D&D 5E Tasha's really improved and changed the feel of Rangers

[ECMO3]

Campaign level flexibilty is rarely spoken of because players can't control item drops nor enemies.

Exactly! You can't control item drops or enemies but if your build is flexible you can easier adapt to them.

 

[Undrave]

No since Tasha's they can change their fighting style and choose a different fighting style every timethey get an ASI, which means they can change to a different fighting style 8 times over 18 levels and have many more fighting styles to choose from.

This is what makes them more flexible as martials with weapons.

That's not really flexible at all.

 

[Undrave]

The fighter got a small army at level 9 when he established a stronghold and it was expected that he'd use that as the core of a larger army. Other classes got followers, but usually less. The wizard for example might get a handful of apprentices at name level and not all editions gave them to the wizard. If the wizard wanted an army, he'd raise the whole thing with cash, he didn't get a core body of loyal followers like the fighter. When this aspect of the game fell out of play, it indirectly nerfed the fighter.

This is why I advocate that the Warlord was really the original Fighter all along and that a modern Fighter should actually be a Warlord that could be built into a simple brute (if we can't have a proper Warlord). That would give it something interesting to do. Fighters are Leaders of Men, people who rise from the ranks of the common people and have the presence and skill to lead armies to victory. In the case of the D&D Fighter, they would simply put those skills to use in a small special force composed of his party members.

The Warlord could just be integrated to the core Fighter.

Yeah, you find a staff of striking, so at your next ASI you switch from archery to great weapon fighting.

Or you know will be fighting a flying opponent so at your next ASI you switch from Archery to superior technique and take trip attack so you can knock him out of the air on a hit.

Ranger or Paladin could not do either of these things.

That's... I'm sorry but I can't describe this idea without being rude.

You speak like the next ASI was tomorrow or something! That's at least multiple levels, when it can take you monthes of real life time to get a single level-up?! You want me to change my build entirely for monthes of end because "You will be fighting a flying opponent soon"?! That's RIDICULOUS! The bloody Wizard can take a nap and be ready to take down any flying opponent and you want to make me think waiting multiple levels is being flexible?!

No. Just... No. That's not being flexible at all. It'd be faster to sell the Staff of Striking to buy a +1 bow instead. Or I could just USE the Staff without the fighting style when Archery isn't useful... Which is rarely ever.

The only good thing you can do with that 'flexibility' of the Fighter is start the game with the Protection or Interception Fighting style and switch it out once you get Sentinel because you only get 1 Reaction and they clash so it's better to get the Defense Style for the AC boost and keep Sentinel as your reaction.

 

[Mordhau]

Not to mention that if you really want to change your Fighting Style most GMs will probably let you, ASI or not, Fighter or not.

 

[Minigiant]

Exactly! You can't control item drops or enemies but if your build is flexible you can easier adapt to them.

No nonspellcasting class is that flexible over a campaign as you don't get that many chances to swap.

AND

Fighting styles are such minor buffs compared to Ability scores that you can't swap.

Basically te Ranger is the most campaign flexible warrior as it can go DEX and have bows/crossbows, rapier and Shield, and dual wield swords/axes backed up with hunter's mark, hail of thorns, fire arrow, elemental weapon*, ashardon's stride, searing smite, zephr smite, swift quiver, etc etc.

 

[ECMO3]

Fighting styles are such minor buffs compared to Ability scores that you can't swap.

I am nto sure what you mean by this. Fighting styles can be swapped every time you get an ASI, but you still get the ASI. It is not either-or.

Basically te Ranger is the most campaign flexible warrior as it can go DEX and have bows/crossbows, rapier and Shield, and dual wield swords/axes backed up with hunter's mark, hail of thorns, fire arrow, elemental weapon*, ashardon's stride, searing smite, zephr smite, swift quiver, etc etc.

The ranger needs a feat to dual wield any D8 weapons and he needs strength to dual wield axes, which gets me to the biggest issue and that is being MAD.

A fighter can have a good (16+) strength and a good (16+) dexterity, while also having a 14 constitution and two more 10s. A Ranger is hard pressed to do that.

I don't think Ashardalon's stride is a Ranger spell.

Swift Quiver comes online at 17th level and uses a bonus action to allow 2 additional attacks on future turns using a bonus action for 4 total. The Ranger can do this in one battle a day with concentration. Meanwhile the fighter started making 3 attacks a turn, every turn as an action at 11th level with no concentration and no use of his bonus action and can do that all day long. With TWF or with the appropriate feats (which they have plenty of by that time) fighters can make a 4th attack with a BA every turn, all day long even with medium weapons. Finally fighters could add a concentration spell to this enabling not just many attacks but boosting damage as well, for example, unlike a Ranger; a Fighter with the right subclass CAN get Ashardalon's stride and can get it at 13th level or he can get Haste and make 4 attacks every turn (or 5 attacks with TWF) and at 17th level can do that in 3 fights a day to the rangers 1 and can do it with any weapon without loading, not just a bow. At 17th level he can also Nova on a turn and do up to 8 attacks (action, action, TWF, Haste) on a single turn twice per short rest.

As for the other spells, dual wielding is not going to keep up damagewise, both because you will be losing damage going with a d6 weapon (unless you take a feat) and because you will be using a lot of bonus actions to put up those spells and/or move them around.

Zephyr Strike is a good example. You cast it while TWF and you lose 1d6+S/D on that turn in order to gain 1d8 on a future attack ...... if concentration lasts until then ..... Hunters Mark is a little better damage wise in that you lose S/D bonus on the turn you cast it and then another S/D bonus on every time the target dies while you reassign it, to gain an extra 1d6 on your action attacks and 1d6 on bonus action attacks on other turns when you are not moving it.

If you actually do the math, if you are boosting damage with bonus action spells; TWF fighting style will generally provide less damage for a Ranger than dueling fighting style and a Rapier. Even if you don't want to use a shield in order to have a hand free for spells, a single Rapier is going to average more damage than dual wielding short swords if you will be using bonus actions for spell damage. If you are not using spells to boost damage that is a different story.

The final thing to consider here is concentration. All those spells you mention require concentration and in tier 1 and 2 that is not a big deal, but in tier 3 damage starts to become massive and Rangers are not proficient in concentration, so it is usually not going to last very long, especially if you are using your Bonus Action to use TWF or cast spells instead of using it to turn invisible or hide.

Certainly spells bring a lot of flexibility to the table, I am not arguing that, but as a pure martial Rangers are not as capable as fighters.

 

[Minigiant]

I am nto sure what you mean by this. Fighting styles can be swapped every time you get an ASI, but you still get the ASI. It is not either-or.

I meant fighting styles are mostly +2 to hit or damage or +1 AC.

Fighters get ASI at 4th, 6th, 8th, 12th 14th, 6th, 19th. It's most frequent. Only 2 more than rangers. However you can't plan your swaps around that,

My level 9 ranger is the most flexible PC in the party with his magic longbow, rapier, shield, and shortswords

The ranger needs a feat to dual wield any D8 weapons and he needs strength to dual wield axes, which gets me to the biggest issue and that is being MAD.

So does a fighter.

A fighter can have a good (16+) strength and a good (16+) dexterity, while also having a 14 constitution and two more 10s. A Ranger is hard pressed to do that.

The ranger only needs the additional WIS. A ranger can work fine with INT and CHA dumped.

If you actually do the math, if you are boosting damage with bonus action spells; TWF fighting style will generally provide less damage for a Ranger than dueling fighting style and a Rapier. Even if you don't want to use a shield in order to have a hand free for spells, a single Rapier is going to average more damage than dual wielding short swords if you will be using bonus actions for spell damage. If you are not using spells to boost damage that is a different story.There is no pure martial ranger in 5eecccc

TWF is a trap and again you only get one fighting style.

Certainly spells bring a lot of flexibility to the table, I am not arguing that, but as a pure martial Rangers are not as capable as fighters.

There is no pure martial ranger in 5e.
There is no pure martial ranger in 5e.

The traditional ranger uses magic..
Magic is way more flexible than weapons because of the views of some fans.
Many fans want fighters to be flexible but they wont allow rules that do so.

 

[ECMO3]

The ranger only needs the additional WIS. A ranger can work fine with INT and CHA dumped.

A couple points. If he dumps intelligence all the way to 8 he can't use any scrolls or wands, maybe not a huge debuff but one I would not want to make. Also if he is going to be scouting ahead with an 8 or 9 intelligence he will likely be taking a lot of trap damage. Neither of those are game breakers because he does not have to be the party scout and he can give up scrolls and both of those limits are true for fighter as well .... but on the other hand it is a lot easier to build for a 10 and not dump intelligence with a fighter.

More to the point, a fighter can dump int and charisma AND wisdom. In point buy a Ranger who starts with a 16S, 16D, 14C has a maximum of a 12 in Wisdom, or 13 if he is a Mountain dwarf and he is taking an 8 intelligence and charisma to get that.

 

[Mordhau]

A fighter who dumps Wisdom is really missing a huge advantage of the Fighter.

- Which is that you can easily afford Resilient Wisdom and have a good save which means that you don't get taken out of fights by spell effects or dragonfear and the like.

The Ranger can't really do this so easily because they have less ASIs, the Paladin has it, but doesn't have a good Con save, and can't easily afford one (and they have to choose between Con and Wis as tertiary), the Barbarian can't easily afford a good Wisdom because they need a better Con or a good Dex as well.

 

[ECMO3]

A fighter who dumps Wisdom is really missing a huge advantage of the Fighter.

- Which is that you can easily afford Resilient Wisdom and have a good save which means that you don't get taken out of fights by spell effects or dragonfear and the like.

The Ranger can't really do this so easily because they have less ASIs, the Paladin has it, but doesn't have a good Con save, and can't easily afford one (and they have to choose between Con and Wis as tertiary), the Barbarian can't easily afford a good Wisdom because they need a better Con or a good Dex as well.

I have never been a big fan of resilient. It is ok if you have an odd stat, but I would rather pick up something like skill expert or Fey touched if that is the case.

Although you do have a point, a fighter can have a lot of feats and can build a lot of different ways.