D&D 5E Why Would I Play a Ranger?

[JohnTitusRenzi]

Am I missing something?

A 5th level Ranger with the Archery Fighting Style and an extra attack,
I could do up to 1d10+2 x 2 damage.

If I play a Wizard, I can use Mage Armor and Shield to have a high Armor Class and do cantrip damage 2d12 poison with the option to use a bigger spell avg 8d6 dmg.

That's a shame. This is why the Ranger is broken. When we were making this game there was a discussion about balance. Some were saying it wasn't important.

I think metagaming is very important.
Most players metagame. They pretend it isn't important, but it is to them because that is how they play. They need a high armor class and need to do more damage. They never say it out loud but that rules every choice they make.

Each class should be competitive in;
Armor Class
Damage dealing
Spells with non-combat role-playing applications are fine, but many players never choose them. Each spell should have a useful combat application to make them attractive choices.

To fix the Ranger, I would look at other classes at each level and note the damage. Then I would scale the Fighting Styles and Class Features to compete. Otherwise there will be few to no Rangers at the table.

 

[dracomilan]

I have a ranger at my table, and he never complains about damage. That's maybe because he is fresh out of a 4e game.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Imaro]

Am I missing something?

A 5th level Ranger with the Archery Fighting Style and an extra attack,
I could do up to 1d10+2 x 2 damage.

If I play a Wizard, I can use Mage Armor and Shield to have a high Armor Class and do cantrip damage 2d12 poison with the option to use a bigger spell avg 8d6 dmg.

That's a shame. This is why the Ranger is broken. When we were making this game there was a discussion about balance. Some were saying it wasn't important.

I think metagaming is very important.
Most players metagame. They pretend it isn't important, but it is to them because that is how they play. They need a high armor class and need to do more damage. They never say it out loud but that rules every choice they make.

Each class should be competitive in;
Armor Class
Damage dealing
Spells with non-combat role-playing applications are fine, but many players never choose them. Each spell should have a useful combat application to make them attractive choices.

To fix the Ranger, I would look at other classes at each level and note the damage. Then I would scale the Fighting Styles and Class Features to compete. Otherwise there will be few to no Rangers at the table.

Just off the top of my head...you're missing...

+2 to hit from Archery style
+1d6 from Hunter's Mark
The chance to crit
+1d8 from Colossus Slayer/ Extra Attack with Horde Breaker

So you would actually be hitting more often and doing a potential...
w/Colossus Slayer...(1d10+2 +1d6+1d8)x2
w/Horde Breaker...(1d10+2+1d6)x3


EDIT: I'm also unclear on why an archery based Ranger would only have a +2 to hit/damage. His focus should be Dex so unless he's taking feats he should be at least an 18 by this point (depending on starting scores. so +4 for damage and a +9 to hit as well as a constant AC of 15/16 depending on starting armor selected (though by now he should have been able to attain better than starting armor).

I also don't think you're taking into consideration that Shield only lasts for one turn, and each time you use it it eats into a Wizard's available spells...

 

[JohnLynch]

That's an...interesting Ranger build you've got. I can't say I've seen an archer build where the Ranger relies on having 10 Dex. Why don't we bump that up to 16 (assuming human or a race with +1 or +2 Dex) and let's put the feat choice as +2 Dex for simplicity. You're now dealing 2d10+12 (23 damage) at-will. Assuming you have managed to find 45 gp by level 5 to spend on armor (pretty safe assumption) your AC is 16.

For the Wizard let's assume High Elf so you have 16 Dex and Int. Let's put the level 4 +2 into Int (keep things simple). Your dealing 2d12 (13 damage) at-will. Assuming Mage Armor (pretty safe assumption) AC is 16. Your dealing 57% of the at-will damage of a ranger (excluding subclasses for simplicity. In a true comparison you would need to include subclasses) and have the same AC with minimal resource expenditure. Your Dexterity save and Initiative bonus is slightly worse. Given you can be bursts and increase your damage significantly it seems balanced to me.

The Ranger might have a lot wrong with it. Getting 2 attacks and a fighting style at level 5 is not the cause though.

 

[jodyjohnson]

A 5th level Hunter Ranger with the Archery Fighting Style and an extra attack (4th ASI for Dex, starting stat of 16),
+9 to hit, up to 1d10+4 x 2 damage. Plus Colossus slayer for +1d8 and 2 Hunter's mark attacks for +2d6.
Range 150 feet - 2 rounds or more of firing before they reach melee.
Ranger average damage on 2 hits: 30.5 damage. Pretty much all day.
No feats, no magic weapon.

Wizard, Mage Armor and Shield to have a high Armor Class (for a small number of rounds) and do cantrip damage 2d12 poison with the option to use a bigger spell avg 8d6 dmg. (16 casting stat + ASI at 4th for +4 casting stat)
Range 10 feet (basically melee)
+7 Attack for 2d12 Poison. 13 unless they are immune. Fireball or Lightning Bolt. 28 damage save for half


But the most important reason is: because one wants to play a Ranger.
I still see lots of Rangers at the table

 

[iserith]

A thread that touches on the ranger's deficiencies, game balance in an RPG, and "metagaming?" I'm going to need to go to the store to get extra popcorn.

I don't know why you (the OP) would play a ranger, but I play them - including the poor, poor beastmaster - and have a blast every time. Mostly it's because I don't concern myself with damage per round or look at my teammates with DPR-envy in my eyes. After all, there's more than just whittling away at hit points to overcome a challenge and the ranger has plenty of options on that score.

 

[jodyjohnson]

That's an...interesting Ranger build you've got. I can't say I've seen an archer build where the Ranger relies on having 10 Dex. You're now dealing 2d10+12 (33 damage) at-will.

Archery Style is +2 to attack, not damage. So 2d10+8 (19) before Hunter's Mark or Colossus Slayer.

 

[The Human Target]

A substance abuse problem?

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I've never been a fan of the D&D Ranger so it doesn't really matter to me. But I know people who enjoy playing them, so that's fine with me.

There's a contingent of players who think that the classes all need to have some sort of damage-dealing parity between them and those that don't keep up with the Tier 1 damaging classes are somehow irreparably hobbled. But as many have said, that's not necessarily true and really depends on the game you're in and how it's being played. In the end, play what you want to play. No one is forcing anyone to play a ranger unless they want to.