How to 5e ranger?

[The Shadowdove]

Hey peeps,

I'm considering a ranger as my first 5e player character.

I hear that it's not as combat oriented as past editions.

I've also looked at the class archetypes and abilities... Most of not seems pretty clear, but I have yet to identify any purely ranger strengths or roles that make it jump out at me.

Please, if you have any information concerning how they shine, what kind of tricks they possess up their sleeves, what kind of builds are possible, which feats have extra useful applications share them here!

Thanks in advance, I really enjoy the amount of booksmarts that shows up in replies!

-dove

[Ashrym]

Beast master is less combat oriented, directly, and seems to be an out-of-the box utility option with things like scouting and guarding, sharing spells, special attacks on some pets, and the help as a bonus action option. Most players go for hunter in my experience.

Hunter is focused more on combat and rangers have multiple opponent attacks in the form of some of their hunter style choices and AoE spells.

When you start, just select the terrain in the area and a common enemy from it. There are benefits to each but they are minor and I consider them fluff with a bonus as opposed to a focused part of the class. I tend to take various humanoids that I think will be consistent throughout the campaign for enemies. Usually forest, grasslands, and one less common terrain that might be around is what I see rangers end up with.

Colossus slayer is for more focused damage, horde breaker is a free attack if there is another target within 5 ft of the original. Colossus slayer is more reliable and horde breaker can be more damage but it's situational. I like horde breaker but if I had to give an opinion reliable is better than situational and recommend colossus slayer. Giant killer is only useful for melee and is also situational. It's not as bad as some players think but the size restriction is annoying.

Escape the horde helps with moving through enemies and is useful, particularly if you plan on taking whirlwind attack to leverage the number of attacks it gives. Multiattack defense is great against creatures with multiple attacks that are attacking you. This is also situational and you don't necessarily get attacked. Steel will is useful but also situational. Escape the horde is my top pick for 7th level.

At 10th level you may want to discuss the DM's ruling on movement between attacks. RAW, a player who takes takes any action that includes more than one weapon attack can move between attacks. Whirlwind attack grants an attack against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you. Some DM's will let you move between attacks to increase the number of targets, some won't because the intent is a single attack per the developers when asked for clarification, just with multiple rolls. Without extra movement allowed volley is the better choice, but even without movement between attacks you can move before and after to get the largest number of potential targets with whirlwind. Whirlwind also works best with a big weapon for big damage, so doesn't mesh with the fighting styles as much, but dueling allows you to hold a shield so with a shield, dueling fighting style, and escape the horde it's not too bad.

At 15th level evasion is generally the top pick. Stand against the tide is too situational. Uncanny dodge is a good ability, but if you have the defensive duelist feat it's usually better to spend the reaction to have the attack miss completely with an AC bonus and also have evasion.

Some useful would be: hunter's mark, goodberry, cure wounds, pass without trace, spike growth, conjure animals, conjure barrage, conjure woodland beings, freedom of movement, swift quiver, conjure volley. Spell selection is limited.

Recommended hunter features: colossus slayer, escape the horde, volley, evasion.

Recommended background: outlander (athletics, survival)

Recommended class skills: perception, stealth, insight


For fighting style, a lot of players don't recommend TWF but it increases your chances to land colossus slayer, added your ability modifier to the second attack, and is another attack to stack on hunter's mark damage. At low levels it does you a lot of good, and you never get more than extra attack like a fighter does. At 5th level vs AC 15 the breakdown looks like this (assumed colossus slayer applied on the first hit):


Dual shortswords, two weapon fighting style, hunter's mark, colossus slayer, 18 DEX, 65% accuracy

5% crit: d6+d6+d6+d6+4=0.9
60% hit: d6+d6+4=6.6
35% nada: 0
6.96% colossus slayer crit: d8+d8=0.63
88.35% colossus slayer hit: d8=3.98

3 attacks plus colossus slayer = 27.11


Rapier and shield, dueling fighting style, hunter's mark, colossus slayer, 18 DEX, 65% accuracy (better AC, better with whirlwind)

5% crit: d8+d6+d8+d6+2+4=1.1
60% hit: d8+d6+2+4=8.4
35% nada: 0
6.75% colossus slayer crit: d8+d8=0.61
81% colossus slayer hit: d8=3.65

2 attacks plus colossus slayer = 23.26


Longbow, archery fighting style, hunter's mark, colossus slayer, 18 DEX, 75% accuracy

5% crit: d8+d6+d8+d6+4=1.0
70% hit: d8+d6+4=8.4
25% nada: 0
6.25% colossus slayer crit: d8+d8=0.56
88.75% colossus slayer hit: d8=3.99

2 attacks plus colossus slayer = 23.35


The big draw for archery is the sharpshooter feat, and that can be taken regardless of fighting style. Rangers don't get more extra attacks like fighters do, so TWF works for them for a bit more melee damage than a couple of points of AC. TWF will do you well earlier on and this is more of a judgement call on your preference because it's hard to compare a bit of damage to a bit of AC to more damage with sharpshooter when taken over also taking sharpshooter. If you do take whirlwind attack, take dueling and a shield. If you plan on being up front and adding to damage TWF can work for you. If you expect to be at range more often then take archery.


For comparison...

Champion Fighter 5, halberd, great weapon fighting style 16 STR, 60% accuracy

2 Attacks
10% crit: d10+d10+3 (reroll 1 or 2) = 1.56
50% hit: d10+3 (reroll 1 or 2) = 4.65
40% nada: 0

Bonus Attack
10% crit: d4+d4+3 (reroll 1 or 2) = 1.0
55% hit: d4+3 (reroll 1 or 2) = 3.25
35% nada: 0

2 attacks plus bonus = 16.67


Champion Fighter 5, great sword, great weapon fighting style 18 STR, 65% accuracy

10% crit: 2d6+2d6+4 (reroll 1 or 2) = 2.07
55% hit: 2d6+4 (reroll 1 or 2) = 6.78
35% nada: 0

2 attacks = 17.70


The fighter can action surge once per short rest to double the damage per round, but the ranger has higher consistent damage with class abilities and hunter's mark running, and hunter's mark will last for a while. The ranger likely has hunter's mark, goodberry, cure wounds, and pass without trace learned at that level.


Hope that helps.

[silveralen]

Hey peeps,

I'm considering a ranger as my first 5e player character.

I hear that it's not as combat oriented as past editions.

I've also looked at the class archetypes and abilities... Most of not seems pretty clear, but I have yet to identify any purely ranger strengths or roles that make it jump out at me.

Please, if you have any information concerning how they shine, what kind of tricks they possess up their sleeves, what kind of builds are possible, which feats have extra useful applications share them here!

Thanks in advance, I really enjoy the amount of booksmarts that shows up in replies!

-dove

Disclaimer: Ranger is one of the few classes that can simply be done better by others. Fighter 2/Bard 18 for example. Some mix of eldritch knight and rogue. These can all be better at actually tracking enemies and using the survival skill, they can have a spell list as good or better than the ranger's, and they have more combat power.

That being said, lets focus on the unique stuff. Hunter has his volley ability, which is a nice at will AoE ability. If you take horde breaker, you can deal amazingly well with groups of enemies all day long, and you have volley like spells to build on that further. You have some interesting defensive abilities as well. You can also use camouflage to some effect, though the inability to move limits it somewhat.

Actually, fun side note: one of my player's already pointed out that, if the group carried around a small child sized wagon with a stone pillar/wall in it, the ranger could hide and they could shove the cart into rooms, with the ranger's high stealth ability from camouflage allowing him to scout it out safely.The major stumbling block is the ranger has no way of letting the party know if the room isn't safe. Also, its an absurd work around for a horribly limited situational ability.

Honestly... ranger just looks bad on the face of it.

[Celcey]

Having never played one myself, I can't comment too strongly, but I will say this: there are no bad classes (or subclasses) in 5e. I've heard good things about both subclasses. Whatever you choose to play, it will play just fine, even if RAW it doesn't seem that great.

[Theodoxus]

What is attracting you to ranger, specifically? It sounds almost like you pinned the tail on the donkey and just randomly got ranger.

[Gwendol]

Wood elf archer makes good use of the class.

[MadBear]

Ranged AOE hunter rangers have some of the best AOE damage in the game. Lightning arrow + hoarde breaker + volley = win :smallbiggrin:

[Person_Man]

Ranger is a hotly debated class. My suggestions:

1) Talk to your DM before choosing a Favored Enemy/Explorer. Your choice matters a lot. If you pick things that rarely occur in the campaigns the abilities are useless, if you pick things that frequently occur then you have many interesting things to do outside of combat.

2) Read your spell list carefully. The spells that are only on the Ranger spell list are generally your best options. Also take a close look at Pass Without Trace, which is basically auto-success on Stealth.

3) Archery Style + Sharpshooter Feat + Hunter subclass abilities + Hunter's Mark spell + Extra Attack gives you some of the best damage output in the game at low levels. (Though it doesn't scale well). Be sure to try and set up ambushes whenever you can as well, so that you can get Advantage on your first round of attacks.

Having said all that, I'm not a fan of the Ranger. Other then the highly DM dependent Favored Enemy/Explorer, there's really nothing unique or mechanically interesting about the class for me. There are many other better options for Stealth + damage.

[Easy_Lee]

Ranged AOE hunter rangers have some of the best AOE damage in the game. Lightning arrow + hoarde breaker + volley = win :smallbiggrin:

You can't really combine all of those in the way I think you mean. Lightning arrow buffs one attack, and volley makes multiple attacks.

That said, yeah Hunter rangers have probably the best AOE and horde-fighting skills out of any mundane. If you can move during whirlwind attack and take dual wielder and defensive duelist, it's easy to see how a ranger could be impervious to just about any number of orcs and goblins and the like.

Your single target capabilities will suffer. Unless you can land things like ensnaring strike, you won't be as useful as others against large single targets. This is because hunters excel at fighting hordes.

Beastmaster is an interesting choice, though often seems weak. I've found one very good use for the archetype, and it's in my sig. Riding your companion into battle is extremely effective with certain beasts, particularly in the early-to-mid levels. This archetype absolutely will not scale well, though, if your DM is unwilling to let you equip barding and magical items to your companion.

If you play a melee Hunter, go Dex and max that first. Pick spells with no DC until you can raise your wisdom at later levels. Bow-wielding rangers are better, and a dual-hand crossbow hunter is actually pretty good. If you play beastmaster, I strongly encourage you to use my Breaking BM build.

Rangers can be fun. Hope you enjoy the class

[MadBear]

You can't really combine all of those in the way I think you mean. Lightning arrow buffs one attack, and volley makes multiple attacks.

That said, yeah Hunter rangers have probably the best AOE and horde-fighting skills out of any mundane. If you can move during whirlwind attack and take dual wielder and defensive duelist, it's easy to see how a ranger could be impervious to just about any number of orcs and goblins and the like.

Your single target capabilities will suffer. Unless you can land things like ensnaring strike, you won't be as useful as others against large single targets. This is because hunters excel at fighting hordes.

Beastmaster is an interesting choice, though often seems weak. I've found one very good use for the archetype, and it's in my sig. Riding your companion into battle is extremely effective with certain beasts, particularly in the early-to-mid levels. This archetype absolutely will not scale well, though, if your DM is unwilling to let you equip barding and magical items to your companion.

If you play a melee Hunter, go Dex and max that first. Pick spells with no DC until you can raise your wisdom at later levels. Bow-wielding rangers are better, and a dual-hand crossbow hunter is actually pretty good. If you play beastmaster, I strongly encourage you to use my Breaking BM build.

Rangers can be fun. Hope you enjoy the class

Actually, you can use your bonus action to cast lightning arrow (allowing it to go off on the next attack) then volley followed by a triggered hoard breaker (which will trigger the lightning arrow). It's a really good AOE combo that should make a group of enemies cry.

[Easy_Lee]

Actually, you can use your bonus action to cast lightning arrow (allowing it to go off on the next attack) then volley followed by a triggered hoard breaker (which will trigger the lightning arrow). It's a really good AOE combo that should make a group of enemies cry.

How did you make lightning arrow affect more than one attack roll? Volley makes multiple attack rolls, and LA is only supposed to affect one according to the description.

[MadBear]

How did you make lightning arrow affect more than one attack roll? Volley makes multiple attack rolls, and LA is only supposed to affect one according to the description.

Simple, I used lightning arrow with the hoard breaker attack that was generated off of the volley.

[Easy_Lee]

Simple, I used lightning arrow with the hoard breaker attack that was generated off of the volley.

Doesn't horde breaker merely grant an additional attack?

[MadBear]

I guess to be fair, hoard breaker isn't even needed. When I make my first attack roll due to volley, lightning arrow is triggered and goes off.

[Easy_Lee]

I guess to be fair, hoard breaker isn't even needed. When I make my first attack roll due to volley, lightning arrow is triggered and goes off.

I think you're missing my point. Lightning arrow goes off, but it doesn't affect any more targets than it would normally. Volley doesn't allow one attack it hit multiple targets, it allows you to make multiple attacks within an area of effect. You can use both at the same time, but you don't multiply their effects. It's just the same as doing one and then the other.

[MadBear]

I think you're missing my point. Lightning arrow goes off, but it doesn't affect any more targets than it would normally. Volley doesn't allow one attack it hit multiple targets, it allows you to make multiple attacks within an area of effect. You can use both at the same time, but you don't multiply their effects. It's just the same as doing one and then the other.

Yes I did in fact miss your point.

I was just saying that the damage from volley + lightning arrow + hoard breaker allowed for a really good AOE nova turn as a ranger. I didn't think there was any multiplying effect.

[Easy_Lee]

Yes I did in fact miss your point.

I was just saying that the damage from volley + lightning arrow + hoard breaker allowed for a really good AOE nova turn as a ranger. I didn't think there was any multiplying effect.

Gotcha. I've seen this "combo" pop up a few times, and a lot of people think effects like ensnaring strike and lightning arrow hit all targets when used with whirlwind/volley.

The situation is interesting, though. If whirlwind is multiple attacks, then you can move between them, no way around that by RAW. If it's one attack, then you can use it and volley to hit multiple targets with spell-boosted attacks. The developers backed themselves into a corner on this one.

[MadBear]

hmmm hadn't considered that. (then again I'm in the multiple attacks camp and think moving between attacks is/should be fine).

[GiantOctopodes]

Disclaimer: Ranger is one of the few classes that can simply be done better by others. Fighter 2/Bard 18 for example. Some mix of eldritch knight and rogue. These can all be better at actually tracking enemies and using the survival skill, they can have a spell list as good or better than the ranger's, and they have more combat power.

That being said, lets focus on the unique stuff. Hunter has his volley ability, which is a nice at will AoE ability. If you take horde breaker, you can deal amazingly well with groups of enemies all day long, and you have volley like spells to build on that further. You have some interesting defensive abilities as well. You can also use camouflage to some effect, though the inability to move limits it somewhat.

Actually, fun side note: one of my player's already pointed out that, if the group carried around a small child sized wagon with a stone pillar/wall in it, the ranger could hide and they could shove the cart into rooms, with the ranger's high stealth ability from camouflage allowing him to scout it out safely.The major stumbling block is the ranger has no way of letting the party know if the room isn't safe. Also, its an absurd work around for a horribly limited situational ability.

Honestly... ranger just looks bad on the face of it.

Fighter 2/Bard 18 can do *some* things better than a ranger. However, Bard versatility is much like Wizard versatility- overwhelmingly powerful in paper, but not in practice. Simply put, the Bard can do just about *anything* better than the class in question, due to expertise plus bardic inspiration. However, he can't do *everything*. With his natural focus on charisma, too, it seems to me to be far more useful sticking his expertise in abilities that reinforce him being the "face" of your party. Alternately, he could go the strength route and be one of the best grapplers out there. However, should he choose to go the Dexterity route and opt for Stealth as one of his choices, it should be noted that having multiple people in your party good at stealth is not a bad thing. In fact, having your whole party stealthy is a potentially great thing, and as such, though I think a Bard is the best class from a party optimization standpoint, and will never recommend against having one, if there is already one in the party is does not overshadow or run counter to taking a Ranger. On the contrary, they complement each other very well.

As mentioned, Volley + Horde Breaker gives the Ranger the highest number of ranged at-will weapon attacks, with even just two adjacent foes, of any class in the game except Fighter 20 (which is often mentioned but rarely seen), and it scales up tremendously to allow for the highest potential at will DPS of any class, albeit spread out over multiple targets. No other class can match their raw ranged damage potential, including the aforementioned Bard. This is doubly true because they are well equipped to handle their largest in game number of weapon attacks- they have all the tools to secure multiple methods of obtaining unlimited amounts of poison, meaning that for them, they can potentially have every attack carry giant serpent venom after a certain point in the campaign, astronomically raising their DPS.

From the other route with hunter, Whirlwind means they can have the highest number of melee attacks in the game as well, which is doubly useful if you're using sentinel and the marking rules from the DMG, as it can turn the Ranger into an unmatched "black hole" of holding people in place. Unfortunately they are not the best equipped of any class to survive in that position unless it's late game and they are lightly or heavily obscured, in which case they're as good as any.

Their spell list, though limited, is also Fantastic- carrying multiple very useful summoning spells, the tremendously important water walk and water breathing spells, the "I win" of stealth in pass without trace, its counter in locate creature, minor healing, environmental and battlefield control in fog cloud and plant growth, anti-mage ability in silence, and of course the capstone skill for an archer in Swift Quiver. Bards can steal some of this away, of course, and any Bard worth their salt will take *some* kind of summoning spell, which they can use to greater effect with their larger number of slots. They also get swift quiver *much* earlier. However, note that thanks to lacking volley and horde breaker, and it using a bonus action, a Bard using Swift Quiver gets a maximum of 4 attacks, using their bonus action, assuming they are a college of valor bard (since it's concentration, it doesn't stack with haste), while a Crossbow Expert Ranger gets the same number against adjacent foes (three of which are on the same target, one of which is on the adjacent foe), and *both* of them are better off using their bonus action to direct their summons to attack, in which case the Ranger has a higher number of attacks, assuming two adjacent targets.

You will note that many of my points rely on adjacent targets- at this point I will take a moment to make a simple aside- Rangers are highly efficient at synergy with other party members. To get the most mileage out of a Ranger, they should be paired with a Battlefield controller- a grappler to drag them into the correct position, a monk / fighter / warlock to push them into the correct position, and / or a sentinel to hold them in place and keep them from wandering off. If you have one or more of those, a Ranger can be the best possible choice to add to a party, as *no one* can perform the role of "blaster" (just killing things dead) with greater consistency and efficiency than a Ranger, not even a Warlock, assuming the Ranger has proper party support.

tl;dr: A Ranger is potentially the best class in the game at dealing damage, they also are great at environmental adaptation, summoning, and are competent at stealth and tracking. Though somewhat MAD due to theoretically needing Dex, Con, and Wis, virtually all Ranger spells do not act directly on the enemy, and as such do not cause saving throws, so they can focus exclusively on Dex and Con with minimal downside. They rely on others to draw out their full strength, though. So before using one, more than talking with your DM, talk with your other party members. See if one or more of them is willing or able to position the enemies correctly for you, if they are comfortable with setting them up so you can knock them down. I don't personally see their environmental or favored enemy abilities as particularly useful or powerful, but I do agree- if you intend to get use out of them, you need to talk with your DM.

[Ashrym]

Volley plus the use of poison can be amazing, btw. Bards can pick up swift quiver and splash for archery style but they can't pick up hunter abilities to go with it. The combination of swift quiver plus hunter (with volley) works well for rangers.

[Vogonjeltz]

I think you're missing my point. Lightning arrow goes off, but it doesn't affect any more targets than it would normally. Volley doesn't allow one attack it hit multiple targets, it allows you to make multiple attacks within an area of effect. You can use both at the same time, but you don't multiply their effects. It's just the same as doing one and then the other.

Does lightning arrow affect 1 attack or 1 attack roll?

Volley is one attack that employs multiple rolls

[MadBear]

Does lightning arrow affect 1 attack or 1 attack roll?

Volley is one attack that employs multiple rolls

It states the next time you make a ranged weapon attack.

[Easy_Lee]

It states the next time you make a ranged weapon attack.

And I believe volley says it makes multiple attacks. I'm not positive, though.

[Amnoriath]

How did you make lightning arrow affect more than one attack roll? Volley makes multiple attack rolls, and LA is only supposed to affect one according to the description.

While the spell only modifies one attack Lightning Arrow is like an explosive arrow except with lightning damage. So each get an attack(with one at 4d8) and must save as well.

[Osiris]

A few weeks ago, a guide about rangers was posted.
Since it makes better points than I do, I'll include the link below:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?374666-Not-All-Who-Wander-are-Lost-A-Ranger-s-Guide

[GiantOctopodes]

And I believe volley says it makes multiple attacks. I'm not positive, though.

It does. Attack and attack roll are actually synonymous in 5e- reference page 194: If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack." As such, with effects like Volley, where you make a separate attack roll against each target, effects like lightning arrow that apply to the next attack you make would apply to the first attack roll you make when using the ability (basically, you can pick who is the center of the AOE in this case by picking who to roll against first). An effect which allowed you to make a single attack roll and apply the result against multiple targets would in theory allow lightning arrow to trigger multiple times, but there are no examples of that anywhere in 5e that I am aware of.

Just as a point of trivia, if you really wanted to stretch the center of Lightning arrow as much as possible, you could use volley, then use your bonus action to cast lightning arrow, then use the extra attack granted by horde breaker to have the center of the AOE start from someone 5' away from a target hit by Volley, allowing a theoretical 28 unique targets to be hit between the two, though unless the enemies in question are very weak, that's unlikely to be the best way to position it.

[Vogonjeltz]

And I believe volley says it makes multiple attacks. I'm not positive, though.

The ability actual says it's an (singular) attack. There are multiple targets and each receives it's own roll to determine if it hits.

Since, owing to the specific language chosen, we know it's a single attack, there's no ambiguity. The 194 reference only is applicable when there is any question (ambiguity).

No ambiguity, no question.

[GiantOctopodes]

The ability actual says it's an (singular) attack. There are multiple targets and each receives it's own roll to determine if it hits.

Since, owing to the specific language chosen, we know it's a single attack, there's no ambiguity. The 194 reference only is applicable when there is any question (ambiguity).

No ambiguity, no question.

Untrue, at no point does the ability say it's a singular attack. It says you make an attack (singular) against any number of creatures (plural), resulting in a plural number of attacks, further reinforced by stating you make a separate attack roll for each, again reinforcing multiple attacks as part of the ability. In fact, if you and I disagree on whether there is one attack or multiple, that would mean there *is* a question or ambiguity on it, in which case 194 comes into play, which would again indicate that multiple attack rolls and thus multiple attacks. Thus, either way, whether you agree with me or not, the very fact that my position can be held means it ends up being multiple attacks :smalltongue:

[Vogonjeltz]

Untrue, at no point does the ability say it's a singular attack. It says you make an attack (singular) against any number of creatures (plural), resulting in a plural number of attacks, further reinforced by stating you make a separate attack roll for each, again reinforcing multiple attacks as part of the ability. In fact, if you and I disagree on whether there is one attack or multiple, that would mean there *is* a question or ambiguity on it, in which case 194 comes into play, which would again indicate that multiple attack rolls and thus multiple attacks. Thus, either way, whether you agree with me or not, the very fact that my position can be held means it ends up being multiple attacks :smalltongue:

Actually in English, the use of the word "a" means "one".

This is a totally unambiguous use of language. There's literally no room for disagreement, it's English.

[GiantOctopodes]

Actually in English, the use of the word "a" means "one".

This is a totally unambiguous use of language. There's literally no room for disagreement, it's English.

Indeed, you make one attack (singular) against any number of creatures (plural noun, in English meaning consisting of, containing, or pertaining to more than one). If you make one transaction with multiple stores, you have made multiple transactions. If you eat one meal on multiple days, you have eaten multiple meals. If you plant one tree on multiple yards, you have planted multiple trees. If you make one attack against multiple creatures, you have made multiple attacks. I agree it's a totally unambiguous use of language, and that there's no room for disagreement, but not in the way you think. You make multiple attack rolls- one per creature, but a multitude overall. As such, you have made multiple attacks. The rules even expressly point it out- "if you make an attack roll, it counts as making an attack", and you roll multiple attack rolls, thus multiple attacks.

[silveralen]

Lightning arrow+volley is a little weird it seems. The wording strikes me as ambiguous, so let us see what happens in both cases.

Going by page 193 "Choosing a target: pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, an object, or a location."

Back under volley we have "make a ranged attack against any number of creatures within 10 ft of a point you can see within your weapon's range."

lightning arrow "Make the attack roll as normal, the target takes 4d8 lightning damage on a hit, half on a miss" "each creature within 10 ft of the target makes a dexterity saving throw, it takes 2d8 if it fails, half that if it succeeds"


Case 1: Volley is a single attack. That means volley has a single target, which is the point you specified, as per page 193.

However, lightning arrow doesn't do so well with this. The attack rolls you normally make have nothing to do with hitting the target, but hitting the people in range. You can try to say each enemy is a target, but the problem is the goes directly against how attacks work, again per page 193.

The most logical result is that the main attack portion simply fails to hit anything, it hits the ground in the place you target. However, the rest of the volley still hits, and the AoE dexterity save still applies as well. Thus it gives you an extra bit of damage versus everyone in the volley's range.

Case 2: Volley makes a separate attack versus everyone in range, who is a target.

In this case, you simple specify which attack is first, and lightning arrow applies to that. The rest of the people in of the volley get hit, and lightning arrow's AoE still applies, potentially hitting the others in the volley, or people outside it.


Neither is going to be a big difference. The former doesn't replace one bow attack's damage with 4d8 and has to target the lightning arrow at the center of the volley. The latter has to replace volley damage with the 4d8 for one attack, and the lightning arrow AoE has to be targeted on an enemy. Neither is universally better than the other, though the former is much simpler.

I certainly don't see it as something to be hotly debated. The only case where it gets crazy would be someone trying to justify a separate lightning arrow for everyone in the volley, which falls apart due to the one attack=one target rule.

[Easy_Lee]

I certainly don't see it as something to be hotly debated. The only case where it gets crazy would be someone trying to justify a separate lightning arrow for everyone in the volley, which falls apart due to the one attack=one target rule.

Agreed, and I think the most telling part is that you make separate attack rolls for each target of volley/whirlwind. As pointed out before, one attack roll = one attack. That means both that lightning arrow and moves like it only apply to one of those attacks and also that you can move between individual attacks. The book explicitly allows for movement between attacks.

WoTC should have explicitly disallowed movement during volley/whirlwind if they did not mean for it to be allowed. By the sounds of it, this is an oversight that may one day be errata'd. As is, I'd allow it at my tables if the player(s) thought of it, just because I like to reward creativity.

[silveralen]

Agreed, and I think the most telling part is that you make separate attack rolls for each target of volley/whirlwind. As pointed out before, one attack roll = one attack. That means both that lightning arrow and moves like it only apply to one of those attacks and also that you can move between individual attacks. The book explicitly allows for movement between attacks.

WoTC should have explicitly disallowed movement during volley/whirlwind if they did not mean for it to be allowed. By the sounds of it, this is an oversight that may one day be errata'd. As is, I'd allow it at my tables if the player(s) thought of it, just because I like to reward creativity.

I'm not sure how moving between volley attacks helps(you can't move the point of origin for the volley afterall), but I think whirlwind attack could be read that way for sure. Might get a little crazy with the mobility feat, but honestly I doubt it'd cause serious issues and... I really do feel like ranger could use the help. If it wasn't this, i probably would end up clustering enemies around him even if it is playing them a bit stupid.

[GiantOctopodes]

I'm not sure how moving between volley attacks helps(you can't move the point of origin for the volley afterall)

Negating cover for certain enemies by repositioning before making the attack against them. Unlikely to be an issue unless you don't have sharpshooter, but that's an example of how it could in theory help.

[silveralen]

Negating cover for certain enemies by repositioning before making the attack against them. Unlikely to be an issue unless you don't have sharpshooter, but that's an example of how it could in theory help.

LvL 11 ranger without sharpshooter.... that poor soul :smallfrown:

[Ashrym]

I'm not sure how moving between volley attacks helps(you can't move the point of origin for the volley afterall), but I think whirlwind attack could be read that way for sure. Might get a little crazy with the mobility feat, but honestly I doubt it'd cause serious issues and... I really do feel like ranger could use the help. If it wasn't this, i probably would end up clustering enemies around him even if it is playing them a bit stupid.

Feats are at a big opportunity cost when rangers already have escape the horde. Something like that means mobility might actually be taken because it's not something I currently see happening.

[Rowan Wolf]

Feats are an optional rule so the each class should be able to stand on its own without them.

[Person_Man]

Feats are an optional rule so the each class should be able to stand on its own without them.

I agree entirely.

One of the things that really annoys me about non-full casters is that they get more Ability Score Increases/Feats

Feats are supposed to be optional (and I know a few players who honestly don't like them, because they don't enjoy intensive research/character building/optimization). So if you're not using Feats, that fifth or sixth Ability Score Increase is much less valuable, because by 12th-ish level the vast majority of characters that don't use Feats will have 20 in their primary ability score and Constitution, and so the increase has to go into an ability score they use more rarely.

And if the player does use Feats, the Feats they gain at high levels are just as powerful as the Feats they gain at low levels. (And a few of them are are weaker at high levels). So instead of gaining a high level class ability at level 14, the Fighter gains the exact same thing he could have gotten at level 1.

[GiantOctopodes]

I agree entirely.

One of the things that really annoys me about non-full casters is that they get more Ability Score Increases/Feats

Feats are supposed to be optional (and I know a few players who honestly don't like them, because they don't enjoy intensive research/character building/optimization). So if you're not using Feats, that fifth or sixth Ability Score Increase is much less valuable, because by 12th-ish level the vast majority of characters that don't use Feats will have 20 in their primary ability score and Constitution, and so the increase has to go into an ability score they use more rarely.

And if the player does use Feats, the Feats they gain at high levels are just as powerful as the Feats they gain at low levels. (And a few of them are are weaker at high levels). So instead of gaining a high level class ability at level 14, the Fighter gains the exact same thing he could have gotten at level 1.

None of this applies to Rangers, the class being discussed here. It is certainly true that Rogues (slightly) and Fighters (to a large extent) are weaker in games where feats are not used, and it is *certainly* debatable whether feats are the equivalent of Class Features, but that requires comparing directly against another class feature, and specifics seem to be the anathema to the conversation in question. That conversation is already occurring, though, in multiple threads, and is totally off topic to the Ranger, as the Ranger gets a standard number of feats and does not rely on them.

Certainly the Ranger is more powerful if feats are an option (Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter for Ranged, Sentinel and Polearm Master and possibly mage slayer for melee would be my choices). *Everyone* is more powerful if feats are allowed than if they are disallowed. But if they are disallowed, there are ways around those restrictions, including the aforementioned movement while shooting. Without feats, every point made about rangers is still true. They still have:
1) The best at will DPS of any class
2) A Fantastic spell list covering a lot of bases
3) Strong synergy with other party members
4) Unlimited Poison Access
5) Adequate Exploration, Survival and Stealth support
6) At will Blindsight, one of the only sources of that in the game.

[Easy_Lee]

Without feats, every point made about rangers is still true. They still have:
1) The best at will DPS of any class
2) A Fantastic spell list covering a lot of bases
3) Strong synergy with other party members
4) Unlimited Poison Access
5) Adequate Exploration, Survival and Stealth support
6) At will Blindsight, one of the only sources of that in the game.

1) By what metric? If you count "at-will" DPR as your average DPR over 100 rounds against a pack of 10 clustered enemies who never move or die, then maybe. Otherwise fighters and sorcerers have them beat pretty handily, just to name two.
2) Ranger spell list is 1/2 the druid spell list, and the fact that it works off of wisdom makes them MAD. Bards have a fantastic spell list. Rangers have an okay spell list.
3) Every class has either strong synergy or little depending on who they're grouped with and how the class is played. Unless you want to mention some specific combo like rogue/battlemaster, I don't see how rangers synergize with party members better than anyone else.
4) Only if they pick beast master, and take the snake pet, and want to have little impact in combat besides applying poison to things. It's important to remember that poison is the most common immunity.
5) Anyone who takes the right skills can do these things. Also, having "adequate" support for something is not a selling point of a class. You know who has better exploration, survival, and stealth? A moon druid who can turn into a mosquito.
6) DM-dependent, easily replaced with certain items if it was going to be a major problem, and there are spells that solve it too.

Rangers can do decent AOE and have a lot of features available if they want to use bows. But unless you want to do something tricky like what's in my sig, there are better classes for filling any individual role. Rangers can be somewhat hard to kill with a Dex build and defensive duelist, but barbarians, monks, paladins, and fighters are better tanks. Rangers can do decent damage, but fighters, sorcerers, and barbarians (just to name a few) can beat their DPR. Rangers can help you track down an enemy you're looking for, if it's a favored enemy, but other classes such as diviner wizards have more support. Rangers can invest in battlefield control, but monks and wizards are better at it. Rangers are good at filling a wide variety of party roles that may be needed, but bards and warlocks are better at it.

Rangers do great bow DPR, but bards and fighters can beat their numbers at high levels...

This is why people feel the class may need a little help.

[Justin Sane]

Rangers have an okay spell list.This is the only part of your post I disagree with. If Rangers prepared spells, their spell list would be "okay", since it's full of those nifty, but situational spells. As spontaneous casters, it really limits their potential.

[GiantOctopodes]

1) By what metric? If you count "at-will" DPR as your average DPR over 100 rounds against a pack of 10 clustered enemies who never move or die, then maybe. Otherwise fighters and sorcerers have them beat pretty handily, just to name two.
2) Ranger spell list is 1/2 the druid spell list, and the fact that it works off of wisdom makes them MAD. Bards have a fantastic spell list. Rangers have an okay spell list.
3) Every class has either strong synergy or little depending on who they're grouped with and how the class is played. Unless you want to mention some specific combo like rogue/battlemaster, I don't see how rangers synergize with party members better than anyone else.
4) Only if they pick beast master, and take the snake pet, and want to have little impact in combat besides applying poison to things. It's important to remember that poison is the most common immunity.
5) Anyone who takes the right skills can do these things. Also, having "adequate" support for something is not a selling point of a class. You know who has better exploration, survival, and stealth? A moon druid who can turn into a mosquito.
6) DM-dependent, easily replaced with certain items if it was going to be a major problem, and there are spells that solve it too.

Rangers can do decent AOE and have a lot of features available if they want to use bows. But unless you want to do something tricky like what's in my sig, there are better classes for filling any individual role. Rangers can be somewhat hard to kill with a Dex build and defensive duelist, but barbarians, monks, paladins, and fighters are better tanks. Rangers can do decent damage, but fighters, sorcerers, and barbarians (just to name a few) can beat their DPR. Rangers can help you track down an enemy you're looking for, if it's a favored enemy, but other classes such as diviner wizards have more support. Rangers can invest in battlefield control, but monks and wizards are better at it. Rangers are good at filling a wide variety of party roles that may be needed, but bards and warlocks are better at it.

Rangers do great bow DPR, but bards and fighters can beat their numbers at high levels...

This is why people feel the class may need a little help.

1) Nah, just more than one enemy within a 10' radius, see #3. Once they get even a single pair of enemies next to each other, Fighter and Sorcerer are never going to beat em. At Will just means not using limited resource spell slots, and even then, a Ranger can deal fairly close or better damage vs a Fireball, just not a 6th or 8th level fireball.

2) Most of what I personally consider the Best Ranger spells don't rely on saves at all (summons, elemental adaption, battlefield control, utility spells). Being half the Druid spell list (plus a few added ones like Silence and Swift Quiver) is not the knock you think it is, the Druid has a Fantastic spell list, and half of it is still fantastic, and far better than what Sorcerers or Warlocks are rolling around with.

3) It relates back entirely to point #1. Rangers have the best at will DPR (which is still DPS, as DPS is just DPR / 6, just saying), because they are *by far* the best source of at will AOE / multitarget damage. That it doesn't take away from their spellcasting means they have the spells free to use those utility spells more often, which is why their spell list is less of an issue than posited. However, it relies on enemies being together. That means they provide very strong synergy with classes that control battlefield movement- grapplers, sentinels or other movement control folks, or what I refer to as "block puzzlers", those able to push or shove enemies into place, such as Monks, Battlemasters, or Warlocks. By acting together as a team, you do tremendously more damage than you would acting individually, thus the synergy.

4) Not at *all* true! Animal Friendship and Speak with Animal ensure you can convince that random Giant Snake you find to kindly give you its venom, Survival helps you track the creature down in the first place, Conjure Animals gives you an unlimited supply right there, and at higher levels, Locate Creature allows you to track down that Wyvern so you tame it / steal its eggs, providing an unlimited supply of Wyvern Venom *and* one of the most awesome lore-supported mounts out there. And while Poison may be the most common immunity, with Demons, Devils, Constructs, Elementals and Undead all being immune, that hardly means it's *never* useful, and against those not immune, an extra 3d6 or 7d6 damage is nothing to sneeze at, especially when it can be applied to every attack, and stacks with things like Hunter's Mark, magical weapon properties or Crusader's Mantle.

5) Not every class gets a situational Expertise in Perception, the ability to identify the exact number, size, and time frame of creatures moving through an area, the ability to ignore difficult terrain, the ability to use Hide as a bonus action in combat, advantage on tracking rolls, or free languages. Situational and not guaranteed to be useful at all, thus why I said adequate, but it's disingenuous to claim the Ranger is no better off than anyone taking skills at those things. Please note that a Moon Druid has none of those benefits, and though a Land Druid can move through nonmagical difficult terrain, he can't make his whole group ignore the effects while travelling (again, synergy).

6) On the contrary, player dependent. It's one of the only ways to successfully take advantage of vision obstruction, as is readily available from the Ranger's own Fog Cloud. Since you don't automatically have disadvantage, as an invisible attacker you actually have advantage on them, while they have disadvantage on you, meaning a level 1 spell provides a total swing of 12 in terms of your chance to hit / your enemy's increased chance to miss, one of the most powerful effects in the game. The only other ways to get Blindsense? Be a Rogue and within 10 feet, be a Druid wild shaped into a Bat or similar form (in which case there's not as much you can do with that knowledge, as you're not hitting very hard and it doesn't grant disadvantage on saves), or be a Warlock with Pact of the Chain with a Bat familiar and the Voice of the Chain Master invocation. There are NO spells or magic items which grant Blindsight within the game as it stands currently, so certainly your DM could make them, but that would just make it all the better, as unless your DM is handing out that incredibly exclusive ability in the form of items like candy to every NPC, what he's actually done is allow your whole party to benefit from the vision advantage, making your team a near unstoppable force.

Finally, please demonstrate how you think a Fighter or Bard can deal better Bow DPR at high levels. With only 3 enemies in play (hardly unreasonable, I think) I'll show how a Ranger drastically outperforms them.

[Talderas]

1) Nah, just more than one enemy within a 10' radius, see #3. Once they get even a single pair of enemies next to each other, Fighter and Sorcerer are never going to beat em. At Will just means not using limited resource spell slots, and even then, a Ranger can deal fairly close or better damage vs a Fireball, just not a 6th or 8th level fireball.

A bow ranger is limited by the number of arrows he has in his quiver. Recovering arrows midcombat is not a viable option. This issue is not corrected until lv17 and swift quiver is available, which is going to be availabe for only a single encounter each day.


5) Not every class gets a situational Expertise in Perception, the ability to identify the exact number, size, and time frame of creatures moving through an area, the ability to ignore difficult terrain, the ability to use Hide as a bonus action in combat, advantage on tracking rolls, or free languages. Situational and not guaranteed to be useful at all, thus why I said adequate, but it's disingenuous to claim the Ranger is no better off than anyone taking skills at those things. Please note that a Moon Druid has none of those benefits, and though a Land Druid can move through nonmagical difficult terrain, he can't make his whole group ignore the effects while travelling (again, synergy).

Primeval awareness only gives you a binary response to whether creatures of a type are in the area. It gives you no indication of number, size, when, or where said creatures might be. Rogues get to use hide as a bonus action at level two which hilariously means that a Ranger10/Rogue 2 can hide in plain sight as a bonus action before a Ranger 14 could.


6) On the contrary, player dependent. It's one of the only ways to successfully take advantage of vision obstruction, as is readily available from the Ranger's own Fog Cloud. Since you don't automatically have disadvantage, as an invisible attacker you actually have advantage on them, while they have disadvantage on you, meaning a level 1 spell provides a total swing of 12 in terms of your chance to hit / your enemy's increased chance to miss, one of the most powerful effects in the game. The only other ways to get Blindsense? Be a Rogue and within 10 feet, be a Druid wild shaped into a Bat or similar form (in which case there's not as much you can do with that knowledge, as you're not hitting very hard and it doesn't grant disadvantage on saves), or be a Warlock with Pact of the Chain with a Bat familiar and the Voice of the Chain Master invocation. There are NO spells or magic items which grant Blindsight within the game as it stands currently, so certainly your DM could make them, but that would just make it all the better, as unless your DM is handing out that incredibly exclusive ability in the form of items like candy to every NPC, what he's actually done is allow your whole party to benefit from the vision advantage, making your team a near unstoppable force.

Your blindsense doesn't even come to level 18 so this trick is so far into the level as to not be worth considering as a huge advantage since most tables never get close to that level of play unless they start there. Second it's only 30ft which means it's basically only useful for attacking creatures within the fog cloud or immediately outside of it and it's not going to help you at all when attacking creatures at range. Your attacks will have disadvantage because you cannot see the creature. The Warlock has a better version of the trick with darkness and devil's sight and he can do it as early as level 2. Blindsense or something close to it is not a prerequisite to achieve the goal so I have no idea why you're so fixated on it. You only need to make sure you are considered an invisible attacker.


Finally, please demonstrate how you think a Fighter or Bard can deal better Bow DPR at high levels. With only 3 enemies in play (hardly unreasonable, I think) I'll show how a Ranger drastically outperforms them.

Your ranger is reliant on said enemies staying with a certain range of each other. You've constructed a narrow situation under which the ranger will perform better.

[GiantOctopodes]

1) A bow ranger is limited by the number of arrows he has in his quiver. Recovering arrows midcombat is not a viable option. This issue is not corrected until lv17 and swift quiver is available, which is going to be availabe for only a single encounter each day.

2) Primeval awareness only gives you a binary response to whether creatures of a type are in the area. It gives you no indication of number, size, when, or where said creatures might be. Rogues get to use hide as a bonus action at level two which hilariously means that a Ranger10/Rogue 2 can hide in plain sight as a bonus action before a Ranger 14 could.

3) Your blindsense doesn't even come to level 18 so this trick is so far into the level as to not be worth considering as a huge advantage since most tables never get close to that level of play unless they start there. Second it's only 30ft which means it's basically only useful for attacking creatures within the fog cloud or immediately outside of it and it's not going to help you at all when attacking creatures at range. Your attacks will have disadvantage because you cannot see the creature. The Warlock has a better version of the trick with darkness and devil's sight and he can do it as early as level 2. Blindsense or something close to it is not a prerequisite to achieve the goal so I have no idea why you're so fixated on it. You only need to make sure you are considered an invisible attacker.

4) Your ranger is reliant on said enemies staying with a certain range of each other. You've constructed a narrow situation under which the ranger will perform better.

1) However, there is no restriction at all in how many quivers he can have. Remember, even an 8 Str Ranger can carry 120 lbs of equipment. 20 arrows weighs 1 lb. Carrying 200 arrows is only 10 lbs of weight, meaning negligible, and you can make arrows at a rate of 50 per day with downtime. You can also repair an unlimited number of arrows assuming someone in your party has mending. I really don't see how the number of arrows you have can be a legitimate concern.

2) I was actually referring to natural explorer, which specifically indicates "While tracking other creatures, you also learn their exact number, their sizes, and how long ago they passed through the area". Rogues get to use Hide as a bonus action at level 2, sure, but Barbarians, Bards, Clerics, Druids, Fighters, Monks, Paladins, Sorcerers, Wizards, and Warlocks do not. Does the fact that Rogues get Expertise somehow make that ability useless to a Bard, or vice versa? I'm not comparing them with a Rogue in stealth, the Rogue is admittedly better. So are Bards, if they choose. That doesn't mean the Rangers abilities are non existent or useless.

3) Not saying I would choose a Ranger specifically for that. And of course you would only use it for creatures in the fog cloud, why would you expect any differently? 30ft is more than adequate, and as you indicated, matches the fog cloud quite nicely. It's also further than any other class can get through any means other than the aforementioned useless (for taking advantage of it) bat druid or very specific pact of the chain warlock, so I wouldn't put it as "only" 30 feet. You also seem to have missed the statement "When you attack a creature you can’t see, your inability to see it doesn’t impose disadvantage on your attack rolls against it." The Warlocks vision trick *is* spectacular, and I'm not taking away from it one bit. The same point as before applies here, yet on top of that, while the Warlocks is rather constrained (it *only* works for magical darkness), the Ranger's is quite broad (works in darkness, fog, against invisible enemies, or virtually any other scenario you can think of). It's also worthy of note because it grants advantage on an unlimited number of attacks, which the Ranger is just better suited to take advantage of than a warlock. Tricks are not equal in their usefulness to all classes.

4) Indeed, my ranger is reliant on enemies staying in range of each other. Thus why he would be paired with a Barbarian or Bard or Rogue Grappler, someone with sentinel, or a Open Hand Monk or Battlemaster Fighter or a Warlock with repelling blast, and / or a Wizard or Sorcerer or Bard or Druid with Web or Entangle or other movement constraining abilities. There are *so many* ways in 5e to control the positions of your enemies. I am relying on the *players* to actively construct the conditions for their own success, just as with the vision tricks above. Rather than just blithely accepting whatever they are handed, I am expecting them to work together to achieve the best possible results. When doing so, they will successfully construct that narrow condition under which the Ranger performs better than other classes, thus why he is a great team player and has great synergy with other classes.

[silveralen]

Finally, please demonstrate how you think a Fighter or Bard can deal better Bow DPR at high levels. With only 3 enemies in play (hardly unreasonable, I think) I'll show how a Ranger drastically outperforms them.

Okay. Hasted EK fighter has 5 attacks per round. Using sharpshooter, his damage is around 20 per hit, so around 100 damage per round max, without needing clustered enemies or enemies who stand adjacent to each other. In those scenarios, he can drop shatter/thunderwave or a different AoE ability, and get a free shot off at one of them when he does so. He can also action surge to boost this.

A bard can use foresight to get advantage on every attack, with swift quiver dropping 4 attacks per round for around 80 DPR. Even better AoE abilities compared to EK, even using swift quiver every battle, in a normal day he has at least 6 fireballs, plus he still has utility slots left over.

So please, show me how ranger can consistently beat either of those all day that actually uses a varied approach to enemies, not hordes of hordes. Though honestly the bard is better there, he just uses fewer swift quivers per day and more fireballs.

Look, AoE at will abilities are great in theory, but with such a small AoE, he likely won't be consistently getting 3 enemies in that range. Not unless your DM runs the monsters stupid and unable to react.

So let me think, ranger can get 5 attacks and match the fighter, but only using swift quiver, which is twice per day. So for the encounter where fighter is hasted and ranger isn't quivered, the ranger needs to be hitting 4-5 people (depending on how they are arranged) to match fighter damage, and the rest is 3-4 just to equal out. He needs that every turn. These enemies also needs to have low enough AC that sharspshooter volleys are actually a good idea, otherwise it evens back out as both draw on their less than stellar AoE spells (ranger only has thunder arrow/conjure barrage, fighter has shatter/thunderwave, with one icestorm/wall of fire per day).Hunter's mark can help slightly (7 damage), but even on the generous side 2 action surges per short rest is going to beat that.

[Gwendol]

*Clap, clap, clap*

Very nicely put. 5e rewards those that are able to build on each others ability more than what may be apparent.

[silveralen]

4) Indeed, my ranger is reliant on enemies staying in range of each other. Thus why he would be paired with a Barbarian or Bard or Rogue Grappler, someone with sentinel, or a Open Hand Monk or Battlemaster Fighter or a Warlock with repelling blast, and / or a Wizard or Sorcerer or Bard or Druid with Web or Entangle or other movement constraining abilities. There are *so many* ways in 5e to control the positions of your enemies. I am relying on the *players* to actively construct the conditions for their own success, just as with the vision tricks above. Rather than just blithely accepting whatever they are handed, I am expecting them to work together to achieve the best possible results. When doing so, they will successfully construct that narrow condition under which the Ranger performs better than other classes, thus why he is a great team player and has great synergy with other classes.

So, the ranger has teammates helping him keep a DPR equal to other archers.

The general problem with this is that such tactics reward other classes far more. Have a monk or barbarian drag someone along a spike growth is both hilarious and effective. Have a fighter knock enemies into a wall of fire with a maneuver is awesome, a open hand monk who stuns them first is even better (10d8 extra damage). Have a warlock keep repulsing blast enemies back into his own black tentacles or fire wall as well.

In all those situations, the tactic increases party DPR whereas the ranger needs his to sacrifice their personal DPR just to get his up to snuff, resulting in little gain for the group. Why expend resources or lower your own damage so the ranger can match what a fighter could already accomplish?

[Talderas]

A bard can use foresight to get advantage on every attack, with swift quiver dropping 4 attacks per round for around 80 DPR. Even better AoE abilities compared to EK, even using swift quiver every battle, in a normal day he has at least 6 fireballs, plus he still has utility slots left over.

Note that a level 10 valor bard can achieve this. He will have two swift quivers per day at this time compared to the one swift quiver a ranger ever gets. He will have 4/3/3/3/2 for his spell slots.

[Person_Man]

I wonder if the actual and/or perceived issues with the Ranger can be fixed with a simple change to its spellcasting mechanic. For example, let them change their Ranger spells known with a Short Rest (but only spells known from the Ranger class, not multi-classing), and add a few more spells to their list?

[pibby]

I don't know why the Ranger can't just be a spontaneous caster like the Paladin to begin with. IIRC, WotC has done spontaneous Wisdom casters before, the Favored Soul. Why do spontaneous casters traditionally have to be Charisma based and prepared casters Intelligence and Wisdom based? And on that note there has also been the spontaneous Intelligence caster, the Beguiler.

If WotC is so adamant on the Ranger being a prepared caster, they should have just let them have access to their entire spell list like the other prepared divine casters. Why their spellcasting limitation is like a Wizard without a spellbook who can't learn new spells outside of leveling up is beyond me.

[GiantOctopodes]

Okay. Hasted EK fighter has 5 attacks per round. Using sharpshooter, his damage is around 20 per hit, so around 100 damage per round max, without needing clustered enemies or enemies who stand adjacent to each other. In those scenarios, he can drop shatter/thunderwave or a different AoE ability, and get a free shot off at one of them when he does so. He can also action surge to boost this.

A bard can use foresight to get advantage on every attack, with swift quiver dropping 4 attacks per round for around 80 DPR. Even better AoE abilities compared to EK, even using swift quiver every battle, in a normal day he has at least 6 fireballs, plus he still has utility slots left over.

So please, show me how ranger can consistently beat either of those all day that actually uses a varied approach to enemies, not hordes of hordes. Though honestly the bard is better there, he just uses fewer swift quivers per day and more fireballs.

Look, AoE at will abilities are great in theory, but with such a small AoE, he likely won't be consistently getting 3 enemies in that range. Not unless your DM runs the monsters stupid and unable to react.

So let me think, ranger can get 5 attacks and match the fighter, but only using swift quiver, which is twice per day. So for the encounter where fighter is hasted and ranger isn't quivered, the ranger needs to be hitting 4-5 people (depending on how they are arranged) to match fighter damage, and the rest is 3-4 just to equal out. He needs that every turn. These enemies also needs to have low enough AC that sharspshooter volleys are actually a good idea, otherwise it evens back out as both draw on their less than stellar AoE spells (ranger only has thunder arrow/conjure barrage, fighter has shatter/thunderwave, with one icestorm/wall of fire per day).Hunter's mark can help slightly (7 damage), but even on the generous side 2 action surges per short rest is going to beat that.

Ok, let's break it down:

Hasted EK fighter getting 5 attacks means we're discussing level 20, so fog cloud is definitely a thing, taking the same amount of time to get up and running that haste does, and costing a 1st level slot instead of a 3rd level slot. We'll use enemies with an AC of 18 (Hobgoblins, CR 1/2 creatures) so you don't think I'm skewing it in the Ranger's favor (the higher the AC, the better off he is compared to the fighter). Having an assumed ability score of 20, the fighter has +5 (ability) +6 (proficiency) +2 (archery) -5 (sharpshooter) = +8 to hit, meaning he hits on a 10 or better (55% of the time). His 5 attacks each do 19.5 damage when they hit, so the average damage per round is 53.625 damage.

The Bard uses Foresight to gain advantage on all attack rolls, which is a huge benefit when using Sharpshooter like this, getting 4 attacks which each hit on a 12, or 69.75% of the time, though he is using a 9th level spell to achieve that. He also does 19.5 average damage per hit, so his 4 attacks result in the comparable 54.405 damage per round.

The Ranger hits the 3 targets with Volley, gets the 4th hit off Horde Breaker, and then gets two more off Swift Quiver. He *also* has advantage on all attacks, hitting 79.75% of the time, and also deals 19.5 damage per hit. As such, his total DPR is 93.30, which is to say 75% higher than the Fighter or Bard.

Also, 3 targets is *really* not much of a stretch. How often do you truly face less than that? Even if there are only two, the Ranger ends up with 77.75 45% better than the Bard or Fighter. You can't tell me that having *two* enemies is a stretch. What you also miss is that 6 fireballs per day is 1.5 per fight, possibly less. If the enemies don't melt off the lone fireball, the Bard can't just keep chucking them out ad nauseum. FAR more importantly, Volley is not just the only AOE usable at will *and* the only AOE keyed off weapon attacks and thus able to have poisoned attacks on all of them, it is also the most party friendly AoE, as it has Sorcerer Metamagic Careful Spell or Evocation Wizard sculpting built right into it (something the Bard lacks, by the way).

Now, I didn't bring poison into this, but if I did, let's just say those DPR figures separate a *lot* more, and in a hurry.

I will also point out that unlike for the Fighter, where sharpshooter attacks are highly questionable, due to the ability to self generate advantage on his attacks, they will almost *always* be worthwhile for a Ranger, barring situations where poison or other damage makes his base damage just too darn high for it to be worthwhile. Sure, the Fighter can action surge and beat out his DPR for a round or two, but with only TWO enemies, that evens out on a round by round basis, with three it's not even close regardless.

The other thing I will point out is both Bard and Ranger likely have something better to do with their bonus actions anyway- Swift Quiver is one of the least productive uses of it, I'd much rather personally (in this example) be directing my 8 giant poisonous snakes, which happen to have blindsight and a 10' reach, and as such hit as often as the Bard and do on average 13.5 damage per hit, for a total of 75.33 DPR just from Them. Not to mention flooding the field with bodies helps keep enemies glued in place. If the Ranger does this, his DPR is suddenly 121.98 on only two targets, and the Fighter can be effectively removed from the conversation entirely.

One thing you seemed to miss in your entire analysis is *accuracy*. That's why I made such a big deal of self constructed advantage, because it matters that much in terms of how much damage you actually deal. Without being able to do that, the Fighter just can't keep up, even with one more attack per round. And in terms of not "getting" enemies in that range, I see no reason given the tools available why the DM should have any say in it whatsoever. If I can have a class do 75% more damage than other options with a little bit of pushing and shoving, you can bet I'm all over it.


So, the ranger has teammates helping him keep a DPR equal to other archers.

The general problem with this is that such tactics reward other classes far more. Have a monk or barbarian drag someone along a spike growth is both hilarious and effective. Have a fighter knock enemies into a wall of fire with a maneuver is awesome, a open hand monk who stuns them first is even better (10d8 extra damage). Have a warlock keep repulsing blast enemies back into his own black tentacles or fire wall as well.

In all those situations, the tactic increases party DPR whereas the ranger needs his to sacrifice their personal DPR just to get his up to snuff, resulting in little gain for the group. Why expend resources or lower your own damage so the ranger can match what a fighter could already accomplish?

Not at all. The thing you miss is that the things you are saying is not even *remotely* counter to what I am saying- in fact, it *all* provides beautiful synergy. Why not put down spike growth, and drag the enemies along it to where they are next to each other? Why not set up a wall of fire, then knock multiple enemies into it and unleash with a volley? And the best part about it? Every one of the ways in which you talk about them increasing their party DPR *also* provides the opportunity to set up the Ranger to do absolutely Beastly DPR as well. Thus the great synergy part. And your point would be somewhat valid if it let him do DPR equal to other archers. But with 3 or more targets in his field of fire, he's not doing DPR equal to other archers. They're nowhere close to his DPR.

An Open Hand Monk or a Repulsing Blast Warlock or a Barb dragging along spike growth are doing great damage per round *while* setting up enemies in the desired positions. There are no position altering abilities that can not also damage enemies. That's the greatest thing about this- there is absolutely *no* opportunity cost- your party just flat out gets more effective if they work together, doing more overall damage to do the same things they would have done otherwise.


Note that a level 10 valor bard can achieve this. He will have two swift quivers per day at this time compared to the one swift quiver a ranger ever gets. He will have 4/3/3/3/2 for his spell slots.

Absolutely, but sadly using Swift Quiver is just as non-optimal for Bards as it is for Rangers, and on top of that, it's only 1 level away from Rangers absolutely *trouncing* their ranged ability by getting Volley. Even without it, a Ranger is still getting 3 attacks with Horde Breaker, plus a bonus action Crossbow attack if he deigns to go that route, so the 4 attacks total a Bard gets with Swift Quiver doesn't actually match or top the Ranger's number of attacks, in any but the absolute worst case scenarios for the Ranger. I will point out that the Bard is far better off getting Haste, it has no opportunity cost, he can direct his summons *and* get an extra attack, *and* get +2 AC, *and* double his movement speed. Even if he just uses his bonus action for a crossbow expert attack, he's just as well off as if he used swift quiver when it comes to damage, and far better off in virtually all other ways.

[Rowan Wolf]

I don't know why the Ranger can't just be a spontaneous caster like the Paladin to begin with. IIRC, WotC has done spontaneous Wisdom casters before, the Favored Soul. Why do spontaneous casters traditionally have to be Charisma based and prepared casters Intelligence and Wisdom based? And on that note there has also been the spontaneous Intelligence caster, the Beguiler.

If WotC is so adamant on the Ranger being a prepared caster, they should have just let them have access to their entire spell list like the other prepared divine casters. Why their spellcasting limitation is like a Wizard without a spellbook who can't learn new spells outside of leveling up is beyond me.

I think you are using the terms 'spontaneous caster' and 'prepared caster' a bit differently than what I would think the general use is.

I'd say playtest Ranger with the other option to have full access to the list each day, but honestly I think the way the ranger spellcasting was designed as it is, was just so it would be arbitrarily different from the paladin (off topic they give one of the better spell on the list to vengeance paladin).

[Ashrym]

Absolutely, but sadly using Swift Quiver is just as non-optimal for Bards as it is for Rangers, and on top of that, it's only 1 level away from Rangers absolutely *trouncing* their ranged ability by getting Volley. Even without it, a Ranger is still getting 3 attacks with Horde Breaker, plus a bonus action Crossbow attack if he deigns to go that route, so the 4 attacks total a Bard gets with Swift Quiver doesn't actually match or top the Ranger's number of attacks, in any but the absolute worst case scenarios for the Ranger. I will point out that the Bard is far better off getting Haste, it has no opportunity cost, he can direct his summons *and* get an extra attack, *and* get +2 AC, *and* double his movement speed. Even if he just uses his bonus action for a crossbow expert attack, he's just as well off as if he used swift quiver when it comes to damage, and far better off in virtually all other ways.

What summons are being used in the example? Normally summon spells require concentration and the precludes haste or swift quiver.

EDIT: not that I disagree with the premise that rangers are not simply having their abilities trounced.

[Gwendol]

Giant snakes?
I think some of the misconceptions vs ranger archery comes from analyses comparing single target damage between different classes. In that comparison the ranger is good (best) up to level 10 or so after which other classes catch up.
That is a rather unfair comparison since it represents the ranger baseline performance, and that he will be performing far better in quite a wide number of circumstances.

[GiantOctopodes]

What summons are being used in the example? Normally summon spells require concentration and the precludes haste or swift quiver.

EDIT: not that I disagree with the premise that rangers are not simply having their abilities trounced.

In the example, it's Giant Poisonous Snakes, since they have a decent to-hit, good damage, and most importantly for my purposes here blindsight and reach, since I'm dropping Fog Cloud anyway. Obviously the ideal summons is and always will be entirely context sensitive and based upon priorities, but that's why it's so awesome that the summoning spells are so versatile in this edition. And absolutely, they preclude Swift Quiver, in fact both spells use a bonus action anyway so it would preclude them on two fronts, you are absolutely correct that it would also preclude Haste, I hadn't been thinking about that one properly. That only shifts the argument all the more in favor of the Ranger, of course.


Giant snakes?
I think some of the misconceptions vs ranger archery comes from analyses comparing single target damage between different classes. In that comparison the ranger is good (best) up to level 10 or so after which other classes catch up.
That is a rather unfair comparison since it represents the ranger baseline performance, and that he will be performing far better in quite a wide number of circumstances.

Absolutely, I contend that comparing single target only damage is useful for things such as determining how fast you can melt a BBEG (though Save or Lose spells are often better, if chosen well for that), and in those cases the Fighter is the undisputed champion. The Ranger can still top the Fighter if the BBEG is not immune to poison, and summons can help soak some damage, as well as boost the DPR, but against a solo BBEG specifically the Fighter deals superior damage. That is not the entirety of the game, however, and in any scenario where there are even two combatants the Ranger deals superior damage at nearly every level vs any other available options, whether that is Bard, Fighter, Warlock, Sorcerer, Rogue, or whatever else.

[Ashrym]

In the example, it's Giant Poisonous Snakes, since they have a decent to-hit, good damage, and most importantly for my purposes here blindsight and reach, since I'm dropping Fog Cloud anyway. Obviously the ideal summons is and always will be entirely context sensitive and based upon priorities, but that's why it's so awesome that the summoning spells are so versatile in this edition. And absolutely, they preclude Swift Quiver, in fact both spells use a bonus action anyway so it would preclude them on two fronts, you are absolutely correct that it would also preclude Haste, I hadn't been thinking about that one properly. That only shifts the argument all the more in favor of the Ranger, of course.

Fog cloud also uses concentration.

[silveralen]

Absolutely, I contend that comparing single target only damage is useful for things such as determining how fast you can melt a BBEG (though Save or Lose spells are often better, if chosen well for that), and in those cases the Fighter is the undisputed champion. The Ranger can still top the Fighter if the BBEG is not immune to poison, and summons can help soak some damage, as well as boost the DPR, but against a solo BBEG specifically the Fighter deals superior damage. That is not the entirety of the game, however, and in any scenario where there are even two combatants the Ranger deals superior damage at nearly every level vs any other available options, whether that is Bard, Fighter, Warlock, Sorcerer, Rogue, or whatever else.

Well, to put it another way, which is better 1 dead guy and 1 wounded guy or three wounded guys?

Ranger needs to have dramatically better DPR with his ranged attacks, because spreading attacks around is, by default, not that optimal. Casters are typically solid in this regard, because they aren't sustained damage in the first place. Burst damage AoE can conceivably take out multiple enemies in one go. But for sustained damage, the DPR needs to be a step above. Merely showing it matching overall isn't a good indication of strength.

Also, two combatants who are adjacent still gives ranger three attacks (volley or default) max, and if they aren't adjacent, just two. That is enough to keep roughly even (it is hard to calculate exactly due to character generation and feat availability determining how useful fighter's ability score increases are at boosting damage, and battle master features/action surge being short rest vs long rest ranger spells) up to lvl 11, but fighter gets another extra attack while hunter gets a feature that only boosts damage with 3+ enemies. At that point, ranger quickly falls behind in DPR unless enemies are clustered, and even then he is just working to match DPR, fighter can still distribute damage in a more beneficial manner.