Melee ranger vs Paladin - is it still heavily in Paladin's favor?

[Asmerv]

Hi everyone,

I will soon be replacing a character in a high level (~14) game, and got to thinking about what to play next. There's a good amount of plane-hopping, and I wanted to try a melee character so a Melee Horizon Walker seemed like a great fit.

Got to brewing it up, but soon started running into issues, especially when compared to another potential half-casting melee I could play, the Paladin.

I keep running into two major problems that just feels like they are getting in the way of properly engaging with the class features, that if I were to play a Paladin I would be spared.

1) The reliance on the Bonus Action for the baseline damage boost. A Horizon Walker can add +2d8/turn by using their Bonus Action via Planar Warrior. Contrast this with Improved Divine Smite, which also adds +2d8 for a bog-standard Attack action, but a) does not need the Bonus Action, b) Scales with further attacks like Polearm Master, or Haste, up to a reasonable +4d8 or even +5d8 with a reaction attack.

So we're left with the horizon walker getting 2 attacks and a +2d8 by committing both their action and bonus action, versus the paladin either getting 3 attacks and a +3d8 for the same investment, or basically an identical result of 2 attacks + 2d8 while still having their bonus action available for something else.

2) Efficient use of spell slots. Paladins have a very action economy efficient, non concentration way of using spell slots in combat through Divine Smite, in addition to both impactful concentration options as well as great non-concentration spells like Warding Bond and Death Ward. In contrast, Ranger combat boosts via spells slots often need both actions and concentration which further exacerbates the Bonus action issue from above. Zephyr Strike is a cool spell, but if you're going to cast it you loose any concentration spell, and loose out on the +2d8 from planar warrior to get back a potential +1d8 and some utility. Meanwhile a Paladin using a Smite spell will not lose out on their +2d8 from Improved Divine Smite, or can just Divine Smite and keep a concentration spell up while still using their spell slots for combat.

In the end it just felt like I'll be endlessly fighting the bonus action clutter and struggle for good uses of my spell slots, only to not ever perform at the same baseline as a basic paladin. I didn't even bring any Paladin subclass features into the discussion, but Vengeance paladin also gets Misty Step, Haste and Banishment (even Hunter's Mark!) and would just perform all around better. Not sure if the cool factor of 10ft teleports is enough to justify the loss in overall effectiveness.

Am I being too harsh or missing something, or is a melee horizon walker ranger just not quite there compared to, say, a vengeance paladin?

[Frogreaver]

Hi everyone,

I will soon be replacing a character in a high level (~14) game, and got to thinking about what to play next. There's a good amount of plane-hopping, and I wanted to try a melee character so a Melee Horizon Walker seemed like a great fit.

Got to brewing it up, but soon started running into issues, especially when compared to another potential half-casting melee I could play, the Paladin.

I keep running into two major problems that just feels like they are getting in the way of properly engaging with the class features, that if I were to play a Paladin I would be spared.

1) The reliance on the Bonus Action for the baseline damage boost. A Horizon Walker can add +2d8/turn by using their Bonus Action via Planar Warrior. Contrast this with Improved Divine Smite, which also adds +2d8 for a bog-standard Attack action, but a) does not need the Bonus Action, b) Scales with further attacks like Polearm Master, or Haste, up to a reasonable +4d8 or even +5d8 with a reaction attack.

So we're left with the horizon walker getting 2 attacks and a +2d8 by committing both their action and bonus action, versus the paladin either getting 3 attacks and a +3d8 for the same investment, or basically an identical result of 2 attacks + 2d8 while still having their bonus action available for something else.

2) Efficient use of spell slots. Paladins have a very action economy efficient, non concentration way of using spell slots in combat through Divine Smite, in addition to both impactful concentration options as well as great non-concentration spells like Warding Bond and Death Ward. In contrast, Ranger combat boosts via spells slots often need both actions and concentration which further exacerbates the Bonus action issue from above. Zephyr Strike is a cool spell, but if you're going to cast it you loose any concentration spell, and loose out on the +2d8 from planar warrior to get back a potential +1d8 and some utility. Meanwhile a Paladin using a Smite spell will not lose out on their +2d8 from Improved Divine Smite, or can just Divine Smite and keep a concentration spell up while still using their spell slots for combat.

In the end it just felt like I'll be endlessly fighting the bonus action clutter and struggle for good uses of my spell slots, only to not ever perform at the same baseline as a basic paladin. I didn't even bring any Paladin subclass features into the discussion, but Vengeance paladin also gets Misty Step, Haste and Banishment (even Hunter's Mark!) and would just perform all around better. Not sure if the cool factor of 10ft teleports is enough to justify the loss in overall effectiveness.

Am I being too harsh or missing something, or is a melee horizon walker ranger just not quite there compared to, say, a vengeance paladin?

You really need to be into and have a DM that focuses on the exploration pillar to some degree to really find a tier 3 ranger to be worthwhile.

That said there's a few perks you didn't mention. You can make 3 attacks as long as the enemies are close together and you target 3 different enemies. You can cast absorb elements, conjure animals and summon fey. You aren't quite as MAD and there's limited offensive feat support so resilient con is easy to fit in.

Not saying that's enough to compare to the Paladin. I'd give the Paladin the combat edge for sure but it helps narrow the gap a bit.

[Sherlockpwns]

I think there is a few items being overlooked. I don’t think one is SO much stronger than the other, but they are certainly different.

Assuming you are playing with Tasha’s variant features, the extra utility spells are a huge boon, plus more skills, and faster move speed.

Class abilities there are a few nice to haves. First, the bonus action attack does more than just extra damage. It converts all the damage to force. That can be easily overlooked. It pairs a bit better with a two hand weapon.

Next, this class gets haste! You can never go wrong with haste, even at level 9.

Ethereal step is nice to have, but the next big ability is the level 11 teleport. This gives you a ton of mobility and a third attack if you want to spread the damage out.

So a paladin is absolutely going to do more single target damage, burst damage, and probably be better at healing. A ranger will have more out of combat utility, mobility, and in particular the walker does more raw damage spread out to multiple targets. Especially in a prolonged battle if you have haste running.

In the end if zooming around the battlefield smacking multiple enemies and talking to beasts and plants doesn’t sound interesting, play something else :)

[strangebloke]

Rangers are a class with better support for ranged play, more efficient spells, and more utility features. Paladins for contrast have more explosive potential in melee and very strong support abilities in combat LoH/Aura but are prone to gassing out if played recklessly.

If you're just comparing resourceless damage, I would expect rangers to come out ahead because of the damage added by their subclasses but as soon as resources get involved the tradeoffs pretty much completely come down to assumptions.

[follacchioso]

If you put them one against each other, in an arena fight, then the paladin is likely to have an edge as the class is designed for melee combat against one single target.

If you put them in another context, thought, things may be different. Add a flooded area, where the paladin will drown quickly while the ranger will swim easily, and the result may change. Or add trees and buildings that the ranger can climb easily, and the paladin will not have an easy fight.

Even just the +5' to speed that rangers get at lv6 can be a great advantage in a one-vs-one. Combine it Zephyr's strike, and the ranger can keep the paladin out of range for most of the fight. Of course there is also the paladin's steed, but that will not have many HPs and will put the paladin in danger of falling prone when the steed dies.

[CheddarChampion]

Yes, Paladins probably have Rangers beat when it comes to single target damage. On the other hand, Rangers probably have an easier time getting into melee range with priority targets like spellcasters.

Have you considered a Horizon Walker STRanger? Pick up Heavily Armored for a feat, wield a greatsword. At level 12 you could have 20 strength, 19 AC (Plate armor + defensive fighting style), and GWM.
It gives you a lot of options for your melee attacks: two attacks against anyone, three attacks against different targets, Planar Warrior, 10 ft teleports before your attacks, -5/+10, and sometimes a cleave via GWM.
Your spells can enhance this further: Haste (edit: from your subclass), Elemental Weapon, and at level 13+ Guardian of Nature for advantage on all your attacks plus +1d6 damage on each.


Add a flooded area, where the paladin will drown quickly while the ranger will swim easily, and the result may change. Or add trees and buildings that the ranger can climb easily, and the paladin will not have an easy fight.

Why would a character with high strength and maybe athletics proficiency "drown quickly" compared to a character with a focus on dexterity and probably low to middling strength?

[Zuras]

In general, a melee Ranger of any kind is going to come up lacking compared to a Paladin. With Divine Smite and their various auras, you can’t match them on damage or survivability.

If you are talking a melee Dex Ranger, you compare favorably in flexibility (your ranged options are better when you can’t get to melee, you can go stealthing around with the Rogue, etc.) but you’re not ever going to match their burst damage.

[Asmerv]

Yes, Paladins probably have Rangers beat when it comes to single target damage. On the other hand, Rangers probably have an easier time getting into melee range with priority targets like spellcasters.

Have you considered a Horizon Walker STRanger? Pick up Heavily Armored for a feat, wield a greatsword. At level 12 you could have 20 strength, 19 AC (Plate armor + defensive fighting style), and GWM.
It gives you a lot of options for your melee attacks: two attacks against anyone, three attacks against different targets, Planar Warrior, 10 ft teleports before your attacks, -5/+10, and sometimes a cleave via GWM.
Your spells can enhance this further: Haste (edit: from your subclass), Elemental Weapon, and at level 13+ Guardian of Nature for advantage on all your attacks plus +1d6 damage on each.



This is actually exactly what I was considering, but also why I was prompted to make the thread in the first place. Compared to Vengeance Paladin GWM which also gets Haste, seems to fall quite a bit short. If Paladin chooses to also use Greatsword, they can actually use their Cleave without conflicting with their main damage boost (improved divine smite, it even adds to the cleave actually), unlike Horizon Walker who needs to choose between +2d8 or the chance to cleave. Or the paladin can opt for polearm master for yet another attack, which also benefits from improved divine smite.

Spreading out attacks is an option, but rarely a favorable one - melee is best when they are focusing their attacks.

Guardian of Nature is nice, but at a 4th level slot still falls short of to Vengeance Paladin using Vow of Enmity (a short rest, non-concentration resource) + improved divine smite (always on), and the Vengeance Paladin can still have Haste on!



I understand that it's hard to match up to a paladin in the damage or survivability department, and I don't debate the fun of teleporting around every round. But to me it seems like the melee ranger falls significantly short in these key areas, and the gains in out of combat utility and mobility are not quite enough to make up the difference.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Removing the Bonus Action requirement for Planar Warrior is a good alteration.

Ideally, a Horizon Walker should be able to use Ethereal Step and Planar Warrior to be able to make at least a single attack against an Ethereal Foe....or make a single attack from the Ethereal Plane.

Horizon Walker also has a very good Ranger Spell list, equal to the best of the Paladin subclasses.

I've seen a Horizon Walker in action up to level 7. The player isn't very consistent, is not an optimizer at all, and yet despite this manages to still be surprisingly effective.

I think a Fey Wanderer Ranger would make for an interesting PC.

a High Level Devotion Paladin is a tough metric to measure up to.😉

[Bobthewizard]

I think people forget how great of a spell conjure animals is. At level 9, the paladin vs. a ranger would have to fight the ranger and 8 wolves or velociraptors or such. Rangers spells are pretty good. Even at level 5 with summon beast, it's a pretty good addition, although not on the level of conjure animals.

[MoiMagnus]

I think people forget how great of a spell conjure animals is. At level 9, the paladin vs. a ranger would have to fight the ranger and 8 wolves or velociraptors or such. Rangers spells are pretty good. Even at level 5 with summon beast, it's a pretty good addition, although not on the level of conjure animals.

I agree that in a 1 vs 1, a ranger might be better. But the aura of protection is IMO such a game-changer for the paladin's teammates that it would be unfair if a lone Paladin was already the most powerful character.

[quindraco]

I think people forget how great of a spell conjure animals is. At level 9, the paladin vs. a ranger would have to fight the ranger and 8 wolves or velociraptors or such. Rangers spells are pretty good. Even at level 5 with summon beast, it's a pretty good addition, although not on the level of conjure animals.

It's important to state which non-RAW assumptions you make in any comparison. Assuming the caster can pick the summons for conjure animals is a popular homebrew, but you shouldn't just assume it.

[Frogreaver]

It's important to state which non-RAW assumptions you make in any comparison. Assuming the caster can pick the summons for conjure animals is a popular homebrew, but you shouldn't just assume it.

Even when the dm picks the summons…
Assuming he is going to give you craptastic summons is a pretty bold assumption.

Veliciraptors may be a bit extreme but I’d expect a pack of wolves to be a fairly common dm pick due to thematics… and wolves are still really good at DPR

[Stangler]

Paladin is just way better than a Ranger, especially if you are going melee. If you are worried about power level then you may regret going Ranger. That said multi classing as a Ranger can be great. Fighter, rogue, cleric and Druid all work and can still feel like a Ranger.

This is all made easier by starting higher level.

If you want summons go shepherd Druid.

[strangebloke]

Paladin is just way better than a Ranger, especially if you are going melee. If you are worried about power level then you may regret going Ranger. That said multi classing as a Ranger can be great. Fighter, rogue, cleric and Druid all work and can still feel like a Ranger.

This is all made easier by starting higher level.

If you want summons go shepherd Druid.

I would overall say that Paladin is better, yes, but saying that the post-tasha's ranger is carried by multiclassing seems pretty basically wrong. They have a lot of class features, most of which are useful, and their core abilities were always strong.

In a 1v1 fight its no contest, but as people have already said that makes little sense because the paladin's job is to burst down dangerous foes, and provide tanking/support the rest of the time, whereas the Ranger is an efficient, steady DPR character who can fight at ranger or up close and has lots of out-of-combat utility.

[stoutstien]

Rangers can shine in one area pallys can't and that's hordes and mooks. In games that frequently use them something like the glaive welding hunter wouldn't feel edged out.

The issue is a lot of DM hate hordes for some reason.

[Stangler]

I would overall say that Paladin is better, yes, but saying that the post-tasha's ranger is carried by multiclassing seems pretty basically wrong. They have a lot of class features, most of which are useful, and their core abilities were always strong.

In a 1v1 fight its no contest, but as people have already said that makes little sense because the paladin's job is to burst down dangerous foes, and provide tanking/support the rest of the time, whereas the Ranger is an efficient, steady DPR character who can fight at ranger or up close and has lots of out-of-combat utility.

The OP can go straight Ranger to 14 but if they are worried about power comparisons to paladin then multi classing absolutely helps make it competitive in all aspects of the game.

Multi classing for the Ranger works really well. This isn’t wrong to say. 3 levels for rogue scout for example is amazing bang for just 3 levels. 6 levels for Shepard Druid gives much better spells and makes those summons relevant at level 14.

Plain Ranger works ok. It gets summon spells which are really good. It has some ok subclass features. For those 9 levels after level 5 in Ranger you can get a lot more from the other options. Heck one level in rogue is so good it is basically mandatory. Expertise in stealth and perception? Yes please

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Spells like Hunter's Mark and Pass Without Trace that last an hour could provide way more benefit than single round spells at the opposite end of the spectrum (Smite) for groups with a high encounter to rest ratio. HM if used for 3 encounters * 3 rounds * 2 attacks per round = 18 dice of damage; mileage will vary.

[Witty Username]

Ranger will often be weaker in moment by moment play. Your spells to effect combat and adventure in an extended way is how you likely need to do things. Spells like entangle, pass without trace, and plant growth that have widespread effects on encounters will be how you gotta do, and it will likely mean you will sacrifice damage in the short term to effect the combat in more dramatic fashion.
As for melee, I think it can work on a Ranger, but that may require more effort to be effective than other martial classes.
Edit: I would recommend Fey Wanderer over Horizon Walker but YMMV.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

The OP can go straight Ranger to 14 but if they are worried about power comparisons to paladin then multi classing absolutely helps make it competitive in all aspects of the game.

Multi classing for the Ranger works really well. This isn’t wrong to say. 3 levels for rogue scout for example is amazing bang for just 3 levels. 6 levels for Shepard Druid gives much better spells and makes those summons relevant at level 14.

Plain Ranger works ok. It gets summon spells which are really good. It has some ok subclass features. For those 9 levels after level 5 in Ranger you can get a lot more from the other options. Heck one level in rogue is so good it is basically mandatory. Expertise in stealth and perception? Yes please

Ranger 9 isn't a bad jumping off point either. Definitely agree on the Rogue multiclass, and Fighter levels (up to 4) work out well too. Reality is most people aren't playing single class rangers, so a more realistic comparison for say Paladin 12 would be Ranger 9/ Rogue 1/ Fighter 2 or Ranger5/...

[Thunderous Mojo]

The issue is a lot of DM hate hordes for some reason.
Well Hordes do track so much grime, muck and dirt across the carpets.🃏

Handling Mobs shouldn't be sequestered on page 250 of the DMG.
The DMG also doesn't have prominently placed advice on turning Mobs into Swarms for ease of play.

PC level also plays a role. A tribe of 60 Goblins based in the tall grass of the Ironweed Plains is a different type of challenge for a 3rd level party, a 5th level party, or an 15th level party.

I posit that a lot of games that play primarily in Tier 1 are probably scared of Hordes due to TPK potential.

[DarknessEternal]

If you like moving around, there's nothing Paladin can do compared to Horizon Walker. It's the wind itself.

Also, Horizon Walker gets 3 attacks per Attack action if there's 3 targets.

[Hytheter]

I don't run hordes because one well-placed AOE just ends the encounter. It's not worth the effort of putting the minis on the map.

I saw a fellow GM run a horde game against high-level players. Three waves each containing some twenty zombies. The wizard wish-cast forbiddance and none of them even got a turn. Hilarious, but kinda ruined the whole thing.

[stoutstien]

I don't run hordes because one well-placed AOE just ends the encounter. It's not worth the effort of putting the minis on the map.

I saw a fellow GM run a horde game against high-level players. Three waves each containing some twenty zombies. The wizard wish-cast forbiddance and none of them even got a turn. Hilarious, but kinda ruined the whole thing.

If your encounters can always be fixed with an AoE that's a design issue not an issue with hordes. The second part is probably the biggest factor which mean quite a few options will never feel up to par. Not bad/wrong just a fact of how some player options function. Same way you wouldn't expect a fire focused blaster to function well in BGDiA.

Zombies aren't a horde ironically. They are a an environmental hazard. Even a lv 1 party can safely destroy 50 zombies without any real risk. The fact the party could safely blow a 9th lv spell on that encounter is proof that some support in the rules on how to handle large numbered encounters used within the adventuring day wouldn't go awry.

[Valorant]

If we are talking only about power than Paladin is vastly superior to Rogue. They have way more damage, they are more tanky, they bring more party support with auras, healing and Paladin spells. They can also easy replace ranger if build correctly. For example Dex vengeance Paladin with mark of shadow elf will be great scout, great assassin, great archer even and have access to hunters mark, misty step, haste, pass without trace, steed, greater steed, darkness blindsight combo and other Paladin great spells. Pick proficiency in stealth.You want someone who can handle horde? No worries, Paladin has it covered too. Oath of Ancients gives moon beam, ice storm and destructive weave. Oath of crown gives spirit guardians. Oath of conquest can shut hordes down. On top of that Paladin will always be great face\social character and they can also, irony, have better animal companion than rangers as hasted Pegasus is just bonkers. Paladins are also much much more versatile in how to build them thanks to their Oaths. Stealthy assassin's? Check. AOE tanks? Check. Cc tanks? Check. Necromancers? Check. Grapple? Check. Boss nukers? Double check? Anti casters? Check.

Ranger when it comes to power is imo on pair with monks maybe when it comes to melee or overall martial power.

[Asmerv]

If we are talking only about power than Paladin is vastly superior to Rogue. They have way more damage, they are more tanky, they bring more party support with auras, healing and Paladin spells. They can also easy replace ranger if build correctly. For example Dex vengeance Paladin with mark of shadow elf will be great scout, great assassin, great archer even and have access to hunters mark, misty step, haste, pass without trace, steed, greater steed, darkness blindsight combo and other Paladin great spells. Pick proficiency in stealth.You want someone who can handle horde? No worries, Paladin has it covered too. Oath of Ancients gives moon beam, ice storm and destructive weave. Oath of crown gives spirit guardians. Oath of conquest can shut hordes down. On top of that Paladin will always be great face\social character and they can also, irony, have better animal companion than rangers as hasted Pegasus is just bonkers. Paladins are also much much more versatile in how to build them thanks to their Oaths. Stealthy assassin's? Check. AOE tanks? Check. Cc tanks? Check. Necromancers? Check. Grapple? Check. Boss nukers? Double check? Anti casters? Check.

Ranger when it comes to power is imo on pair with monks maybe when it comes to melee or overall martial power.

This is the crux of the issue I think. A horizon walker is fairly similar to vengeance paladin due to the spell list being pretty much the same, but the way stronger paladin chassis makes it much better in combat.

What does the horizon walker get to compensate? A cool teleport, some extra skills... functionally nothing you can't replicate to a great extent with an appropriate feat/background selection. Now you're left with a character with similar out of combat utility, a bit less mobility, but a large edge in combat ability.

I know Tasha's helped a lot, but it still doesn't feel like the Ranger (or at least melee ranger) has enough to justify the discrepancy in combat ability.

[Valorant]

This is the crux of the issue I think. A horizon walker is fairly similar to vengeance paladin due to the spell list being pretty much the same, but the way stronger paladin chassis makes it much better in combat.

What does the horizon walker get to compensate? A cool teleport, some extra skills... functionally nothing you can't replicate to a great extent with an appropriate feat/background selection. Now you're left with a character with similar out of combat utility, a bit less mobility, but a large edge in combat ability.

I know Tasha's helped a lot, but it still doesn't feel like the Ranger (or at least melee ranger) has enough to justify the discrepancy in combat ability.

The only good ranger is revised ranger which could be build very strong and stand proud next to other martials. PHB and Tasha rangers are poop. That's my opinion and I don't like it since I liked rangers in previous editions.

[J-H]

Ranger (gish) spellcasting does help, but requires the right circumstances.

Wrath of Nature (5th level, takes Concentration) gives a 60' cube of crowd control:
-Start of turn, any enemy near trees have Dex or take damage
-End of turn, one enemy on ground in cube must make a save or be restrained.
-Bonus action, loose rock makes a Catapult-level spell attack and knockdown on 1 target.

IF you are outside and IF the enemy can't run out of a 60'x60'x60' cube, this is great against an enemy group. You can still take your normal actions (Horizon Walker teleport/attacks, archery, etc.).

Steel Wind Strike (5th), as an action, targets up to 5 enemies within 30' for 6d10 force damage each with melee spell attacks, and gives a teleport. If you can get hasted, you can pair this with your normal attacking action.

Wind Wall (3rd) nullifies archers.

Tree Stride (4th) gives a 500' teleport when trees are around, which is competitive with Dimension Door, which is only on the subclass list for some paladins.

Then there's a bunch of utility and situational spells. Most of the good stuff still competes with Hunter's Mark for Concentration... but I think the Ranger spell list has more crowd control options than the Paladin's list does.

Paladins are still a stronger base chassis, but the Ranger list has some nice spells.... if you're in an outdoor campaign.

[Merudo]

If we are looking for a strong Ranger competitive with Paladins then Gloom Stalker is still the gold standard.

Horizon Walker has to wait until level 11 to get its first cool ability (free at-will teleports). Meanwhile the Gloom Stalker subclass give a tons at level 3 and keeps on giving.

[Specter]

Regardless of the difference in damage, you'll have two trump cards over Paladins: mobility and crowd damage.

With Misty Step and (later) Distant Strike, it can become almost impossible to pin you down, and you can hit more enemies, or more distant enemies, than someone else would be able to.

Also starting at level 9, you have Conjure Barrage, which can wipe out dozens of mooks with one casting, and Conjure Animals, which you can use to attack up to 8 enemies for many turns. These are things that should set you apart from single-target-focused melees in general.