Not All Who Wander are Lost: A Ranger's Guide

[UptownMotown]

I used my Hunter for a long while and she had no equal outside of DM "Divine Intervention." Understand I started playing with DMs who had no less than a half-dozen caricatures on their shield, with each one representing a TPK. I since design all my characters for such ruthless gameplay but this build was perhaps my crowning achievement.

Race: Wood Elf

Strength: 12
Modified Dexterity: 19
Constitution: 14
Intelligence: 13
Modified Wisdom: 16
Charisma: 14

Background: Outlander

Class: Hunter 15/Assassin 5

Fighting Style: Archery

Feats:
-Alert
-Keen Mind
-Mobile
-Sharpshooter
-Skulker

Class Features:
-Horde Breaker
-Escape the Horde
-Hide In Plain Sight
-Volley
-Vanish
-Stand Against the Tide
-Expertise: Perception & Stealth
-Sneak Attack +3d6
-Cunning Action
-Assassinate
-Uncanny Dodge

It's worth noting the character had a +9 Initiative and a 45' movement speed. More on that later.

It took a little while to get up and running as effectively as I would like but once it hit mid- to late-game, it absolutely dominated. The only majorly important thing it needed was Lightning Arrow applied permanently on the longbow. Once that was accomplished, she was able to fire two lightning arrow-imbued volleys five feet apart resulting in a 30x35' AoE of indirect artillery. Provided she wasn't seen, they were also treated as assassinations. Each arrow was treated as an individual attack regarding damage and suffice to say it was enough to where I really didn't have to roll at all, even into the epic levels, and all the way out to 600'. Battle procedure consisted entirely of hide, volley, move, hide, repeat. Nothing survived. Keep in mind that because both Horde Breaker and Volley state "creature" instead of "enemy," if there is so much as an ant in that adjacent square, it will kick into effect for the second Volley. Anything less than full cover was ignored, and unless seen (unlikely), assassinations were almost guaranteed at any given time (where initiative and move speed really kick in if seen). Poisons and Arrows of Death were always plentiful.

AC was not as important because my passive stealth boost was 16 before modifiers from Hide In Plain Sight and abilities such as Skulker, Vanish, and the racial Mask of the Wild. In addition, you have Escape the Hord (disadvantage is disgusting), Stand Against The Tide (miss and hit your buddy), and Uncanny Dodge (even if you do hit me, only half damage).

Playing the rolls of recon, party guide, food supplier, sniper, and indirect artillery all simultaneously was about as overpowered as anything I've ever seen anywhere. For anyone trying to replicate this build, be warned that unless your DM is running a hardcore and/or epic level campaign, you will probably find yourself "smite by god" or severely nerfed because there really isn't a counter possible.

[tieren]

Anything less than full cover was ignored, and unless seen (unlikely), assassinations were almost guaranteed at any given time (where initiative and move speed really kick in if seen).

It doesn't sound like you playing assassination right. It only gives criticals on creatures that are surprised so it only works that way once per combat if you get surprise. You can't rehide and surprise the same enemies again.

Also one volley takes your entire action so you can't volley twice in the same turn absent a fighter MC for action surge or something.

[Mervold]

The problem is to apply or move hunters mark is a bonus action, the same as the extra attack you are getting from TWF. So the bonus +2 damage to hit form duelist is more consistently applied in more situations. And as they said before colossus slayer is once per turn. Dual wielding helps you make sure you get colossus slayer damage in because you have more attacks so its more likely you will get a second attack in on a full hp target. The problem with bonus actions still persists. Sword and board also has the AC advantage.

I completely agree that after level 4 Duelist is the better option. Hunter's Mark likely stops at the second hit you take, so unless you can squeez in Resilient(Con) somehow, it is mostly for Archers only.

[Tanarii]

Intelligence: You won't need this very much. It's a good dump stat. Still, some important saves and skill checks rely on INT.

That's crazy. If you dump Int, you lose out on half of your Favored Enemy bonus, and hurt your checks for half of your Natural Explorer ability. It's more important than both Str and Dex for a Dex-based Ranger. On par with Con or even ahead of Con, especially if you're an Archer Ranger.

[KorvinStarmast]

That's crazy. If you dump Int, you lose out on half of your Favored Enemy bonus, and hurt your checks for half of your Natural Explorer ability. It's more important than both Str and Dex for a Dex-based Ranger. On par with Con or even ahead of Con, especially if you're an Archer Ranger.

Since you get advantage on the Int check for Favored Enemy, maybe Int can be dumped as you only get a -1 and advantage is about a +5 benefit (roughly). Still, I see your point, and for Natural Explorer, yeah. Losing a doubled bonus ... depends on what you have a proficiency. Wisdom may cover enough?

[Tanarii]

Since you get advantage on the Int check for Favored Enemy, maybe Int can be dumped as you only get a -1 and advantage is about a +5 benefit (roughly). Still, I see your point, and for Natural Explorer, yeah. Losing a doubled bonus ... depends on what you have a proficiency. Wisdom may cover enough?

Actually, that's a fair point. In that regard Natural Explorer is the same as expertise. It can either make you exceptional at something you're already naturally talented at (high ability mod + 2x prof), or it can make up for not having much natural talent (2x prof - 1). Of course, you've got to have Int skills in the first place. I consider Nature and Investigation must have (sky blue) for a Ranger.

Favored Enemy is a different matter though. I wouldn't go to Int 8, because -1 means you can't ever succeed on an Hard check to recall / know something about your favored enemy, no matter how long you have to think about it. But a Ranger is unlikely to ever have a +5 Int mod to make Very Hard possible with unlimited time. Other than gating, how important a bonus is with advantage depends on if it's an Easy, Medium or Hard check in the first place. But yah, Advantage can still be considered making up for not having exceptional talent in Intelligence.

[KorvinStarmast]

Favored Enemy is a different matter though. I wouldn't go to Int 8, because -1 means you can't ever succeed on an Hard check to recall / know something about your favored enemy, no matter how long you have to think about it. But a Ranger is unlikely to ever have a +5 Int mod to make Very Hard possible with unlimited time. Other than gating, how important a bonus is with advantage depends on if it's an Easy, Medium or Hard check in the first place. But yah, Advantage can still be considered making up for not having exceptional talent in Intelligence.

Leave it at 10 then?

[Tanarii]

Leave it at 10 then?

For an Archer Ranger, I'd probably put it 3rd after Dex and Wis. For a melee (or one that's going to mix it up), 4th after Con. So 13 or 12, plus racial bonus, plus maybe Observant. Call it 12 or 14. That's a 10%-15% swing compared to Int 8.

With Advantage, the Easy / Medium / Hard chances are:
-1 : 75% / 42% / 00%
+0: 79% / 51% / 10%
+1: 84% / 58% / 19%
+2: 88% / 64% / 28%

Definitely diminishing returns there, but 3x the chance on Hard is nothing to sneeze at. OTOH less than 1 in 3 is still nothing to write home about.

[MBControl]

I'd also argue that the dueling style is not red, and the two weapon style is not sky blue. The dueling style allows you to be a potent damage dealer with high AC. Two weapon fighting feels like a trap, especially with archery style getting more support from spells and such. Two weapon fighting is okay at low levels when you don't have spells for your bonus action or other useful things but it quickly loses pace.

I prefer the TWF style to the Duelist. For my play style, it provides more versatility. For example, my group ended up with no tankish melee fighters. I was planning on using a more "stick and move" plan, but ended up having to change to pretty much a tank role. I was able to do this pretty easily. Due to a solid DEX stat, I have an 17 AC (after a ABI) and with C. Slayer and Hunter's mark on line, plus the added DEX bonus to my second ATK, most opponents don't last more than 1 or 2 rounds against me, and I tend to dodge a lot of hits due to my AC.

I do a lot of damage, very quickly. +8 on ATK (shortsword) 1d6+5 DMG + ad8 C. Strike + 1d6 Hunter's Mark.
+8 ATK second shortsword 1d6+5 DMG.

Now add a second ATK without Hunter's Mark and C. Strike bonuses.

On Average, assuming 4 hits which isn't uncommon with +8 ATK Bonus, you're looking at 39 DMG per turn (min 26DMG - max 58). And you can spread that damage out to more targets per turn as well.

It's a pretty great DPS tank. I don't think the Duelist gives you that variety, you just a little more sturdy.

[EvilAnagram]

For an Archer Ranger, I'd probably put it 3rd after Dex and Wis. For a melee (or one that's going to mix it up), 4th after Con. So 13 or 12, plus racial bonus, plus maybe Observant. Call it 12 or 14. That's a 10%-15% swing compared to Int 8.

With Advantage, the Easy / Medium / Hard chances are:
-1 : 75% / 42% / 00%
+0: 79% / 51% / 10%
+1: 84% / 58% / 19%
+2: 88% / 64% / 28%

Definitely diminishing returns there, but 3x the chance on Hard is nothing to sneeze at. OTOH less than 1 in 3 is still nothing to write home about.

I think this is all worth thinking about. A good point to remember is that my purple rating is not is same the hierarchy as the others. It refers to abilities that are not consistently useful, but can certainly be of great use now and then.

[MeeposFire]

I think whirlwind attack needs to be adjusted in rating. I think it should be purple not blue. Blue means that it is good all the time but not the best thing ever. Purple is situationally good.

Why I think it is not that good is that id you are a melee ranger and we are going classic D&D ranger (well for the past long while anyway) you are a dual wielder. In that case by the time you get WA you have three attacks per round so in order to get any benefit whatsoever you need to have 4 enemies surrounding you (assuming you use the Jeremy ruling that you cannot move during WA) or you could just use your normal attacks and choose to attack three different enemies and in that case you could choose to attack any target more than once unlike WA.

WA is actually weaker unless you need the bonus action or you have 4 enemies in melee range at once (and that is a bad situation that hopefully does not happen much). You can get situations where you want it but it is not awesome in most situations just taking up space that you could have taken with volley. Heck you could make the argument that you can get more out of taking volley with a melee guy as a situational ability for ambushes and the like.

If you could move between the attacks then I could see blue since then it would be useful much more often (you get to choose between weak damage against a bunch of enemies or good damage on one target). As a stationary ability it seems rather weak.

It is slightly better with a duelist (since you only need three enemies instead of four) but that still is not that great either.

[Mervold]

most opponents don't last more than 1 or 2 rounds against me

This here is the strongest argument against TWF.

1. TWF costs a bonus action
2. Jumping Hunter's Mark to the next opponent is a bonus action
3. TWF only comes out ahead if Hunter's Mark is used

If you kill an opponent every other round or faster, than you have to chose between TWF and HM for the bonus action. So you cannot actually use HM with TWF in practice. It is great against bosses, but those are rare.
The fact that most Rangers cannot afford a Con save above +2 means you have less than 13% chance to keep HM up after just 2 hits. This usually happens in the first round, especially for a Tank.

When I first read about Hunter's Mark I thought it was great, now after some playtesting I think it is only good on an Archer. They are damaged fewer times, and do not need the bonus action (except Crossbow Experts). Actually I would mention this in the spell section, it is unreliable in melee without Resilient(Con), and not good for TWF.

It's a pretty great DPS tank. I don't think the Duelist gives you that variety, you just a little more sturdy.

Your AC is always lower, your DPR is only higher in very special occasions.

[EvilAnagram]

I think whirlwind attack needs to be adjusted in rating. I think it should be purple not blue. Blue means that it is good all the time but not the best thing ever. Purple is situationally good.

Why I think it is not that good is that id you are a melee ranger and we are going classic D&D ranger (well for the past long while anyway) you are a dual wielder. In that case by the time you get WA you have three attacks per round so in order to get any benefit whatsoever you need to have 4 enemies surrounding you (assuming you use the Jeremy ruling that you cannot move during WA) or you could just use your normal attacks and choose to attack three different enemies and in that case you could choose to attack any target more than once unlike WA.

WA is actually weaker unless you need the bonus action or you have 4 enemies in melee range at once (and that is a bad situation that hopefully does not happen much). You can get situations where you want it but it is not awesome in most situations just taking up space that you could have taken with volley. Heck you could make the argument that you can get more out of taking volley with a melee guy as a situational ability for ambushes and the like.

If you could move between the attacks then I could see blue since then it would be useful much more often (you get to choose between weak damage against a bunch of enemies or good damage on one target). As a stationary ability it seems rather weak.

It is slightly better with a duelist (since you only need three enemies instead of four) but that still is not that great either.

It's an at-will close burst attack. Depending on your choices, it can be extremely powerful. If you're a Hunter who's taken this ability, it should absolutely factor into your tactical choices when facing large groups. There is no reason to wait for enemies to surround you: jump into the middle of them yourself.

It does depend on the situation, as you say, but no more than any other AoE, all of which require groups of enemies to congregate. It allows a Duelist to attack 3+ times, it allows a TWF Ranger to attack 3+ times and still use his bonus action, and it provides a way to overcome large numbers of weak mooks, a weakness for many melee characters.

This is a very handy ability that compensates for a major weakness melee characters have, and though Duelists stand to benefit more, I cannot assume that players will trend towards TWF in this edition.

[Tanarii]

Beast Master

Ranger's Companion:

At level 5, you get to make two attacks, which raises the usefulness of a companion up to blue . For example, your pet wolf attacks and knocks your enemy prone, then you walk up and stab it twice with Two-Weapon Fighting while you have advantage.

This implies you can use TWF on the same round as a Beastmaster's companion attacking. You can't, since TWF requires the Ranger (not the companion) use the Attack action.

In fact, it's worth calling out at the beginning of the Beastmaster subclass that they don't benefit from TWF style, and should use S&B or 2H instead.

Similarly, it's worth noting they don't get much benefit from Hunter's Mark. It's purple for Beastmasters at best. (Apologies if you already did that under spells.)

[KorvinStarmast]

This implies you can use TWF on the same round as a Beastmaster's companion attacking. You can't, since TWF requires the Ranger (not the companion) use the Attack action.

What? You have two attacks (one of which is used by the beast, and a bonus action attack (your second weapon) so I don't think your assessment of the actions sequence is correct. You aren't a multi attack monster, you have two attacks (and a bonus attack) when you attack and you can split the attacks up! (Right/ Move, attack, move). Logic would suggest that if you can split it up you can just as easily split it between you (1) and your beast (1) and you keep the bonus for whatever (usually the off hand weapon).

Where is my analysis incorrect, if it is?

[EvilAnagram]

There has been no definitive ruling from Crawford on the Beast/TWF subject, so it's going to be decided by DMs.

[Tanarii]

Where is my analysis incorrect, if it is?

PHB p195: You only get a bonus action to attack with a different me lee weapon you're holding in the other hand when: you take the attack action, and you attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand.

When you use your action to command your Wolf to attack, you are not using the Attack action. You're using your action to let your Wolf use the Attack action, and getting to make an attack yourself out of it.

It's a pretty well known issue with Beastmaster Rangers. That's why I was surprised EA didn't already have it noted.

[Tanarii]

There has been no definitive ruling from Crawford on the Beast/TWF subject, so it's going to be decided by DMs.

um ... No. It's RAW. No definitive ruling means it's the rules.

[EvilAnagram]

um ... No. It's RAW. No definitive ruling means it's the rules.

I updated section, though I wrote a blurb under TWF to reflect that it's unclear because some people see the command to attack action as a variation on the attack action. I've seen that argument many times, though not so much on these boards. I took out that specific reference to TWF (which I wrote before I realized the problem).

Personally, I think your argument stands up best to pressure, but so long as I see the argument occurring and don't see a ruling, I feel obligated to mention that it's an active discussion. Thanks for pointing it out.

[Tanarii]

Personally, I think your argument stands up best to pressure, but so long as I see the argument occurring and don't see a ruling, I feel obligated to mention that it's an active discussion. Thanks for pointing it out.

Yah. If there's a decent chance that a DM making a strict reading of the rules might disallow it, it'll have a huge impact on character design, especially for official play. You don't want to take a character to AL if there's a chance some table DMs might rule against significant portion of your character working the way you envisioned. So it's important to mention.

[DireSickFish]

I prefer the TWF style to the Duelist. For my play style, it provides more versatility. For example, my group ended up with no tankish melee fighters. I was planning on using a more "stick and move" plan, but ended up having to change to pretty much a tank role. I was able to do this pretty easily. Due to a solid DEX stat, I have an 17 AC (after a ABI) and with C. Slayer and Hunter's mark on line, plus the added DEX bonus to my second ATK, most opponents don't last more than 1 or 2 rounds against me, and I tend to dodge a lot of hits due to my AC.

I do a lot of damage, very quickly. +8 on ATK (shortsword) 1d6+5 DMG + ad8 C. Strike + 1d6 Hunter's Mark.
+8 ATK second shortsword 1d6+5 DMG.

Now add a second ATK without Hunter's Mark and C. Strike bonuses.

On Average, assuming 4 hits which isn't uncommon with +8 ATK Bonus, you're looking at 39 DMG per turn (min 26DMG - max 58). And you can spread that damage out to more targets per turn as well.

It's a pretty great DPS tank. I don't think the Duelist gives you that variety, you just a little more sturdy.

A few points.

If you have to be the tank role then a shield is going to give you better AC than TWF. Hunters mark can't be used the same turn you cast Hunters Mark or move Hunters mark, so if your dropping an enemy with it on them then you aren't using 1 of the 2 features that round. And if you aren't using one of the features then the bonus damage is strictly better. You also can't spread the damage out as much because not every target you hit is going to have Hunters Mark that round you are dual wielding.

It's also better to be a duelist for Whirlwind attack as you'll get the bonus damage to every attack, but TWF again does nothing.

I'd still drop TWF down below Duelist. Duelist is easier to use and works better with the rangers class features. I really wish this wasn't the case.

[MeeposFire]

It's an at-will close burst attack. Depending on your choices, it can be extremely powerful. If you're a Hunter who's taken this ability, it should absolutely factor into your tactical choices when facing large groups. There is no reason to wait for enemies to surround you: jump into the middle of them yourself.

It does depend on the situation, as you say, but no more than any other AoE, all of which require groups of enemies to congregate. It allows a Duelist to attack 3+ times, it allows a TWF Ranger to attack 3+ times and still use his bonus action, and it provides a way to overcome large numbers of weak mooks, a weakness for many melee characters.

This is a very handy ability that compensates for a major weakness melee characters have, and though Duelists stand to benefit more, I cannot assume that players will trend towards TWF in this edition.

To me this still sounds highly situational. Even being a duelist you still need three targets within 5 feet of a single position for it to have any effect (otherwise your attack action could do the same thing but with more support and no cost in abilities). You then use an action to deal relatively weak damage to each target rather than increasing your chances of eliminating one. This puts into doubt that unless the enemies are exceedingly weak then you may not even think it is worth the action with only 3 targets (that being debatable with the situation)

Yes all AOE need people to congregate but you need 3 targets within 5 feet of one spot which is a much harder hurdle to obtain. One big enemy WA is useless. A bunch of archers not standing next to each other, useless, a horde of kobolds charging you but happen to not be in a 5 foot block for you and it is still useless.

This only helps with weak mooks if you actually can use it and I think you are way overvaluing its ability at that and further you have already stated earlier that rangers are not tanks but you want them to get into melee with a large number of enemies at once while dealing relatively minor damage?

There are times when this will shine greatly but personally I don't see it as being often enough to warrant being blue rather than the "situational" purple.

If you could move with it then you could reasonably assume that you could get enough targets to be worth it. If it dealt more damage or let you make more attacks on the targets then its damage would be high enough to be worth noting. As is it has seemed to be an ability sitting on your sheet waiting to finally be used but is constantly disappointed because the enemies just did not bunch up just enough or you have another small number of enemies encounter.

[EvilAnagram]

snip

You know what? You've convinced me. It's changed.

[SharkForce]

i could see it being useful on some very specific builds... for example, a wild magic sorcerer/OotA paladin multiclass intended to wade right into the middle of a group of enemies (literally) and fish for wild surges :P (even better if you can extend the range to 10 feet).

that said, this being a ranger guide (and that being a fairly specialized build of a completely different class), it doesn't seem that useful :P

[DireSickFish]

I had a Goliath ranger that focused on heavy armor and was going to take Great Weapon Fighting that in theory could have got a lot out of whirlwind attack. Hoard Breaker does a lot of what you want out of Whirlwind Attack anyway, so you need more than 3 enemies to make it worthwhile. It wouldn't be so bad if it came at a different level. But level 11 is where you're supposed to get your next big spike and Whirlwind attack really doesn't do that.

[TheOrcNextDoor]

One thing no one seems to mention is, that while you can "focus" on TWF, and still make use of a bow. You can easily keep at range until the need to engage in melee arises. Admittedly, a dueling ranger can do this too, however he cannot attack AND draw his blade and shield, just as the TWF cannot draw both weapons without a feat, and at best the dueling ranger will have 1 AC over the TWF.

That said, I'd consider keeping rangers away from that feat, much better options, such as resilience (con) for all you melee fighters out there and/or resilience (wis).

Honestly to me rangers are, in my opinion the best switch hitters in DnD 5e with the most options against the largest amount of potential threats. Because of their potential variety they can suffer in specialty but this can be off set by picking the right hunter powers if you wanted to specialize. (the ranger IMO is better suited to fight a big baddie with multiple attacks and fear aura than the fighter will be) Also, the rangers spells mean, you can stack damage with archery without dedicating other means too it (no real need for sharpshooter).

while I agree that WA is meh, Volley on the other hand is much more useful(easier to set up) without any houserules/changes.

All this said, I made a couple of changes to the Ranger class for my home games that worked well and helped them late game. (Ranger are, IMO the worst class after level 12ish, and ofc have the worst capstone)

Changes I made-
Allow colossal slayer to activate once per turn on an attack action AND bonus action (used as an attack) (to help the, admittedly slightly inferior TWF ranger)

Changed Primeval awareness to have the option to be used as a 10 minute ritual

Rolled the capstone into favored enemy starting at level 6, Then changed the capstone to allow it as a constant bonus to attack AND damage at 20. (now that's a favored enemy bonus!)


Also, another Idea I had but haven't gotten to test yet was allowing the Ranger to move as if in difficult terrain while using WA, making attacks on any enemy he moves within 5ft of during his movement, suffering AoOs as normal. (which, can be mitigated with an earlier level hunter power)

[Fflewddur Fflam]

I used my Hunter for a long while and she had no equal outside of DM "Divine Intervention." Understand I started playing with DMs who had no less than a half-dozen caricatures on their shield, with each one representing a TPK.

And that's a DM I'm never going to play with. DM's who think their purpose is to get TPK's or are "against" the party in any way are people who totally don't get it.

[Alejandro]

Is the Feral Tiefling from SCAG missing from this guide's list? I was thinking of making a feral tiefling ranger (no, not with wings) and did not see it listed.

[Trum4n1208]

EvilAnagram, great guide! I admit, I'm very excited to see your take on the new UA Ranger.

[EvilAnagram]

EvilAnagram, great guide! I admit, I'm very excited to see your take on the new UA Ranger.

Thanks, I'm pretty excited as well. It came out the day I DM, and today is the day I play my own Ranger, so I'll probably try to update this (and my Warlock guide) tomorrow afternoon.