D&D 5E Soooo, the melee ranger?

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.

Agreed.

But the point isn't even damage, but versatility. I believe people wouldn't be all up on the Ranger if it weren't so situationally good. And I'm saying that because it's one of my favorite classes. After level 5, there's little incentive to stay in the class, and after level 11, almost none (good spells ahead, sure, but to get there you're gonna have to deal with some real stink).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Agreed.

But the point isn't even damage, but versatility. I believe people wouldn't be all up on the Ranger if it weren't so situationally good. And I'm saying that because it's one of my favorite classes. After level 5, there's little incentive to stay in the class, and after level 11, almost none (good spells ahead, sure, but to get there you're gonna have to deal with some real stink).

I think that WOTC is aware of this and has been attempting to give more interesting options for the class, I just don't know if those are enough to solve the problem you're describing.
 

I agree that many of the core features are fluff and situational. That was why I changed the features and allowed the spell progression to be the same as a paladin


1. Expertise, Natural Explorer(choose 2)
2. Fight style, spells
3. Archetype
4. Score
5. Xtra attack
6. Natural Explorer (choose 2), Land Stride
7. Archetype
8. Score
9. Evasion
10. Expertise
11.Archetype
12. Score
13. Constitution Proficiency
14. Vanish
15. Archetype
16. Score
17. Feral Senses
18. Ranger Recovery
19. Score
20. Foe Slayer - use against all enemies. Once per turn add to both attack and damage



Recovery
At short rest, when you expend Ranger HD, you gain max HP.
 

I'm going to assume that for the sake of this discussion we are not including multi-classing, in which case Ranger is absolutely beastly btw.

As previously stated Rangers typically do better against hordes, but there are several ways to play them. Math time!(it actually really bothers me that you didn't show your math, so i will)

As per your original with 5 turns against a training dummy, I am assuming the dummy attacks once per turn.

First the single-target build;
Dual Rapiers, Two weapon Fighting, Giant Killer, +5 dex, Multiattack Defense, Evasion.
4 attacks per turn (2 as action, 1 as bonus, 1 as reaction)
each attack; 1d8(4.5)+1d6(3.5)+5 =(13),*4=52
over 5 rounds is 260
you can eek out another 3.5 and advantage with a level 5 Ensnaring strike, assuming they fail their str save every turn that looks like;
1d8+5*4=38+5d6=55.5
5 rounds=277.5
there really aren't "tricks" so I can see why this looks low, but it is definitely not unplayable.
This also has a lot of defense bonuses vs the fighter/Paladin. Evasion and Multiattack defense are awesome when going toe to toe with a dragon as you prolly take 0 of the breath attack and the extra 4 to your ac is massive when they hit that hard. Ranger also gets absorb elements as a reaction which is super useful against most big bads.

Next let's look at the Horde Breaker style Ranger, vs 3, 5, and 9 dummies again making one attack a turn against him each(1d8+4 for this example);
Dual Rapiers, Two Weapon Fighting, Horde Breaker, Multiattack Defense(because running is for pansies), Whirlwind attack and stand against the tide.
Concentrating on a 5th level ensnaring strike on one enemy, using Whirlwind attack, Stand against the Tide and Horde Breaker every turn;(1 attack per enemy, 1d8+4 for stand against, 1 attack for horde breaker, 1 attack for bonus action)

3 Enemies;
((1d8+5)*5)+(1d8+4)+5d6=73.5 per round
5 rounds=367.5

For every enemy you add 1 attack per round, so you add 9.5 dpr and 47.5 over the 5 rounds.
so 5 enemies;
92.5 per round
462.5 in 5 rounds
9 Enemies;
130.5 per round
652.5 in 5 rounds.

The highest is only 2.5 shy of your highest score. That seems pretty on-par to me.
Also the Ranger isn't using any of his "Tricks" one 5th level spell slot that is situational honestly, so if you want to throw a dagger and do a conjure volley you still have plenty of slots. as far as defense goes an ac of 18 isn't awful and by this point in the game most enemies to be concerned with have multiattack to do 1/2-2/3-5/6 of their damage, all of those will be against a 22, easily high enough to be missed a lot.

Now if you want some high numbers ask me about multiclassing.
 

After reading many discussions about the melee ranger and seeing an Archer/Sharpshooter ranger dominate the battlefield in my current group, I decided to make just two house rules.

1. I allow Rangers to take the Great Weapon Fighter style.

2. I give rangers expertise (like a bard) at Stealth in their Favored Terrains.

A very long discussion with my group convinced me the damage output of the archer and TWF are close enough to stop worrying about the archer being overpowered or the only viable ranger. What we did see missing is a style choice. Some players want a melee ranger but just don't like the image of a two weapon fighter - GWF fits the image.
 

As the edition ages, players will settle into the ranger. This thread kinda says that. I hope WoTC does not change the current ranger but I am okay if they experiment with another version.

I play a lance wielding forest gnome deer riding beastmaster and everything is all right. The deer's AC is better than the gnomes. At 7th level, his deer is constantly dashing and he can hit and run and be out of reach of most enemies. A great pay off for a bonus action.

100'ft movement, 2d12+12 (lance w/shield, Dueling, 18ST), burning no resources in the round

making the DM decide to attack or disengage....priceless.

PS: His passive perception is 20
 

I personally find the issue in contention to be moot. If you just want a sneaky fighter that likes to hang out in the cuds then go with the Outlander background and take a race and/or feat that will add Stealth to the skills mix. If you want a complete Death Machine (tm) of a guerrilla fighter that can allow the entire party to constantly harass the enemy while keeping themselves from getting cornered, keep themselves and their team alive under insanely harsh conditions, and still be one hell of an asset to the party besides? Well, then you go for a Ranger.

People are trying to pry a Ranger into the Melee Gawd role that Fighter and Paladin has firmly in hand, ignoring the ridiculous tactical capabilities of the rest of the class, and then come onto boards like this one honking about how the DPR is too low when compared to other classes that are built from the ground up as Beaters but have far less flexibility... :hmm:
 
Last edited:


Remove ads

Top