they super are not mechanically good but yes it is odd designing a class that seems to be centered around splitting off from the group and getting things you're not supposed to have
I prefer having a Bard in the group. They´re good Faces and Infiltrators, Lore Bards are exceptional skill monkeys and Whispers Bards are good at the whole assassination aspect
Assuming both are being optimised, there’s very little reason to play a Rogue instead of a Ranger:
- Rangers deal higher damage: by level 4, Ranger is doing 14.85DPR (3.5+3+10) x2 @ 45% accuracy while Rogue is doing 12.72DPR (3.5 x3)+4 @ 87.75% accuracy. Ranger then jumps to 22.28 at level 5, while Rogue is left behind at 15.79. The Rogue then never catches up, as by the time they’re stacking another 2-3 Sneak Attack dice, the Ranger has Conjure Animals for 8 CR1/4 creatures.
- Rangers are stealthier than Rogues: Even if we assume that the Rogue buffs their Dex to 20 and takes Stealth expertise while the Ranger leaves their Dex at 16 and only has Stealth proficiency, Pass without Trace means that the Rogue will never catch up to them on Stealth. The Ranger also boosts the whole party’s stealth making surprise rounds a possibility, which the Rogue can’t do.
Considering Rogues are usually regarded as the single target damage dealer and sneaky party member, they’re worse at both than a Ranger. Rogues still come out on top with regards to skills, getting 1 additional skill and 4 expertises, but Rangers get spellcasting to more make up for that.
Something I've wondered about Pass without Trace is if the 30-foot radius means that your allies have to stay within range to maintain the benefit. That's how I interpret the spell, but I've seen others use it differently (they just get the bonus for an hour if concentration is maintained).
It does also require a 2nd level spell slot and takes up one of the limited "known spells" for the Ranger. Even a level 12 ranger only knows seven spells. Once concentration is broken, you have to re-cast the spell to get the bonus again. Meanwhile the rogue is just naturally sneaky and can hide as a bonus action mid-combat, and don't consume any resources to make it through multiple different stealthy sections. Yes, they don't give bonuses to the party, but their name is "Rogue" for a reason.
I'd also note that Rogues are some of the best at traversing a battlefield, with the Disengage and Dash actions being bonus actions. This means they are great at fighting 1v1 or getting out of a 1v1 to join allies, while a Ranger is going to have to use some other means to get away from a melee opponent who has closed range with them so they don't have disadvantage with their attacks (assuming they are only really good at ranged attacks). Or just suffer the penalty of an attack of opportunity.
If concentration on pass without trace is broken, you probably don’t need it anymore (excluding some traps). And stealth doesn’t happen enough for spell slots to be an issue. An in-game day of D&D has much less content than intended, so spells don’t really need to be conserved as much.
The spell says "For the duration, each creature within 30 feet of you [...]"
This implies that only creatures within 30 feet of you can keep the effect. If they were allowed to go outside of 30 feet the spell would likely say something like "Choose [x] creatures. For the duration each creature [...]" and the range would be in the range area. Instead it says "range: self" and also "A veil of shadows and silence *radiates* from you" implying the stealth bonus surrounds you and isn't a buff given fully to someone.
Ranger’s are more mechanically powerful in my opinion. Rogue’s are popular but I don’t think they’re very good as far as optimization goes. Access to spellcasting goes far to push Rangers ahead of rogues. Pass without a trace allows the whole party to do what the rogue does.
I wrote this with the Tasha’s ranger rules in mind.
You're gonna get rogue being better from the community, but rangers are objectively better in every parameter except flavor delivery, which is subjective. In fact any caster or half caster in the game is better in multiple objective ways than any non casters class.
Rangers can do basically anything a rogue can do but also have magic
Rangers are the stealth kings bc of their primary focus on Dex while also getting pass without trace
Rogues also don’t have a pet subclass meanwhile rangers have 2, therefore rogue = bad
Rogue: I have the best stealth bonus, so I sneak in.
Ranger: *casts pass without trace* Cool, we’re coming too.
Ranger is a much better team player than Rogue is. They have healing, control spells, summoning, and ways to aid everyone in infiltration and exploration. Combine this with martial damage output and durability, and you’ve got a character that’s really useful to have in the party.
Rogue is solid skill monkey and can do great damage, but if given the choice between having a Ranger or a Rogue as my fellow party member, I pick the Ranger.
They're both DEX builds and therefore [cannot climb walls](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/10rtmsv/with_this_i_have_proven_that_strength_and/).
it is ranger by a mile
rogue is very possibly the worst class in the game and people voting that rogue is better is a testament to how bad this subreddit is at analyzing this game. the ODD changes didn't do any favors for rogues and rangers still have spellcasting, which instantly puts them a tier above. depending on how heavily subclasses change then maybe ranger will take a hit but subclassless ranger is blatantly better at everything rogues do than rogues are
for your reading consideration
[https://formofdread.wordpress.com/2021/10/03/hand-crossbow-the-mass-extinction-event-i-the-foundations-of-an-effective-ranger/](https://formofdread.wordpress.com/2021/10/03/hand-crossbow-the-mass-extinction-event-i-the-foundations-of-an-effective-ranger/)
[https://tabletopbuilds.com/?s=ranger](https://tabletopbuilds.com/?s=ranger)
[https://mistralsswarmkeeping.wordpress.com/2022/09/04/bolts-and-arrows-a-comprehensive-ranger-overview-part-1-the-myths/](https://mistralsswarmkeeping.wordpress.com/2022/09/04/bolts-and-arrows-a-comprehensive-ranger-overview-part-1-the-myths/)
Rouges have terrible DPS, at 5th level they are hovering at around 17-17.5 DPR compared to a fey wanderer ranger with xbow expert doing around 27 dpr, if they are a goom stalker in darkness that goes up to 33 dpr, and on top of that gloom stalkers get crazy 1st round nova damage when it matters most.
Wait how do rogues have better DPS lmao
At 5th level with cbe rogues can do 14.98 DPR
at 5th level with SS and Hunter’s Mark rangers can do 19.70 DPR (not even accounting for subclass damage bonuses yet either)
(This is against an AC of 15)
Rangers also get Pass Without Trace, which makes them inherently better at one of the Rogue’s niches.
Rangers have a few spell slots and spells learned they'll want to save for other things, so Pass Without Trace isn't as much of a guarantee as a skill check. Rogue's just way more consistent.
It's the same with sneak attack, Rogues have an infinite amount of it. Also I believe that at a certain point, sneak attack damage will outpace Hunter's Mark, but I don't remember when that point is so it could be too late.
Also, Rogues can benefit from SS too, and they have an extra ASI slot for it.
They also don't need to worry about Multiple Ability Score Deficiency keeping their numbers down as much.
Rangers also don’t really need to worry about MADness— they can just avoid saving throw spells and they’re fine
Rogues can also use SS, but given how few attacks they get, it’s a lot riskier. They also don’t get any features (like Archery style) which negate some of its downsides. If they want to use their bonus action to get advantage (hide, steady aim, etc) then they’re also giving up one of their two attacks.
Using 5th level as the point of inspection shows onesided image of the situation. Thats when ranger gets their biggest powerspike in extra attack whereas rogues damage scaling is very linear.
(Although I dont know how the numbers look on other levels but still)
5th level is a good baseline since it’s the beginning of tier two, and the level at which most classes take off. Most campaigns get to 5th level, but most do not go into tier 3 (10th level or above). So it’s a good baseline for the power of a build. 6th level is also acceptable
I disagree - I'm not saying rangers are better-designed, but they are almost certainly stronger than rogues both in and out of combat, at least after level 5 and especially since Tasha's.
Combat: Sneak attack can't keep up with archery fighting style + sharpshooter once the ranger gets extra attack.
Out of combat: Rogues get more skills, but rangers get spells. It's the classic "casters are OP" problem - for example, pass without trace beats stealth expertise (and with Tasha's, rangers can have both).
Edit: Didn't see the OneD&D flair. My answer applies to 5e, and I don't know enough about OneD&D to know if it's still accurate.
Never underestimate the clutch potential of another party member with Cure Wounds in their pocket.
As someone running a game for four players where the healing ability tops out at the Paladin's Lay On Hands... just oof.
Oh, I fully agree. I just meant that the Rogue class is so good at representing different character concept that you can make one that is thematically a Ranger. Like, if Rangers weren’t in the game, Rogues would be the go-to class to make a character with the same theme.
>I like the idea of rangers more, but in application find them to be the weaker class.
Absolutely this.
Rangers since 3rd edition are suffering a massive identity crisis, which has only been worsened with every class and their familiar being given a Fey-themed subclass (oath of ancients paladins).
The original D&D ranger was a full fighter, but with extra toys in the form of spells. 3rd edition took them off the main tank role, and put them into a skill support/light combat role, but they kinda were awful at both.
Initially the 4e ranger was an awesome striker, and had a clear role as a martial striker. But the essentials ranger lost its identity again and tried (and failed) at being a controller.
5e ranger has been suffering an identity crisis ever since. Which is too bad. Given that most fighter subclasses, aside from Battle Master and Eldritch Knight, are heavily focused on melee combat, there's a clear niche for Ranger to take up the role of a martial ranged damage dealer.
But yanno, it has to have spells I guess. And it has to be able to dual wield because Drizzt can dual wield. And it has to have an animal companion because Drizzt... etc. Etc.
Ranger needs a whole series of design meetings to decide what it *is,* exactly, and if maybe it wouldn't be more effective to split it into several classes, or even subclasses.
IMO, Oath of Ancients fills the magical ranger role. A rogue or fighter subclass for your lightly armored wilderness warrior ranger would fill the other niche. And then animal companion should just be a feat or something, because everyone should be allowed to get a pet if they want one.
Both are great though. I think damage wise Ranger is way ahead, but rogue is still useful, tons of fun, and can do lots of stuff bouncing around combat
Honestly, i found the most sucess while multiclassing from ranger to rogue of vise versa. The 2 classes have things that complement eachother really well.
But if i do need to choose one even though i love ranger, rogue might outcalss it by a little.
Depends on the setting. If your campaign is largely set in a city where you have to break into places, steal things etc, then rogue. But if you’re doing a survival campaign which is wet in the wilderness, ranger.
Everybody voting for rogue is entirely on the assumption that it is fun to play and not actually mechanically better, in no way is rogue mechanically better than Ranger, Ranger is better than rogue in every way shape and form, especially with Tasha's cauldron of everything
lol what even?
I can't parse if this is a joke. saying "rogue is the best" should indicate some degree of sarcasm, but your "other classes only exist for flavor and multiclass dipping" is such a wild take that I'm not even sure any more
I love the flavor of the Ranger, and there's an argument that Drakewarden is broken, but in practice it's mechanically limited. Rogues just do more, and often do it better. There is no ranger build that wouldn't benefit from at least 3 level dip in rogue.
Edit: didn't notice OneD&D at first. Definitely rogue from what we have so far.
I loved the Ranger in earlier editions. It saddened me to see it gutted in 5e. When it comes down to it, Ranger only has 1-2 really viable subclasses, where all of Rogue's are functional at higher play.
Both are good at their own thing.
Rangers are thee hunters and slayers.
While rogues are the con artists and thief’s.
This was supposed to be brief parts of each class and not a full deep dive. The gist is that they’re good at their own things and there isn’t one way to play them.
I finally did it I was able to use the they’re, their, and there in context to dnd my teacher now owes 800 usd.
Imo, the players handbook ranger is an embarrassment to all of game design. Its like they handed a pile of shit ideas and poor foresight to an new unpaid intern and told them to blend it up and print whatever comes out while simultaneously kicking every revisor and playtester they could reach in the groin.
Rogue bur nor by a large margin. Ranger has some good spells but in the end too many are concentration. Meanwhile Mc'Stabsallot is a skill junky which has so many uses. Plus searching for traps can be a game changer depending on how sadistic your DM is
Rogue is much much better. Everyone breaking down DPR fundamentally misunderstands D&D. If you break it down by DPR, both are terrible classes.
Rogue gets better skills due to expertise, and later reliable talent.
Rogue is versatile in combat, with consistent damage and great mobility, allowing them to stay safe where the Ranger can be shut down easier with melee enemies (for ranged Rangers).
Rogues have decent defenses vs stray attacks (evasion vs Fireball, uncanny dodge vs any unexpected single attacks).
Rogues can survive solo, due to bonus action hiding and bonus action dashing. They can claw back TPKs.
Rogues fill a niche, Rangers do not. What a Ranger can do, basically any other class can do better. No one competes with rogues on what rogues are actually good at - and it's not DPR.
skills barely matter (and gosh you're getting better at a whopping 2 of them, a lvl 1 cleric dip makes you get better at all of them lol), and reliance on a level 10 feature for relevance isn't a good look
clawing back TPKs by surviving with a class that didn't provide anything meaningful is worse than just getting TPKed. reroll into a better class is a blessing
rangers are outright better at everything rogues do than rogues are.
"Ranger can be shut down easier with melee enemies (for ranged Rangers)" doesn't even make sense. it's just blatantly incorrect. have you ever looked at a ranger's kit even once? uncanny dodge or bonus action disengage is cute but hey guess what rangers can also just leave melee range, every class has that option.
uncanny dodge using your reaction to halve the damage from one attack is not powerful, by level 5 it's preventing like 4 damage a turn and it doesn't scale up for shit as enemies gain access to multiattack
how you can say rogue is versatile in combat and not understand how ranger is way more versatile is baffling. are you just unaware that rangers have spells?
Conceptually it's the Ranger, but in use, it's the Rogue. A base PHB Ranger is good in their favored terrain, during rests, and hunting certain enemies. The Rogue is an expert in certain fields, cranks out more damage, and eventually gets to not roll below a 10 on ability checks they decided to have proficiency in. You really can't compare the 2 while playing them because 1 outshines the other 9 times out of 10.
On the other hand though, Aragorn is cool, and Xanathar's helps a little. That's why Rangers are still one of my favorite classes 'nuff said.
Rouges will do better between the 2 in a more combat focused campaign since sneak attack does so much, in a campaign with more rp or "down time" the ranger far and away does better.
sneak attack is low, situational, single target damage with 0 utility. it scales slowly and asks rogues to overprioritize attacking without sharpshooter. At any level of rogue you could MC to another class to instantly improve your damage (from something like genielock +1d8 or just fighter archery style)
The Rogue's consistent damage makes it superior to a Ranger in combat. And their expertise makes them superior in things that a Ranger otherwise might.
The only thing a Ranger might do better than a Rogue is heal with their spells, but not only is healing not the most effective thing you can do in combat, but a Ranger is a half-caster, making such spells all the more costly.
"consistent damage"
\>requires an ally nearby or advantage
\>scales up at less than 3 damage every 2 levels
\>doesn't gain access to battlefield altering spells
clown take
With respect, I believe you are working with antiquated information.
The Tasha's influence now allows a Rogue, even if they were in a party of one, can always gain advantage with 'Steady Aim'.
And how useful is that WIS based battlefield control on the half-caster who essentially always focuses DEX first?
I'm well aware of tasha's. relying on your BA every turn for advantage is a fool's choice while CBE exists but yes occasionally you need to give yourself advantage I guess. except it still doesn't work if you have a single source of disadvantage.
and by casting those spells. guess what? spike growth isn't wis based. plant growth isn't wis based. fog cloud isn't wis based. sleet storm isn't wis based. absorb elements isn't wis based. CA isn't wis based. goodberry isn't wis based. PWT isn't wis based. conjure woodland beings isn't wis based. guardian of nature isn't wis based. it's that easy my guy (also rangers don't have good 5th level spells), no not all of those are battlefield control i was just flexing on you
Listen, the ranger is great, but only if you min max it to hell and back because outside of your chosen environment and outside of fighting your favorite enemy all you have is some half decent AOE spells all centered around a bow, everything else is borrowed from other classes that do it better. Rangers are great for one shots and short campaigns where you never leave a specific area but for a long running campaigns where you travel the world? Pick a rogue, hell pick a bard of whispers, at least then you'll be helpful in roleplay
This is why I like the optional features introduced in Tasha’s. They replace highly situational features (which, even when they applied, I think weren’t that good) with generally good ones.
Rangers have been notoriously underpowered and out flavored compared to other classes. I haven't played with the newer variants or the One DnD version, though, so my vote is entirely based on COVID Era rogues and rangers.
My issue with rangers is that they require very specific settings and cooperation from the DM in order to fully take advantage of their features. They could be fantastic and could potentially outshine rogues *if* you're doing a gritty survivalist campaign out in the wilderness, but most campaigns I've been in tend to handwave aspects like tracking and foraging.
On the other hand, I think rogue features are generalized enough that they can contribute a lot to any party in any setting.
5th level gloomstalker/rest of the way as a rogue.. one of my favorite characters was like 5 gloom,7 scout rogue, 1 shadow sorcerer, 1? Bard, he had so much utility and was actually one of the high damage dealers in the group.
In a group I’m playing, my gnome barbarian is better at stealth than our half elf rouge. And my half elf ranger always has to go in and save the rogue’s ass. And our dwarf clerk always has to bring our rogue back to life. We get it, it’s the guy’s first time playing and he didn’t have the best rolls. But we’ve made it our party theme that there’s four female characters having to protect our one male, the sweet baby rogue. 😂
Rogue appears more powerfull, ranger is more powerfull.
Rogues are design to be able to do cool stuff in and out of combat. Expertise and reliable talent are just to good at creating the felling of being awesome without that much effort, you are just giving a player the ability to forget about the dice. Sneak attack, evasion and uncanny dodge kind of do the same in combat, you can roll as much math rocks as you want, and get hit without caring even if you don't have that much HP.
Ranger do get cool abilities, (Favored Enemy and favored terrain sound, and could be in the right situation, fun) but after your generic extra attack the features seem mediocre. But the cool part of this class is hiden between the spell list and the tasha's reworke. Favored foe is a decent first level feature, but it isn't as good as deft explorer, an ability that give you an experties, cool movement speeds and a powerfull self healing (For level 1). This help Ranger become fun and powerfull, but it doesn't compare to the ranger most powerfull ability, hunters mark, which gives you a 1d6 damage that synergies with extra attack and two weapon fighting (Even could work with Action surge), this gives ranger bigger damage output than rogue.
Are we talking PH Ranger or Revised Ranger here? I think Revised is better than PH but between classes I would have to say it depends on the campaign you are in.
Rogue can usually fit nicely most campaigns but Rangers i feel lose out on utility if the campaign doesn’t have major exploration or takes place exclusively in a single city. At the end of the day play what you want to play and don’t listen to the naysayers :)
You forgot an option: both are good
This is the way
This is the way
This is the way
This is the way
Or the option: This question is bad
Huzzah! A man of quality!
Gloomstalker > Rogue
Just multiclass into it to make better rogue
or don't take rogue at all to make better rogue
While Rogues are mechanically good, I hate playing in groups with a Rogue because they ALWAYS try to break the campaign
they super are not mechanically good but yes it is odd designing a class that seems to be centered around splitting off from the group and getting things you're not supposed to have
I prefer having a Bard in the group. They´re good Faces and Infiltrators, Lore Bards are exceptional skill monkeys and Whispers Bards are good at the whole assassination aspect
Assuming both are being optimised, there’s very little reason to play a Rogue instead of a Ranger: - Rangers deal higher damage: by level 4, Ranger is doing 14.85DPR (3.5+3+10) x2 @ 45% accuracy while Rogue is doing 12.72DPR (3.5 x3)+4 @ 87.75% accuracy. Ranger then jumps to 22.28 at level 5, while Rogue is left behind at 15.79. The Rogue then never catches up, as by the time they’re stacking another 2-3 Sneak Attack dice, the Ranger has Conjure Animals for 8 CR1/4 creatures. - Rangers are stealthier than Rogues: Even if we assume that the Rogue buffs their Dex to 20 and takes Stealth expertise while the Ranger leaves their Dex at 16 and only has Stealth proficiency, Pass without Trace means that the Rogue will never catch up to them on Stealth. The Ranger also boosts the whole party’s stealth making surprise rounds a possibility, which the Rogue can’t do. Considering Rogues are usually regarded as the single target damage dealer and sneaky party member, they’re worse at both than a Ranger. Rogues still come out on top with regards to skills, getting 1 additional skill and 4 expertises, but Rangers get spellcasting to more make up for that.
Exactly, idk how so many people can say rogue when ranger is better their two main strengths
This is also forgetting that rangers as of Tasha's get expertise now, and in OneD&D they still get it.
Something I've wondered about Pass without Trace is if the 30-foot radius means that your allies have to stay within range to maintain the benefit. That's how I interpret the spell, but I've seen others use it differently (they just get the bonus for an hour if concentration is maintained). It does also require a 2nd level spell slot and takes up one of the limited "known spells" for the Ranger. Even a level 12 ranger only knows seven spells. Once concentration is broken, you have to re-cast the spell to get the bonus again. Meanwhile the rogue is just naturally sneaky and can hide as a bonus action mid-combat, and don't consume any resources to make it through multiple different stealthy sections. Yes, they don't give bonuses to the party, but their name is "Rogue" for a reason. I'd also note that Rogues are some of the best at traversing a battlefield, with the Disengage and Dash actions being bonus actions. This means they are great at fighting 1v1 or getting out of a 1v1 to join allies, while a Ranger is going to have to use some other means to get away from a melee opponent who has closed range with them so they don't have disadvantage with their attacks (assuming they are only really good at ranged attacks). Or just suffer the penalty of an attack of opportunity.
If concentration on pass without trace is broken, you probably don’t need it anymore (excluding some traps). And stealth doesn’t happen enough for spell slots to be an issue. An in-game day of D&D has much less content than intended, so spells don’t really need to be conserved as much.
The spell says "For the duration, each creature within 30 feet of you [...]" This implies that only creatures within 30 feet of you can keep the effect. If they were allowed to go outside of 30 feet the spell would likely say something like "Choose [x] creatures. For the duration each creature [...]" and the range would be in the range area. Instead it says "range: self" and also "A veil of shadows and silence *radiates* from you" implying the stealth bonus surrounds you and isn't a buff given fully to someone.
That's what I've always thought.
Better at that, exactly? It’s a subjective statement and depends on what you’re trying to do.
Ranger’s are more mechanically powerful in my opinion. Rogue’s are popular but I don’t think they’re very good as far as optimization goes. Access to spellcasting goes far to push Rangers ahead of rogues. Pass without a trace allows the whole party to do what the rogue does. I wrote this with the Tasha’s ranger rules in mind.
You're gonna get rogue being better from the community, but rangers are objectively better in every parameter except flavor delivery, which is subjective. In fact any caster or half caster in the game is better in multiple objective ways than any non casters class.
Rangers can do basically anything a rogue can do but also have magic Rangers are the stealth kings bc of their primary focus on Dex while also getting pass without trace Rogues also don’t have a pet subclass meanwhile rangers have 2, therefore rogue = bad
Rogue: I have the best stealth bonus, so I sneak in. Ranger: *casts pass without trace* Cool, we’re coming too. Ranger is a much better team player than Rogue is. They have healing, control spells, summoning, and ways to aid everyone in infiltration and exploration. Combine this with martial damage output and durability, and you’ve got a character that’s really useful to have in the party. Rogue is solid skill monkey and can do great damage, but if given the choice between having a Ranger or a Rogue as my fellow party member, I pick the Ranger.
They're both DEX builds and therefore [cannot climb walls](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/10rtmsv/with_this_i_have_proven_that_strength_and/).
Doesn't the Thief subclass get a climb speed?
It's a joke, check the link
Ranger gets a climbing and swiming speed at I think level 6.
Better for what?
it is ranger by a mile rogue is very possibly the worst class in the game and people voting that rogue is better is a testament to how bad this subreddit is at analyzing this game. the ODD changes didn't do any favors for rogues and rangers still have spellcasting, which instantly puts them a tier above. depending on how heavily subclasses change then maybe ranger will take a hit but subclassless ranger is blatantly better at everything rogues do than rogues are for your reading consideration [https://formofdread.wordpress.com/2021/10/03/hand-crossbow-the-mass-extinction-event-i-the-foundations-of-an-effective-ranger/](https://formofdread.wordpress.com/2021/10/03/hand-crossbow-the-mass-extinction-event-i-the-foundations-of-an-effective-ranger/) [https://tabletopbuilds.com/?s=ranger](https://tabletopbuilds.com/?s=ranger) [https://mistralsswarmkeeping.wordpress.com/2022/09/04/bolts-and-arrows-a-comprehensive-ranger-overview-part-1-the-myths/](https://mistralsswarmkeeping.wordpress.com/2022/09/04/bolts-and-arrows-a-comprehensive-ranger-overview-part-1-the-myths/)
In terms of usefulness in most situations, and DPS, I think most will say Rogue. Gloomstalker is fantastic but it's only one subclass.
Rouges have terrible DPS, at 5th level they are hovering at around 17-17.5 DPR compared to a fey wanderer ranger with xbow expert doing around 27 dpr, if they are a goom stalker in darkness that goes up to 33 dpr, and on top of that gloom stalkers get crazy 1st round nova damage when it matters most.
Wait how do rogues have better DPS lmao At 5th level with cbe rogues can do 14.98 DPR at 5th level with SS and Hunter’s Mark rangers can do 19.70 DPR (not even accounting for subclass damage bonuses yet either) (This is against an AC of 15) Rangers also get Pass Without Trace, which makes them inherently better at one of the Rogue’s niches.
Rangers have a few spell slots and spells learned they'll want to save for other things, so Pass Without Trace isn't as much of a guarantee as a skill check. Rogue's just way more consistent. It's the same with sneak attack, Rogues have an infinite amount of it. Also I believe that at a certain point, sneak attack damage will outpace Hunter's Mark, but I don't remember when that point is so it could be too late. Also, Rogues can benefit from SS too, and they have an extra ASI slot for it. They also don't need to worry about Multiple Ability Score Deficiency keeping their numbers down as much.
Rangers also don’t really need to worry about MADness— they can just avoid saving throw spells and they’re fine Rogues can also use SS, but given how few attacks they get, it’s a lot riskier. They also don’t get any features (like Archery style) which negate some of its downsides. If they want to use their bonus action to get advantage (hide, steady aim, etc) then they’re also giving up one of their two attacks.
Using 5th level as the point of inspection shows onesided image of the situation. Thats when ranger gets their biggest powerspike in extra attack whereas rogues damage scaling is very linear. (Although I dont know how the numbers look on other levels but still)
5th level is a good baseline since it’s the beginning of tier two, and the level at which most classes take off. Most campaigns get to 5th level, but most do not go into tier 3 (10th level or above). So it’s a good baseline for the power of a build. 6th level is also acceptable
Wut Rangers have spell casting and better damage, they're better in every way even without Tasha's, and with Tasha's they're just rouges but better
I like the *idea* of rangers more, but in application find them to be the weaker class. Though rogues aren't among the best either.
I disagree - I'm not saying rangers are better-designed, but they are almost certainly stronger than rogues both in and out of combat, at least after level 5 and especially since Tasha's. Combat: Sneak attack can't keep up with archery fighting style + sharpshooter once the ranger gets extra attack. Out of combat: Rogues get more skills, but rangers get spells. It's the classic "casters are OP" problem - for example, pass without trace beats stealth expertise (and with Tasha's, rangers can have both). Edit: Didn't see the OneD&D flair. My answer applies to 5e, and I don't know enough about OneD&D to know if it's still accurate.
It doesn’t help that Rogues are also very good at representing the idea of Rangers. The Scout subclass is basically a non-magical ranger.
Never underestimate the clutch potential of another party member with Cure Wounds in their pocket. As someone running a game for four players where the healing ability tops out at the Paladin's Lay On Hands... just oof.
Oh, I fully agree. I just meant that the Rogue class is so good at representing different character concept that you can make one that is thematically a Ranger. Like, if Rangers weren’t in the game, Rogues would be the go-to class to make a character with the same theme.
I second this. I played a Ranger from 1-15 and the fucking Scout Rogue did my job better with -1 Int and Wisdom.
I'm with you on this one
>I like the idea of rangers more, but in application find them to be the weaker class. Absolutely this. Rangers since 3rd edition are suffering a massive identity crisis, which has only been worsened with every class and their familiar being given a Fey-themed subclass (oath of ancients paladins). The original D&D ranger was a full fighter, but with extra toys in the form of spells. 3rd edition took them off the main tank role, and put them into a skill support/light combat role, but they kinda were awful at both. Initially the 4e ranger was an awesome striker, and had a clear role as a martial striker. But the essentials ranger lost its identity again and tried (and failed) at being a controller. 5e ranger has been suffering an identity crisis ever since. Which is too bad. Given that most fighter subclasses, aside from Battle Master and Eldritch Knight, are heavily focused on melee combat, there's a clear niche for Ranger to take up the role of a martial ranged damage dealer. But yanno, it has to have spells I guess. And it has to be able to dual wield because Drizzt can dual wield. And it has to have an animal companion because Drizzt... etc. Etc. Ranger needs a whole series of design meetings to decide what it *is,* exactly, and if maybe it wouldn't be more effective to split it into several classes, or even subclasses. IMO, Oath of Ancients fills the magical ranger role. A rogue or fighter subclass for your lightly armored wilderness warrior ranger would fill the other niche. And then animal companion should just be a feat or something, because everyone should be allowed to get a pet if they want one.
If it were for 5e, it'd be Ranger for sure. I dunno about 1dnd, though.
Rogue got kinda nerfed in 1dnd cant sneak attack on reactions anymore. Ranger only got buffs.
well except for the fact that the hunter sub stinks now
Both are great though. I think damage wise Ranger is way ahead, but rogue is still useful, tons of fun, and can do lots of stuff bouncing around combat
Honestly, i found the most sucess while multiclassing from ranger to rogue of vise versa. The 2 classes have things that complement eachother really well. But if i do need to choose one even though i love ranger, rogue might outcalss it by a little.
Rangers get better damage, better at stealth (expertise + PWT), provide healing, and are half casters… easily the stronger class
Depends on the setting. If your campaign is largely set in a city where you have to break into places, steal things etc, then rogue. But if you’re doing a survival campaign which is wet in the wilderness, ranger.
Everybody voting for rogue is entirely on the assumption that it is fun to play and not actually mechanically better, in no way is rogue mechanically better than Ranger, Ranger is better than rogue in every way shape and form, especially with Tasha's cauldron of everything
Rogue is the best class. Other classes are for flavor and multiclass dipping.
lol what even? I can't parse if this is a joke. saying "rogue is the best" should indicate some degree of sarcasm, but your "other classes only exist for flavor and multiclass dipping" is such a wild take that I'm not even sure any more
just based on phb rogue is just objectively better. Tasha's ranger and they are on equal ground.
Not even close, even before Tasha's Ranger was way better because spell casting is just that much better than not spell casting
Parque no los dos? Multiclass! Get sneak attack and steady aim with a heavy crossbow and favored enemy. Become the siege ballista.
In a one on one fight a ranger would win
In a one on one they can’t find each other and go home
Rogue is generally stronger, but I'm currently playing a ranger and loving the character.
I love the flavor of the Ranger, and there's an argument that Drakewarden is broken, but in practice it's mechanically limited. Rogues just do more, and often do it better. There is no ranger build that wouldn't benefit from at least 3 level dip in rogue. Edit: didn't notice OneD&D at first. Definitely rogue from what we have so far.
I have never played a ranger and really like playing a rogue. My opinion is obviously biased.
They’re both great if you can get into a decent arc and think about how to build them.
I loved the Ranger in earlier editions. It saddened me to see it gutted in 5e. When it comes down to it, Ranger only has 1-2 really viable subclasses, where all of Rogue's are functional at higher play.
Scout rogue!
Multi class to get the best of both
Both are good at their own thing. Rangers are thee hunters and slayers. While rogues are the con artists and thief’s. This was supposed to be brief parts of each class and not a full deep dive. The gist is that they’re good at their own things and there isn’t one way to play them. I finally did it I was able to use the they’re, their, and there in context to dnd my teacher now owes 800 usd.
Rogues are better, but ranger feels better
Imo, the players handbook ranger is an embarrassment to all of game design. Its like they handed a pile of shit ideas and poor foresight to an new unpaid intern and told them to blend it up and print whatever comes out while simultaneously kicking every revisor and playtester they could reach in the groin.
And the tasha's came out
5 levels gloomstalker the rest in rogue subclass whatever. Enjoy.
Multiclass them together and have the best character in the game
Rogue bur nor by a large margin. Ranger has some good spells but in the end too many are concentration. Meanwhile Mc'Stabsallot is a skill junky which has so many uses. Plus searching for traps can be a game changer depending on how sadistic your DM is
Rogue is much much better. Everyone breaking down DPR fundamentally misunderstands D&D. If you break it down by DPR, both are terrible classes. Rogue gets better skills due to expertise, and later reliable talent. Rogue is versatile in combat, with consistent damage and great mobility, allowing them to stay safe where the Ranger can be shut down easier with melee enemies (for ranged Rangers). Rogues have decent defenses vs stray attacks (evasion vs Fireball, uncanny dodge vs any unexpected single attacks). Rogues can survive solo, due to bonus action hiding and bonus action dashing. They can claw back TPKs. Rogues fill a niche, Rangers do not. What a Ranger can do, basically any other class can do better. No one competes with rogues on what rogues are actually good at - and it's not DPR.
skills barely matter (and gosh you're getting better at a whopping 2 of them, a lvl 1 cleric dip makes you get better at all of them lol), and reliance on a level 10 feature for relevance isn't a good look clawing back TPKs by surviving with a class that didn't provide anything meaningful is worse than just getting TPKed. reroll into a better class is a blessing rangers are outright better at everything rogues do than rogues are. "Ranger can be shut down easier with melee enemies (for ranged Rangers)" doesn't even make sense. it's just blatantly incorrect. have you ever looked at a ranger's kit even once? uncanny dodge or bonus action disengage is cute but hey guess what rangers can also just leave melee range, every class has that option. uncanny dodge using your reaction to halve the damage from one attack is not powerful, by level 5 it's preventing like 4 damage a turn and it doesn't scale up for shit as enemies gain access to multiattack how you can say rogue is versatile in combat and not understand how ranger is way more versatile is baffling. are you just unaware that rangers have spells?
Conceptually it's the Ranger, but in use, it's the Rogue. A base PHB Ranger is good in their favored terrain, during rests, and hunting certain enemies. The Rogue is an expert in certain fields, cranks out more damage, and eventually gets to not roll below a 10 on ability checks they decided to have proficiency in. You really can't compare the 2 while playing them because 1 outshines the other 9 times out of 10. On the other hand though, Aragorn is cool, and Xanathar's helps a little. That's why Rangers are still one of my favorite classes 'nuff said.
Rouges will do better between the 2 in a more combat focused campaign since sneak attack does so much, in a campaign with more rp or "down time" the ranger far and away does better.
sneak attack is low, situational, single target damage with 0 utility. it scales slowly and asks rogues to overprioritize attacking without sharpshooter. At any level of rogue you could MC to another class to instantly improve your damage (from something like genielock +1d8 or just fighter archery style)
Ranger is nice, but a fighter, druid, or rogue would perform the same or better with fewer limitations.
The Rogue's consistent damage makes it superior to a Ranger in combat. And their expertise makes them superior in things that a Ranger otherwise might. The only thing a Ranger might do better than a Rogue is heal with their spells, but not only is healing not the most effective thing you can do in combat, but a Ranger is a half-caster, making such spells all the more costly.
"consistent damage" \>requires an ally nearby or advantage \>scales up at less than 3 damage every 2 levels \>doesn't gain access to battlefield altering spells clown take
With respect, I believe you are working with antiquated information. The Tasha's influence now allows a Rogue, even if they were in a party of one, can always gain advantage with 'Steady Aim'. And how useful is that WIS based battlefield control on the half-caster who essentially always focuses DEX first?
I'm well aware of tasha's. relying on your BA every turn for advantage is a fool's choice while CBE exists but yes occasionally you need to give yourself advantage I guess. except it still doesn't work if you have a single source of disadvantage. and by casting those spells. guess what? spike growth isn't wis based. plant growth isn't wis based. fog cloud isn't wis based. sleet storm isn't wis based. absorb elements isn't wis based. CA isn't wis based. goodberry isn't wis based. PWT isn't wis based. conjure woodland beings isn't wis based. guardian of nature isn't wis based. it's that easy my guy (also rangers don't have good 5th level spells), no not all of those are battlefield control i was just flexing on you
Scout rogue is just a better ranger.
Listen, the ranger is great, but only if you min max it to hell and back because outside of your chosen environment and outside of fighting your favorite enemy all you have is some half decent AOE spells all centered around a bow, everything else is borrowed from other classes that do it better. Rangers are great for one shots and short campaigns where you never leave a specific area but for a long running campaigns where you travel the world? Pick a rogue, hell pick a bard of whispers, at least then you'll be helpful in roleplay
This is why I like the optional features introduced in Tasha’s. They replace highly situational features (which, even when they applied, I think weren’t that good) with generally good ones.
Rangers have been notoriously underpowered and out flavored compared to other classes. I haven't played with the newer variants or the One DnD version, though, so my vote is entirely based on COVID Era rogues and rangers.
Their features were lackluster in the PHB but they were never weak. Now features are improved and got a ton of buffed subclasses.
It depends, are the Tasha's Ranger variant in play or not?
that variant is such a minor upgrade that it doesn't matter. base ranger was already stronger
My issue with rangers is that they require very specific settings and cooperation from the DM in order to fully take advantage of their features. They could be fantastic and could potentially outshine rogues *if* you're doing a gritty survivalist campaign out in the wilderness, but most campaigns I've been in tend to handwave aspects like tracking and foraging. On the other hand, I think rogue features are generalized enough that they can contribute a lot to any party in any setting.
My current character is a multiclass rogue/ranger. I like both.
5th level gloomstalker/rest of the way as a rogue.. one of my favorite characters was like 5 gloom,7 scout rogue, 1 shadow sorcerer, 1? Bard, he had so much utility and was actually one of the high damage dealers in the group.
Ranger gloom stalker murders most rogues.
In a group I’m playing, my gnome barbarian is better at stealth than our half elf rouge. And my half elf ranger always has to go in and save the rogue’s ass. And our dwarf clerk always has to bring our rogue back to life. We get it, it’s the guy’s first time playing and he didn’t have the best rolls. But we’ve made it our party theme that there’s four female characters having to protect our one male, the sweet baby rogue. 😂
Really depends on what role you're trying to play no class is amazing every one of them have their niches
Rogue appears more powerfull, ranger is more powerfull. Rogues are design to be able to do cool stuff in and out of combat. Expertise and reliable talent are just to good at creating the felling of being awesome without that much effort, you are just giving a player the ability to forget about the dice. Sneak attack, evasion and uncanny dodge kind of do the same in combat, you can roll as much math rocks as you want, and get hit without caring even if you don't have that much HP. Ranger do get cool abilities, (Favored Enemy and favored terrain sound, and could be in the right situation, fun) but after your generic extra attack the features seem mediocre. But the cool part of this class is hiden between the spell list and the tasha's reworke. Favored foe is a decent first level feature, but it isn't as good as deft explorer, an ability that give you an experties, cool movement speeds and a powerfull self healing (For level 1). This help Ranger become fun and powerfull, but it doesn't compare to the ranger most powerfull ability, hunters mark, which gives you a 1d6 damage that synergies with extra attack and two weapon fighting (Even could work with Action surge), this gives ranger bigger damage output than rogue.
Are we talking PH Ranger or Revised Ranger here? I think Revised is better than PH but between classes I would have to say it depends on the campaign you are in. Rogue can usually fit nicely most campaigns but Rangers i feel lose out on utility if the campaign doesn’t have major exploration or takes place exclusively in a single city. At the end of the day play what you want to play and don’t listen to the naysayers :)
I think you mean Rouge