Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 9516117" data-attributes="member: 6795602">A few thoughts. Online reviews often focus on level 20, but asking if a class is good at level 20 doesn’t mean it isn’t as good or better through most of the game. Online reviews often focus on DPR as a single number when we really need at least melee and ranged dpr numbers. In the actual game there will be situations where the actual damage you do is dependent on both, meaning that in the actual game being good at melee and ranged but not the best at either is a big pro for actual damage dealt. Also note that opening with the bow and then switching to melee also alleviates some bonus action pressure. And honestly, aoe probably needs a separate component as well. Something else rangers tend to be better at than their melee counterparts. An example of the previous principle in action.  Combat starts at 90ft. Ranger can use hunters mark attack with his longbow and advance for solid but not great damage. Next turn the enemy might dash up to him so he puts away his bow and pulls out his short sword and scimitar.  He can then proceed with a sequence of up to 4 melee attacks all with hunters mark on them (nick mastery and dual wield feat).  Also not typically mentioned is that rangers get alot of free hunters mark casts. Meaning they can often use their actual slots for something else.  Something like hail of thorns on ranged attacks can further help out their damage. I’ve not crunched and compared classes at lots of different levels yet, (2024 is harder to compute DPR for due to how masteries work), but when multiple ‘realistic’ situations are considered at various level points, its very possible rangers start to look quite a bit better. In comparison.</blockquote>

Verification