D&D (2024) The Lackluster Ranger

[ezo]

After UA:
Under the rules for UA single class characters chose class before rolling, they had a pool of dice based on the choice and anything below the minimum was raised to the minimum. After these rules came out the Lawful Good martials were all Paladins, and the non LG martials were mostly Cavaliers. Occasionally there was a Ranger thrown in there, but usually only on Elf or Half-Elf characters.

This isn't quite accurate. UA introduced a new Method V. This wasn't the default by far and very rarely was it ever actually used IME.

Also, Method V was ONLY for human characters. So, for Paladin's that ruled out half-elves (which was permitted in UA). And if you wanted to play a dwarf, your only choice for martial was Fighter (well, Thief too if you considered that a martial in 1E...). Any Elf (depending on subrace) or Half-Elf were Cavalier-types when possible. But the SEC roll also came into play, and few were happy to begin play as a 0-Level Horseman (some did however...).

YMMV, of course, but IME even after UA we had plenty of Fighters, Barbarians, and Thief-types. IF you actually played by the strict code for Cavaliers and Paladins, many players were not up to keeping to them enough to bother with the classes.

But yeah, if what I quoted was your experience, it was vastly different from mine!

 

[ECMO3]

This isn't quite accurate. UA introduced a new Method V. This wasn't the default by far and very rarely was it ever actually used IME.

Also, Method V was ONLY for human characters. So, for Paladin's that ruled out half-elves (which was permitted in UA). And if you wanted to play a dwarf, your only choice for martial was Fighter (well, Thief too if you considered that a martial in 1E...). Any Elf (depending on subrace) or Half-Elf were Cavalier-types when possible. But the SEC roll also came into play, and few were happy to begin play as a 0-Level Horseman (some did however...).

YMMV, of course, but IME even after UA we had plenty of Fighters, Barbarians, and Thief-types. IF you actually played by the strict code for Cavaliers and Paladins, many players were not up to keeping to them enough to bother with the classes.

But yeah, if what I quoted was your experience, it was vastly different from mine!

We had Thiefs, and Fighters (for alignment reasons or multiclasses mostly) but we never had Barbarians. Barbarians were really weak compared to Rangers, Fighters, Cavliers and Paladins once specialization and favored weapon (or whatever the Cavalier ability was called) were published.

I never saw a half-Elf Cavalier or Paladin, both because it was nearly impossible unless you are using version V (which as you noted they can't use) and because although it says they can be a Cavaier or Paladin, it does not list Cavalier or Paladin on the half-elf table, so it is not clear what level they could go to.

At our table humans used version V exclusively once it came out, given the choice why would you use any other? Also like I said earlier, without using that it is extremely unlikely you will roll high enough to play a Paladin or Cavalier and unlikely you will roll high enough to play a Ranger.

 

[ezo]

We had Thiefs, and Fighters (for alignment reasons or multiclasses mostly) but we never had Barbarians. Barbarians were really weak compared to Rangers, Fighters, Cavliers and Paladins once specialization and favored weapon (or whatever the Cavalier ability was called) were published.

Surprising you should think Barbarians in UA were really weak. We always found them just as good as the others.

However, the concept of comparing "power level" of one class to another isn't something we did then. In fact, I've never concerned myself with it at all prior to 5E...

I never saw a half-Elf Cavalier or Paladin, both because it was nearly impossible unless you are using version V (which as you noted they can't use) and because although it says they can be a Cavaier or Paladin, it does not list Cavalier or Paladin on the half-elf table, so it is not clear what level they could go to.

They had unlimited advancement:

I know it is easy to miss the text sometimes.

At our table humans used version V exclusively once it came out, given the choice why would you use any other? Also like I said earlier, without using that it is extremely unlikely you will roll high enough to play a Paladin or Cavalier and unlikely you will roll high enough to play a Ranger.

In our games it was the DM (usually me lol) who decided the method: which for AD&D was (nearly) always 4d6 drop lowest. A few times, and I really mean just a few times, I allowed someone to try Method V, but found it much too generous in general.

However, since you could roll up to 3 sets of scores (my houserule) and arrange in order, we did have occassional Cavaliers over the years and less than a handful of Paladins.

FWIW, we kept the original PHB Paladin as well, but renamed it "Holy Warrior" as a separate class.

 

[CreamCloud0]

it'd be interesting to play a ranger using the druid's circle of the land subclass, just sub their free HM uses for the features that require wildshape

 

[Zardnaar]

ah, the ranger, poor SOB, at 9th place, well he didn't compare direct damage if cleric and wizard, those would be lower, but 9 out of 12 classes in direct damage.

and paladin is in 2nd place with all the extra's.
And, I do not care what theoretical utility ranger can bring over paladin, counter argument is always; Aura of protection(and it's upgrades).

He messed up a few of those builds and his best one was actually one of the vest ones in the game.

So he essentially compared a specific build vs random slop he made.

Basically best damage archetype with best build (or close enough to it) vs weaker builds.

He butchered his Sorcerer Blaster build. Took wrong feat for starters.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

ah, the ranger, poor SOB, at 9th place, well he didn't compare direct damage if cleric and wizard, those would be lower, but 9 out of 12 classes in direct damage.

and paladin is in 2nd place with all the extra's.
And, I do not care what theoretical utility ranger can bring over paladin, counter argument is always; Aura of protection(and it's upgrades).

Aura of protection... AKA fireball formation?

 

[mellored]

Rangers win tier 1.

But really that just means dip ranger.

 

[Zardnaar]

Rangers win tier 1.

But really that just means dip ranger.

Hunter or beastmaster?

 

[mellored]

Hunter or beastmaster?

Any dual wielder.
Free hunters mark + nick work out damage anything else.

Does really well as ranged too, but rogues edge them out.

It's really the lack of a tier 3 boost that keeps them down. If your campaign ends before 10, rangers are fine.


Kind of think hunters mark should scale with proficiency bonus or the same as monks dice.
And then add a new capstone.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Any dual wielder.
Free hunters mark + nick work out damage anything else.

Does really well as ranged too, but rogues edge them out.

It's really the lack of a tier 3 boost that keeps them down. If your campaign ends before 10, rangers are fine.


Kind of think hunters mark should scale with proficiency bonus or the same as monks dice.
And then add a new capstone.

Ok. Question for all: should rangers be top damage dealers at all tiers? Or should they step back a bit behind pure single target non spellcasting martials once they become competent spellcasters?