D&D (2024) Ranger 2024 is a bigger joke than Ranger 2014:

[ECMO3]

And it is REALLY close. Problem is, that there is a feat to increase the Greatsword damage, on top of the charger feat which can be used by all fighters, or you could go polearm and get those two feats plus Polearm mastery... and the Dual-Wielding fighter just doesn't have anything comparable, other than getting Charger like the other fighters.

The Dual Wielding feat with TWF fighting style lets you do 4d12 +20 --> 46 per turn at 11th level dual wielding lances.

When you consider the penalty to attack rolls, that is going to come pretty darn close to a GWM-PAM build or SS-XBE build and you are going to do it with a higher AC and only 1 feat.

In terms of white room raw numbers that is one of the highest damage DPR builds. I don't think people like the thematics around it though, because it does not get talked about much and I've only seen one at the table.

 

[GrimCo]

Ranger has become superfluous. Nature warrior with magic? Druid. Stealth archer? Rogue. Wilderness survival expert? Any full caster with create water, goodberry and lemond's tiny hut. At best, ranger should be subclass of fighter or rogue. But really, they are only around cause they are grandfathered in trough older editions.

 

[Rocker26a]

My 20th level champion fighter can't really go into a room and summon a fiend either. So your argument isn't making a lot of sense.

But that is my point! Something might be, in a mechanical sense, the absolute highest power a person can achieve in a setting, but not everybody can do that, nor does everyone want to! Even when they're risking their skin going out to fight stuff.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Ranger has become superfluous. Nature warrior with magic? Druid. Stealth archer? Rogue. Wilderness survival expert? Any full caster with create water, goodberry and lemond's tiny hut. At best, ranger should be subclass of fighter or rogue. But really, they are only around cause they are grandfathered in trough older editions.

And that's a problem why?

So you think the Ranger is superfluous. That's fine. So if you want a game that is only the Core Four and someone plays a 'ranger type' using Fighter or Rogue and a specific subclass... you can do so. But other folks like the Ranger class, and thus anyone who wants to play a Ranger can.

You both can get what you want. Nothing needs to be done to the game to make that happen.

 

[Scott Christian]

Eh, the only reason that happens is because of Feat support.

The best two fighter builds were Crossbow Expert + Sharpshooter and Polearm Master + Great Weapon Master, because in both cases you got a bonus action attack (raising you to 4 or 5 attacks) and a +10 to damage. Meanwhile, in 2014, the best a dual-wielder could do is a bonus action attack with a slightly larger weapon giving a +1 to their damage. Strip that away...

11th level Greatsword fighter, no feats or masteries, --> 6d6+15 --> 36
11th level Shortsword Fighter, no feats or masteries, --> 4d6+20 --> 34

And it is REALLY close. Problem is, that there is a feat to increase the Greatsword damage, on top of the charger feat which can be used by all fighters, or you could go polearm and get those two feats plus Polearm mastery... and the Dual-Wielding fighter just doesn't have anything comparable, other than getting Charger like the other fighters.

This isn't to say they don't have good builds, I'm sure charger+mobile+Resilient Wis makes for a fine fighter, but you just are never going to be dealing as much damage as the fighter with three feats dedicated to improving their damage. And now that Sharpshooter seems to no longer increase damage, it is going to be the Polearm master with the highest damage output most of the time.

This is nothing but facts. Unfortunately, it is myopic in its viewpoint. You can make the best damage output that way. But again, this a game with trade-offs. It is not a "problem" that one build does more damage than the other, if the other has something they prefer as a player, such as more hit points, better AC, more skills, faster initiative, etc.

Chaosmancer, I understand you know your stuff. But these nearsighted comparisons are, at best, blurry images without a background.

 

[Chaosmancer]

But that is my point! Something might be, in a mechanical sense, the absolute highest power a person can achieve in a setting, but not everybody can do that, nor does everyone want to! Even when they're risking their skin going out to fight stuff.

But that wasn't the point being made?

PCs aren't peasants they start at a higher tier of capability =/= "not everyone can achieve the highest power possible in the setting"

A technique for always silent casting everything and never breaking cover would spread across the specialist fields =/= "not everyone can achieve the highest power possible in the setting"

Yes, a high level monk is going to fight differently than a high level rogue is going to fight differently than a high level barbarian. I won't deny that.

But, Arcane Tricksters would love to not break stealth when casting, and they do learn techniques, druids are closely related to rangers and would love the same technique, if wizards could easily silent cast that technique would spread for them as well. Not because it wouldn't be hard to learn, but because it is a better technique. Medical techniques spread through the medical community rather quickly, and you have to remember Rangers have been around in the setting for a LONG time.

I'm not against the idea of rolling to cast stealthily, as long as it is not a damaging spell. But the sheer number of people who would want to learn how to cast damaging spells and not break stealth would mean either Rangers are single tight-knit group that never shares their secret techniques with anyone over the last arbitrary number of centuries... or it isn't something that can be taught.

 

[Chaosmancer]

This is nothing but facts. Unfortunately, it is myopic in its viewpoint. You can make the best damage output that way. But again, this a game with trade-offs. It is not a "problem" that one build does more damage than the other, if the other has something they prefer as a player, such as more hit points, better AC, more skills, faster initiative, etc.

Chaosmancer, I understand you know your stuff. But these nearsighted comparisons are, at best, blurry images without a background.

Do you have WanderingMystic blocked? I find it really weird you are considering my (As you admit) accurate statement to be myopic and near-sighted when the post I was responding to stated "Dual welding only used to fall off if you are a fighter of 11th level or higher. Now with the cleave property I think that those will definitely outpace your dual welder."

I was showing that, yes, it does fall off, but not by much if you don't account for the feats. And if you account for the feats, a Dual-Wielder can have OTHER feats that may be good for them. I even gave an example of a pretty good set-up.

Yes, as people keep saying and as you admit, Dual-Wielding does less damage at higher levels, but it isn't because Dual-Wielding is an inherently weaker fighting style or anything, it is because there are not as many damage boosting feats. IF you have other things you want other than damage then this isn't an issue, and I felt that was obvious. I mean, both dual-wielding and Great Weapons do more damage than Sword 'n Board style for all the same reasons plus the lack of a bonus action attack. But Sword n' Board inherently has better AC, because that is the obvious trade-off.

The thing is, Dual-Wielding also trades that AC for more damage, just delivered a different way, and if you were following the playtest feats, Dual-Wielder feat might no longer give an AC bonus which will mean it gives that up to the same degree. Yes, obviously you can take the skilled feat or tough feat or inspiring leader feat or a dozen other feats. But by correctly identifying that the problem is located in the feat support, if someone WANTS to increase the damage of dual-wielding characters, then they know not to focus on making them as good as a PAM+GWM+Charger Fighter with no additional feats, but that they should instead be looking to homebrew feats that allow for Dual-Wielding characters to do more damage.

And if you don't care about increasing Dual-Wielding character's damage... then there is no issue to begin with.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I'm not against the idea of rolling to cast stealthily, as long as it is not a damaging spell. But the sheer number of people who would want to learn how to cast damaging spells and not break stealth would mean either Rangers are single tight-knit group that never shares their secret techniques with anyone over the last arbitrary number of centuries... or it isn't something that can be taught.

i feel like this might be a fair compromise, only working on non-offensive spells, and looking at their list a majority of their spells aren't even damaging ones, the weapon spells that are a large chunk of their damaging boosting spells are kind of a blurry middle ground as they don't technically directly deal damage but rather enchant the user with an effect to deal damage that will trigger on their next attack or hit, like hail of thorns or searing smite.

 

[Scott Christian]

Do you have WanderingMystic blocked? I find it really weird you are considering my (As you admit) accurate statement to be myopic and near-sighted when the post I was responding to stated "Dual welding only used to fall off if you are a fighter of 11th level or higher. Now with the cleave property I think that those will definitely outpace your dual welder."

I was showing that, yes, it does fall off, but not by much if you don't account for the feats. And if you account for the feats, a Dual-Wielder can have OTHER feats that may be good for them. I even gave an example of a pretty good set-up.

Yes, as people keep saying and as you admit, Dual-Wielding does less damage at higher levels, but it isn't because Dual-Wielding is an inherently weaker fighting style or anything, it is because there are not as many damage boosting feats. IF you have other things you want other than damage then this isn't an issue, and I felt that was obvious. I mean, both dual-wielding and Great Weapons do more damage than Sword 'n Board style for all the same reasons plus the lack of a bonus action attack. But Sword n' Board inherently has better AC, because that is the obvious trade-off.

The thing is, Dual-Wielding also trades that AC for more damage, just delivered a different way, and if you were following the playtest feats, Dual-Wielder feat might no longer give an AC bonus which will mean it gives that up to the same degree. Yes, obviously you can take the skilled feat or tough feat or inspiring leader feat or a dozen other feats. But by correctly identifying that the problem is located in the feat support, if someone WANTS to increase the damage of dual-wielding characters, then they know not to focus on making them as good as a PAM+GWM+Charger Fighter with no additional feats, but that they should instead be looking to homebrew feats that allow for Dual-Wielding characters to do more damage.

And if you don't care about increasing Dual-Wielding character's damage... then there is no issue to begin with.

Both of your points are clear and taken. Thank you for explaining it clearly.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Ranger has become superfluous. Nature warrior with magic? Druid. Stealth archer? Rogue. Wilderness survival expert? Any full caster with create water, goodberry and lemond's tiny hut. At best, ranger should be subclass of fighter or rogue. But really, they are only around cause they are grandfathered in trough older editions.

Rangers have too many cool, unique abilities that cannot also fit in other classes and subclasses.

It has been a class since 1e, entire sagas of D&D are based around rangers, and people love rangers.

Just because a rogue can be a scout, fighting classes can use the same weapons, and a druid has access to nature magic, it doesn't meant the ranger doesn't have a place in the game.

This isn't a new edition of the game. They are merely refreshing the options that have received valid, critical feedback of 10-year old design. So many people love rangers and want the class to live up to their expectations. As to whether the designers succeed, some of us are going to have to play the ranger in a campaign when the books release.