll once, a result of a 1 and a 2 is, on average, 3.5. That way we can say that a Greatsword's average damage is 7 (3.5 * 2), but a Greatsword with Great Weapon Fighting style's average damage is 8.333....