D&D 5E Rangers, low level DPR kings?

[Sacrosanct]

Let's assume level 3, since that's when subclasses kick in. And for simplicity, assume weapon damage is a d8. There are no fewer than 3 archetypes that allow you to add a d6 (swarmkeeper or monster slayer) or a d8 (hunter) to your attack roll. Since we're low level, the "once per turn" is moot, as most PCs only get 1 attack per round at low level. Add to that a d6 from hunter's mark or a d4 from favored foe (1d8+1d6/d8+1d4/d6 every round)

-OR- take a gloom stalker with the zephyr strike spell (First round is up to 4d8+1d4/d6). A 3rd level gloom stalker puts to shame a 3rd level assassin, which is kinda sad since that's what an assassin is supposed to be built for.

Most combats last less than a minute. So for the cost of 1 level 1 spell, along with base ranger features, that seems like the ranger can be DPR king at lower levels

Edit just realized you can't have both foe and hunter's mark since both are concentration. Give me a sec to update

 

[Zardnaar]

Pretty much.

We also used hordebreaker in conjunction with sharpshooter to really ramp up the damage.

That's the hunter, PHB beastmaster sucks.

Hunter ranger was one of the first classes my group played in 2014.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Since we're low level, the "once per turn" is moot, as most PCs only get 1 attack per round at low level.

Unless you're fighting with two weapons. Assuming a short-sword in the off hand, that's another 1d6 per turn for all your calculations. (Though the primary weapon will drop to 1d6 because it needs to be light.)

The Dual Wielder feat will let you use a rapier or longsword in each hand, bringing both primary and off-hand attacks back up to 1d8, and adds +Dex or +Str to both, not just the primary. You didn't include ability modifiers in your totals, either.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Unless you're fighting with two weapons. Assuming a short-sword in the off hand, that's another 1d6 per turn for all your calculations. (Though the primary weapon will drop to 1d6 because it needs to be light.)

The Dual Wielder feat will let you use a rapier or longsword in each hand, bringing both primary and off-hand attacks back up to 1d8, and adds +Dex or +Str to both, not just the primary. You didn't include ability modifiers in your totals, either.

What you're describing is a variant human with that feat and dual wielder--a PC rare enough that I'm not factoring it in re: class comparisons. Also, because that's not a class feature. Just like ability mods. I'm not factoring those either because they aren't modified by class, and we must assume an equal playing field to have a fair analysis (i.e., each PC would have the same modifier in their appropriate stat).

 

[kerbarian]

With Tasha's, one of the first things I noticed was druid DPR with the new subclasses and Summon Beast. I think it might be the king at level 3.

Action: Weapon attack (Shillelagh or just use a bow as an elf at L3) 1d8+3
Bonus Action: Starry Form Archer attack (1d8+3) or Wildfire Spirit attack (1d6+2)
No action: Beastial Spirit attacks for 1d8+6

That's 3d8+12 per round (2d8+9 the first round).

Circle of Stars is higher damage, radiant (few resists), and gets free Guiding Bolts. Wildfire Spirit lasts for an hour each time (instead of ten minutes for Starry Form) and has some fun tricks like at-will group teleport. Both seem really strong. I've been wanting to make druid work for a while and now I'm excited to play one.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah, non-Beast Master Rangers have always had high DPR in the early levels. And while they don’t hold that lead in later tiers, they do keep up reasonably well (again, Beast Master notwithstanding). The problem with the ranger was never that it was mathematically underpowered, it was that a lot of its features felt bad. Favored Enemy is useless outside of specific contexts, Natural Explorer makes exploration boring, Hunter’s Mark is one of the best spells you learn and it keeps you from casting most of your other cool spells, the Hunter’s Multiattacks compete with its Extra Attack, the Beast Master’s companion is fragile and a poor use of action economy. It’s just one feel-bad design decision after another.

 

[Li Shenron]

Favored Enemy is useless outside of specific contexts

Favored Enemy is a very misunderstood ability. It's supposed to be a "ribbon" ability, not a substantial one. Why? Because in previous edition it was a substantial ability, but players were constantly complaining that their DM wasn't throwing the right type of monsters at them, and thus their Ranger wasn't getting the benefits of Favored Enemy.

If you boost Favored Enemy, you only make it worse, because those players will complain they lose/waste even more. If you apply Favored Enemy to every monster, you divorce it from it original meaning. Even if you use the "trick" of allowing the Ranger to change favored enemy during a long rest (or even a longer period), because you can argue that technically this isn't too powerful, but then ALL Rangers in the game effectively are the same when it comes to favored enemies, they are at best different on a given day, but all identical on the long term, which is what gives a PC her own identity. Think about this example: if you ask me what's my favourite music, and I tell you it's X, but tomorrow I change it to Y and next day to Z, until I cover all kinds of music... do I still have a favourite music?

WotC designers had the perfect idea for 5e: instead of having Rangers specialize on a category of monsters based on a "narrative type" (e.g. undead, orcs, feys, demons...) which is VERY subject to DM's narrative preferences, they had them specialize on a category of monsters based on a "tactical type" (hordes of minions, big bags of HPs, giant-sized...). That is what the Hunter's special abilities are for, those abilities are the REAL Favored Enemies abilities. In fact during the DNDNext playtest, the Hunter was split into 3 different subclasses, which were then combined presumably because of feedback from people who suggested it would be good to have the possibility to spread around your benefits instead of focusing againt a single tactical type.

Perhaps WotC's mistake was to also add the ribbon "Favored Enemy" ability. They should have rather removed it completely, because people still look at the ability names instead of looking at the substance and then wonder why this ability is so small.

 

[DEFCON 1]

WotC designers had the perfect idea for 5e: instead of having Rangers specialize on a category of monsters based on a "narrative type" (e.g. undead, orcs, feys, demons...) which is VERY subject to DM's narrative preferences, they had them specialize on a category of monsters based on a "tactical type" (hordes of minions, big bags of HPs, giant-sized...). That is what the Hunter's special abilities are for, those abilities are the REAL Favored Enemies abilities. In fact during the DNDNext playtest, the Hunter was split into 3 different subclasses, which were then combined presumably because of feedback from people who suggested it would be good to have the possibility to spread around your benefits instead of focusing againt a single tactical type.

Perhaps WotC's mistake was to also add the ribbon "Favored Enemy" ability. They should have rather removed it completely, because people still look at the ability names instead of looking at the substance and then wonder why this ability is so small.

Yep. And this unfortunately was not highlighted as well as it could have been had WotC just created more Hunter's Prey tactical types for Hunters over the subsequent books. If they had more Prey types (just like they also should have made more Battlemaster's Maneuvers earlier) it would have really emphasized the whole primary foundation of the Ranger class.

This is one place where I think WotC's design got hindered by not letting people test these subclasses before release. Because I think more people would have let them know that the Battlemaster Combat Superiority and Maneuvers should have been the baseline Fighter (with subclasses being different builds using the system like we just got in Tasha's, and thus the easy-mode 'Champion' would have been just the most simple of the Maneuvers rather than an entirely different mechanic system)... and Hunter's Prey should have been the baseline Ranger's primary combat ability with all the various "monster types" being options that was continually added to.

But hey, hindsight is 20/20.

 

[Charlaquin]

Favored Enemy is a very misunderstood ability. It's supposed to be a "ribbon" ability, not a substantial one. Why? Because in previous edition it was a substantial ability, but players were constantly complaining that their DM wasn't throwing the right type of monsters at them, and thus their Ranger wasn't getting the benefits of Favored Enemy.

If you boost Favored Enemy, you only make it worse, because those players will complain they lose/waste even more. If you apply Favored Enemy to every monster, you divorce it from it original meaning. Even if you use the "trick" of allowing the Ranger to change favored enemy during a long rest (or even a longer period), because you can argue that technically this isn't too powerful, but then ALL Rangers in the game effectively are the same when it comes to favored enemies, they are at best different on a given day, but all identical on the long term, which is what gives a PC her own identity. Think about this example: if you ask me what's my favourite music, and I tell you it's X, but tomorrow I change it to Y and next day to Z, until I cover all kinds of music... do I still have a favourite music?

WotC designers had the perfect idea for 5e: instead of having Rangers specialize on a category of monsters based on a "narrative type" (e.g. undead, orcs, feys, demons...) which is VERY subject to DM's narrative preferences, they had them specialize on a category of monsters based on a "tactical type" (hordes of minions, big bags of HPs, giant-sized...). That is what the Hunter's special abilities are for, those abilities are the REAL Favored Enemies abilities. In fact during the DNDNext playtest, the Hunter was split into 3 different subclasses, which were then combined presumably because of feedback from people who suggested it would be good to have the possibility to spread around your benefits instead of focusing againt a single tactical type.

Perhaps WotC's mistake was to also add the ribbon "Favored Enemy" ability. They should have rather removed it completely, because people still look at the ability names instead of looking at the substance and then wonder why this ability is so small.

I agree completely. The playtest ranger was WAY better than the ranger we got.

 

[Helldritch]

Favored Enemy is a very misunderstood ability. It's supposed to be a "ribbon" ability, not a substantial one. Why? Because in previous edition it was a substantial ability, but players were constantly complaining that their DM wasn't throwing the right type of monsters at them, and thus their Ranger wasn't getting the benefits of Favored Enemy.

If you boost Favored Enemy, you only make it worse, because those players will complain they lose/waste even more. If you apply Favored Enemy to every monster, you divorce it from it original meaning. Even if you use the "trick" of allowing the Ranger to change favored enemy during a long rest (or even a longer period), because you can argue that technically this isn't too powerful, but then ALL Rangers in the game effectively are the same when it comes to favored enemies, they are at best different on a given day, but all identical on the long term, which is what gives a PC her own identity. Think about this example: if you ask me what's my favourite music, and I tell you it's X, but tomorrow I change it to Y and next day to Z, until I cover all kinds of music... do I still have a favourite music?

WotC designers had the perfect idea for 5e: instead of having Rangers specialize on a category of monsters based on a "narrative type" (e.g. undead, orcs, feys, demons...) which is VERY subject to DM's narrative preferences, they had them specialize on a category of monsters based on a "tactical type" (hordes of minions, big bags of HPs, giant-sized...). That is what the Hunter's special abilities are for, those abilities are the REAL Favored Enemies abilities. In fact during the DNDNext playtest, the Hunter was split into 3 different subclasses, which were then combined presumably because of feedback from people who suggested it would be good to have the possibility to spread around your benefits instead of focusing againt a single tactical type.

Perhaps WotC's mistake was to also add the ribbon "Favored Enemy" ability. They should have rather removed it completely, because people still look at the ability names instead of looking at the substance and then wonder why this ability is so small.

Yeah, favored enemy for the ranger is a bit meh. Especially if the DM does not send a fair number of favored enemy in the mix of what the PCs will face. The UA variation was better. The abilty to get more favored enemies would ensure that at every tier you could have some of yoir favored enemies in adventures. Especially if you took giants as one of your choice.

Bit the main problem of favored enemy is that it is solely dependent on the DM. I much prefer the 1ex way of doing it. Humanoids and giants. Works at all levels. By extention you could apply this to make thematic bloc choices such as fiends and undeads or aberrations and dragons. Or even feys and celestials.

A bonus to damage against these would have gone a long way to make these choices matters and keep relevant at all levels. For appearance's sake, 5ed did not service the ranger really well.