D&D 5E Soooo, the melee ranger?

[FormerlyHemlock]

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Saeviomagy]

So... your solution is that during an entire adventure, the ranger's beast companion has to stay ~40ft behind the party. In what manner is it contributing in that scenario? Also, in what universe is being isolated from the party 'safe' in the context of a dungeon environment?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

So... your solution is that during an entire adventure, the ranger's beast companion has to stay ~40ft behind the party. In what manner is it contributing in that scenario? Also, in what universe is being isolated from the party 'safe' in the context of a dungeon environment?

Sorry for the confusion. I was talking about henchmen, not animal companions, since the first line of your message mentioned them and I went off on that tangent. Obviously animal companions cannot use missile weapons, except for maybe racoons.

Being 60' away from the party isn't "isolated" though. You're still well within mutual support range, assuming that the party is built for ranged combat, which IMO should be a given for the same reasons that NPCs should prefer ranged combat: ranged combat should always be the primary strategy in 5E. Use melee combat only when ranged doesn't work for some reason. Yeah, I've seen cases where someone 60' or 100' in front of the party got into trouble (stunned by a CR 12 chain worm) and the rest of the party had to scramble to save him (after that they switched to pairs of point men instead of letting him go ahead alone). But even in that case, if the whole party had been bunched up they might have all died to the chain worm instead of some of them having a chance to act and save him. Really there's not all that much you can do for someone from 5' away that you couldn't do from 55' away, if you take 5E's flexible action economy into account. (Move + Act every round, plus bonus action Expeditious Retreat/Misty Step if necessary.)

 

[Hriston]

So... your solution is that during an entire adventure, the ranger's beast companion has to stay ~40ft behind the party. In what manner is it contributing in that scenario? Also, in what universe is being isolated from the party 'safe' in the context of a dungeon environment?

That depends on the dungeon and the particular beast's abilities. What I was addressing was that the beast is by necessity a junior party member. Even if it was half as strong as a full member, the Ranger would be half a character. Whenever you have a character that is weaker than the rest of the party in a combat situation, it is a liability, because the party needs to expend resources to protect that character.

So if we're talking about AoE, then the entire party should be spreading out, not just the beast. It's just more important that the beast does so because it is more likely to be killed. Otherwise, behind the front line should be good enough.

 

[Quickleaf]

I'm currently playing a strength based variant human spell-less ranger. The party is level six right now, and I'm am far and away the hardest hitting party member, though I do not expect to gain more combat power for the next several levels. For reference, the party consists of a gnome wizard (necromancer), V human dual wielding champion, and a V human dex paladin.

We used point buy for stats, so everyone is on the same level. My feats were mounted combatant and the arguably broken polearm master, and it has been devastating. I am the most mobile party member by a long shot since I can ride far each turn and my glaive keeps me out of reach most of the time. With my haft attack bonus action and Horde breaker, I am making four attacks on my turn almost every round, and I generally also get another from enemies running at me. Putting Menacing Attack on that AoO generally prevents them getting close enough to hit me, letting me freely ride away next turn. Oh, and don't forget that I've got advantage on any medium or smaller targets while mounted. Next level I will impose disadvantage on opportunity attacks, letting me skirmish even more effectively. When my DM gave me a belt of stone giant strength (23 str) things started bursting at the seams.

Now, a lot of that comes from 1) being a spell-less ranger, 2) having feats, and 3) using hit and run tactics. From now on I will not be gaining any more offensive abilities other than proficiency bonus increases, and I'm fine with that. While mounted I almost never get hit, almost never miss, and can control enemy movements with ease. I am also the best at wilderness exploration. I track enemies with ease, scout ahead to prevent ambushes, and provide healing support. Sure, a fighter might hit things a tad harder, but that is worth nothing when you can't find your targets in the first place.

Right now, as a sixth level ranger and subtracting my belt, I deal 3x(1d10+3) + 1d4+3 = 31 points of damage every turn. Add 8 if someone approaches me. Add up to 18 for maneuvers. Using your assessment above (5 rounds combat, no misses, no crits), my level six ranger deals 213 points of damage.

Since you mention GWM and in the interest of a fair contest, I will consider my ranger at level 19, no magic items, and with the GWM feat. That's 3x(1d10+15) + 1d4+15 = 79, with an extra 20 when approached, and 27 from maneuvers. I get a final count of 522 after five rounds. Keep in mind that I'll have striking with advantage to offset the -5 from GWM if I am mounted and facing medium or smaller foes. I will also be dancing away from enemies each turn with impunity. AND I will still be better than any fighter at navigating in the woods, knowing the weaknesses of my enemies, and setting up ambushes.

Lastly, suppose my ranger was a spellcaster instead. I'd still deal 99 damage per turn, however I would have an additional 4d6 = 14 every round from hunter's mark. That's 565 damage.

Alternatively, I could cast Spike Growth on the first turn, grapple someone the second, and have my horse ride 120 feet around the outside every turn for 48d4 = 120 damage each round. Dealing 1d8+5 on a hit, that's seven attacks for a total of 66 + 480 = 546 from dragging their face through spikes. I'm also ignoring a potential 45 damage from Horde Breaker.

By your metric, they are certainly behind other martial classes in pure damage output. Of course, damage output is only a slender fraction of the entire picture. Being able to avoid retaliatory hits is spectacular. Who would you rather be? The fighter that deals tons of damage but gets swarmed and eaten by kobolds, or the ranger who cuts through the enemy nearly as effectively and then lives to fight another day?


Damage per round means less than nothing in the end. There are too many factors that are impossible to quantify.

Thanks for your actual play experience!

Sounds like all the theorycraft was based on a premise of a ranger in a scenario that is not optimal for them (i.e. solitary foes). Which is hardly a fair grounds for comparison, is it?

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

It's like any henchman, you need to treat it well, which includes not asking it to take undue risks that will most likely get it killed. I think the "pet" could have some combat utility at higher levels, but its primary contribution seems to be in the exploration pillar, like most hired NPC's, perhaps in the capacity of a guard animal while the Ranger sleeps.

edit: The Ranger's combat buffs come from its spells, not its animal friend.

Henchmen aren't class features that come at the expense of other class features. The beastmaster trades combat effectiveness he could have through colossus slayer, hordebreaker, etc. The pet should be considerably better than the 10 gold wardog or spear carrier the hunter can ALSO buy/hire. It's about the opportunity cost.

I will say the posted cobra is pretty good, but that's not an option that immediately jumps out at you. The beastmaster could still use a buff IMO.

 

[Hriston]

Henchmen aren't class features that come at the expense of other class features. The beastmaster trades combat effectiveness he could have through colossus slayer, hordebreaker, etc. The pet should be considerably better than the 10 gold wardog or spear carrier the hunter can ALSO buy/hire. It's about the opportunity cost.

I will say the posted cobra is pretty good, but that's not an option that immediately jumps out at you. The beastmaster could still use a buff IMO.

Sure, I was addressing the concerns of others who were saying that the beast was too easily killed in combat, but when I look at the boosts the beast gets to AC and HP it seems like it could do alright as long as it isn't just going toe to toe with major damage dealers. Someone with more experience than me running a Beast Master could probably speak to that better.

I don't think the trade-off between Hunter and Beast Master need only be seen in terms of combat effectiveness. At level 3 the Hunter gets something like 1d8 damage under certain circumstances. What does the Beast Master get? Since the beast's attack comes at the expense of the Ranger's there isn't a reliable gain there except in terms of special abilities, like the panther and wolf abilities that knock an opponent prone. One bonus is the possibility of the beast making an opportunity attack, which could make up for the Hunter's 1d8, but this requires you to put the beast in harm's way which raises the survivability issue again.

The obvious gain that the beast gives the Beast Master, however, is outside of combat, in the exploration pillar. Most beasts have heightened senses and can help detect hidden threats in and out of combat, especially with the bonus they get by adding the Ranger's proficiency to their Perception. In fact any skills the beast is proficient with benefit in this way, so the opportunities for the beast to help in the exploration pillar are probably as varied as the creativity of the Ranger's player.

Of course this is much harder to quantify than combat strength, so I can see why someone would see the Beast Master as the inferior choice. I also think it probably requires a more nuanced approach to take advantage of the benefits of the Beast Master, both in combat and out.

 

[Cortrillion]

Thanks for your actual play experience!

Sounds like all the theorycraft was based on a premise of a ranger in a scenario that is not optimal for them (i.e. solitary foes). Which is hardly a fair grounds for comparison, is it?

I think your missing some parts here. One, he is not a raw ranger, but rather a fighter ranger sort of a thing called spell-less ranger. Two, He dos nothing that a paladin could not do better, much better. Three, He also mentions that he is done scaling now, he is level 6, at this point he is about as good as a level 6 paladin (in terms of damage) and better then a fighter... however both the fighter and the paladin keep scaling. Lastly, notice that he has a belt that gives him 23 str, is making huge use of clever game mechanics, and also mentions that a fighter hits harder.

Ok... my ranger is a water Gnasi, riding a shark. I have maxed my grappling so I can drown who ever i fight by holding them under water. Rangers are so good in combat just look at me. The goblin didn't know what hit him. I am much better then the fighter who is a level 1 Gnome thrown weapons fighter champion with all his stat points in charisma and int. So if you say a ranger in melee deals low damage and you use such a dumb thing as math to show, then all i can say is "you know nothing John Snow!
ps. my ranger is kind of bad in the Darksun setting where he lives... in the desert.

 

[LightningArrow]

I was led here here by the Almighty Google, this is my first post.

In short, I don't believe the Ranger CLASS is bad, but three of its levels really need revision: 6, 10 and 14.

Level 6 gives the ranger Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer improvements. Not only are they EXTREMELY situational, they merely give more versatility to what the character can already do. Comparing that to Expertise in two skills, which the Rogue gets, or Aura of Protection, which the Paladin gets... well, no need to go on any further. At this level, I've given the ranger in my campaign proficiency in Constitution saving throws (because it's absurd that a SORCERER can do better against poisons and disease than a Ranger), along with new terrain and enemies.

Lvl10 and 14 class features also give bonuses that are situational as hell, and even in the right situation give lame bonuses ("you've used Hide In Plain Sight, now you're hidden in a tree, getting advantage in one attack... yay"). I'm still figuring out what to give the Ranger to compensate for them (maybe Expertise in some skills, or giving them more damage on crits a la Barbarian? I don't know).

 

[Noctem]

I was led here here by the Almighty Google, this is my first post.

In short, I don't believe the Ranger CLASS is bad, but three of its levels really need revision: 6, 10 and 14.

Level 6 gives the ranger Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer improvements. Not only are they EXTREMELY situational, they merely give more versatility to what the character can already do. Comparing that to Expertise in two skills, which the Rogue gets, or Aura of Protection, which the Paladin gets... well, no need to go on any further. At this level, I've given the ranger in my campaign proficiency in Constitution saving throws (because it's absurd that a SORCERER can do better against poisons and disease than a Ranger), along with new terrain and enemies.

Lvl10 and 14 class features also give bonuses that are situational as hell, and even in the right situation give lame bonuses ("you've used Hide In Plain Sight, now you're hidden in a tree, getting advantage in one attack... yay"). I'm still figuring out what to give the Ranger to compensate for them (maybe Expertise in some skills, or giving them more damage on crits a la Barbarian? I don't know).

I agree that the Ranger has some wonky level up features and that reworking them would give the base class more bite. Although, I will say that the class doesn't need these changes, they would help the class be more interesting. I've DM'ed an archer ranger in Hoard of the Dragon Queen and the class basically did what it was supposed to do. However that being said I think the class felt boring for the player because of the limited spell slots and a kind of "rinse and repeat" playstyle turn after turn in combat. I don't have experience with a melee variant to say that it might be different from this specific player's feelings on it.