D&D 5E Why Would I Play a Ranger?

[JohnTitusRenzi]

What is he mistaken about?

Hunter's Mark does +1d6 dmg, not 1d8, and you can only switch to another target without losing the spell if you drop your Marked target to 0hp and your Ranger doesn't lose concentration. Not a bonus action to switch targets.

 

[JohnTitusRenzi]

O.k. Let's give the Ranger a +5 dex mod.
Two volleys 2 x 1d10+5 dmg +1d6 from Hunter's Mark. Looking better.

If I was playing a Hunter, Colossus Slayer may be used only once per turn for +1d8 damage. There is no limitation of the target size though there is one for Giant Killer which is right next to Colossus.

Anybody already compare a Fighter or a Fighter/Ranger build to the Ranger class yet?

 

[fba827]

I have t read the whole thread, and this point has surely already been said but I'll still say it ....

If you play such that combat is the focus of your games, then sure, ranger is not the damage dealing machines like other classes can potentially be. If you're table plays such that exploration and social aspects are more heavily focused on, then you have such potential beyond what the numbers show.

As an example, the published out of the abyss adventure is more exploration based and has opportunities for a ranger to have advantages over others ( I don't want to say too much for fear of spoiling that adventure)

Also, all that aside, you play a ranger because you want to and like the concept.

Looking at the stuff mentioned in the OP, it looks like the ranger is not for you if you're feeling cynical about the class right out of the gate. Find a class you do want to play. You don't need to find reasons to play a class that you're already uninterested in.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Anybody already compare a Fighter or a Fighter/Ranger build to the Ranger class yet?

Enworld has CharOp forums dedicated to the things that you want to be talking about. I suggest looking at them, as that forum might be a better fit for the style of play you prefer.

 

[JohnTitusRenzi]

I will look into CharOp. Thanks. Anybody proud of their Ranger Beast Master and has their character stats I can look at? Anybody run a Nature Cleric? What is the build?

 

[gyor]

Its the simplest thing to fix the BM ranger, offer a combat style that buffs the pets, offer better beasts, and offer more spells that support Beasts (so far its really only Beast Bond in the EE companion).

That being said Beasts have lots of value, but its split up in different areas, not just combat. Hunter subclass does nothing for a Ranger out of Combat, Beast Master is about utility in and out of combat, you take a bit of a hit on possible damage, in exchange for extra utility.

I also like the Hail of Thorns and Ensiring Strikes they're kind of like the Rangers smites.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Ugh, this has been done to death several times already, but in case you're not aware: Designer intent was that animal companions only add the bonus to saves they are proficient in, and never to DC on any special abilities:

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/05/28/beastmasters-beast-attack/
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/02/18/rangers-companion-hp-and-st/

One of those looks like a correct ruling: nothing is stated about save DCs or the like.

The other looks like it's only minimally considered. To me, there's one reading that has zero effect on the game (ie - that only proficient saves get the bonus) and one reading that actually has an effect (ie - that the requirement for proficiency is limited to skills, not saves, so all saves get the bonus). I'm going to go with the reading that actually has an effect.

Comparing the beast's attack to a "base ranger attack" is disingenuous. The valid comparison should always be "what would the Ranger be doing if they had a different build?" And non-BM Rangers use Hunter's Mark. A lot.

Which means that they're not using any other concentration spell. Should we compare a BM ranger using conjure animals to a hunter using hunter's mark? Or perhaps one using pass without trace? Or beast bond? It's hard to say. Comparing "base" attacks is hardly being willfully and maliciously misleading though.

 

[Minigiant]

Damage smamage.

Did anyone even talk about how strong the ranger is in exploration due to their skills, spells, physical ability scores, and general toughness.

I mean. That's why you pick ranger. To hunt people down. And the ranger does it best due to their multidimensional approach which costs them little compared to casters and rogues.

 

[Bleys Icefalcon]

We are having a similar issue with our small group. One of our players wanted to be a Ranger, he liked the feel and role. But we are at the middling levels and now most of the time when a battle is about to begin all he does is try to hide, or even run away. In his mind he is such a wuss that these are realistically his only options - other than presenting another target for the bad guys. He'd rather hide or run away, than force the Cleric to expend all of the party healing on him every encounter.

 

[hejtmane]

O.k. Let's give the Ranger a +5 dex mod.
Two volleys 2 x 1d10+5 dmg +1d6 from Hunter's Mark. Looking better.

If I was playing a Hunter, Colossus Slayer may be used only once per turn for +1d8 damage. There is no limitation of the target size though there is one for Giant Killer which is right next to Colossus.

Anybody already compare a Fighter or a Fighter/Ranger build to the Ranger class yet?

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?471482-Why-Would-I-Play-a-Ranger/page5


I talk about it here on a Fighter/ranger build and someone said while that is level 20 and commented about early game example level 9 I replied to that as well. That is not even counting a ranger/rogue build which would be more fun imo than a straight ranger build and maybe more damaging with colossal slayer + sneak attack + hunters mark (yes ninja sniper for fun)

Here is what i posted on it

Would not a Fighter/Ranger build be better because with 11 levels of fighter you get 3 attacks with colossal slayer 17/3

Still get 3 1st level spells ; you would get more skill points; two action surges at that point still leverage Colossus slayer 1d8 and hunters mark instead of a 4th attack (this is assuming 20th level for max)

Plus fighter can go champion extra crit or Battle Master still has a few things that work or maybe the new purple night depending on how the sub category plays out (eldritch does not make sense to me)

Plus 2 fighting styles Archery and then pick defense and add +1 defense

The only thing I see that a fighter/ranger misses out on vs the High ranger is volley in certain situation it is great and Hunters defense (now this skill is very nice)

I mean I could be wrong but from the looks of it I rather go multiclass
____
Even if we are talking level 8

This is what i do at the early levels it makes sense go ranger ; then 5 fighter levels then 2 more ranger. Then finish out fighter the rest of the way (Openign Ranger for dex saves) at level 9 you are sitting pretty. 9th level would give the 2 attacks, colossal, 2 fighting styles, action surge, second wind and two ability score improvements and 3 1st level ranger spells all by level 9