D&D (2024) Treantmonk's Ranger DPS video:

[UngeheuerLich]

Yes.

That's not a gotcha.

I don't know what you mean by saying that.
But I noted it in my previous post that he repeatedly says that.

He says that, repeatedly. He says it might well be better for multi-target and control, he's not testing for those things with these videos. He's not against the Ranger. He likes the Ranger. He just thinks it's not a good single-target damage dealer.

I am sorry, that I do not always repeat myself over and over again.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

If you look at area damage though, ranger brings way more to the table than a rogue...
And this is not something treantmonk looks at in those videos, what he explicitely states more than once.

@Mistwell for your reference.

 

[Mistwell]

I don't know what you mean by saying that.
But I noted it in my previous post that he repeatedly says that.

I am sorry, that I do not always repeat myself over and over again.

Because this was what I wrote and your reply?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Knew someone would use this video to state this, even though that is NOT the conclusion of the video.

Counter Fact #1: The Ranger is not "bad" at single target damage, they are currently the lowest, after level 11. This has two points, firstly, the 2024 Eldritch Blast Warlock is still unchanged, and the Ranger is doing well and above that. Perhaps this means the Ranger will be the new baseline? Secondly, and I'll put up a screenshot of the "worse" of the two builds to make this point entirely clear

The TWF ranger TIES the monk up until level 10. The vast majority of the games of DnD end by level 10, so this covers the vast majority og play, and the ranger is not "bad" unless you are calling the monk bad. And someone a moment ago said they thought the monk was the best damage dealer, so I doubt it is bad.

Counter Fact #2: Treantmonk specifically calls out that he did not take the Dual-Wielder feat, which he states would increase the damage numbers presented here. So, if you take that feat, your damage will be higher than the monks by this point. He doesn't feel it was worth it compared to defense, but that doesn't mean it isn't an option

Counter Fact #3: This build, which is the worst of the three he does, specifically is for single target damage. Rangers have long been known to have a focus on AOE damage. Right at that point where the monk damage pulls ahead of the ranger is when they have access to level 3 spells. This does not include any 3rd level high single target damage spells, which is a problem when calculating single target damage, but it DOES include both Conjure Barrage and Conjure Animals, which are pretty decent AOEs. I mean, sure the monk is going to be dealing almost 40 damage to a single target, maybe you can split that to 20 and 20 against weaker targets. The Ranger can easily deal 20 damage to ten targets with some of these massive AOEs. This is not a worthless consideration when looking at the class as a whole.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Because this was what I wrote and your reply?

I attached my older post for your convenience.
I really don't know what you meant with your gotcha statment.

This is what I wrote before that for your convenience.

 

[Selas]

Knew someone would use this video to state this, even though that is NOT the conclusion of the video.

Counter Fact #1: The Ranger is not "bad" at single target damage, they are currently the lowest, after level 11. This has two points, firstly, the 2024 Eldritch Blast Warlock is still unchanged, and the Ranger is doing well and above that. Perhaps this means the Ranger will be the new baseline? Secondly, and I'll put up a screenshot of the "worse" of the two builds to make this point entirely clear

View attachment 383498

The TWF ranger TIES the monk up until level 10. The vast majority of the games of DnD end by level 10, so this covers the vast majority og play, and the ranger is not "bad" unless you are calling the monk bad. And someone a moment ago said they thought the monk was the best damage dealer, so I doubt it is bad.

Counter Fact #2: Treantmonk specifically calls out that he did not take the Dual-Wielder feat, which he states would increase the damage numbers presented here. So, if you take that feat, your damage will be higher than the monks by this point. He doesn't feel it was worth it compared to defense, but that doesn't mean it isn't an option

Counter Fact #3: This build, which is the worst of the three he does, specifically is for single target damage. Rangers have long been known to have a focus on AOE damage. Right at that point where the monk damage pulls ahead of the ranger is when they have access to level 3 spells. This does not include any 3rd level high single target damage spells, which is a problem when calculating single target damage, but it DOES include both Conjure Barrage and Conjure Animals, which are pretty decent AOEs. I mean, sure the monk is going to be dealing almost 40 damage to a single target, maybe you can split that to 20 and 20 against weaker targets. The Ranger can easily deal 20 damage to ten targets with some of these massive AOEs. This is not a worthless consideration when looking at the class as a whole.

Poor EB Warlock; guess it is now one of the worst single target casters?

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

While the Range only uses their free Hunter's Mark. So they still have all their slots.

Unlike Paladin, Ranger has a great big lack of ways to convert those slots into damage, though. Barrage is great, but lv1 and lv2, you have... uh...

Hail of Thorns - gentle tickle that gives a save, but conditionally tolerable if you're a (non-dual-xbow) archer
Zephyr - takes up bonus action and concentration, might as well HM if you don't need the mobility
Cordon of Arrows - if you have time to prepare, you can get a few (non-magical) d6s through for your lv2 slots...
Magic Weapon - good if your campaign doesn't have plus weapons, but it's just one slot, not a way to spend extras
Spike Growth - this depends entirely on the GM

So, I don't see the spell slots making much of a difference.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Unlike Paladin, Ranger has a great big lack of ways to convert those slots into damage, though. Barrage is great, but lv1 and lv2, you have... uh...

Level 1 and 2 spells are before level 9, when the ranger has no problem keeping up.

Hail of Thorns - gentle tickle that gives a save, but conditionally tolerable if you're an archer
Zephyr - takes up bonus action and concentration, might as well HM if you don't need the mobility
Cordon of Arrows - if you have time to prepare, you can get.. a few (non-magical) d6s through for your lv2 slots...
Magic Weapon - good if your campaign doesn't have plus weapons, but it's just one slot, not a way to spend extras
Spike Growth - this depends entirely on the GM

So, I don't see the spell slots making much of a difference.

Not in the single target damage department mostly...

although being able to cast magic weapon is welcome on a comparison where solely self buff is assumed.

 

[ECMO3]

"well, hack my legs off and call me shorty!"

who would have thought that by chaining a class to a 1st level spell, it's damage will suck...

and rangers damage is good in t1, exactly where HM can make a difference by taxing your concentration slot. Rest? that will require more MacGyvering(exploiting)

The key to 2024 Ranger is focusing on Wisdom and taking a 1-level Monk dip for martial arts. This is an easy multiclass that gives them a bonus action unarmed strikes and lets them use handaxes and daggers while doing 1d6 with dexterity. It also lets them use magic spears, staffs or maces effectively.

Then load up on spells with feats. Also use truestrike at level 5 to mitigate no extra attack.

 

[ECMO3]

Unlike Paladin, Ranger has a great big lack of ways to convert those slots into damage, though. Barrage is great, but lv1 and lv2, you have... uh...

Goodberry, Entangle, Spike Growth, Silence ...

Ranger has some pretty awesome spells.