Return to Answer

Ok so I am going to ignore one off effects and crits and do the average expected damage assuming you hit, also going to assume phb only - which then means that subclasses at least in this regard matter little and all characters are listed as level 20.

Let's start with Dex based rogue and assume that you are actively attacking people next to your party... that is 79.5 damage per round - but you do have to hope your allies are paying attention (see below)

Second place is Str based Fighter with a non-magical lance on a mount is the best damage option Doing on the average turn 54 damage (+2 per hit with dueling)

Third: A Strength based Barbarian with a non-magical lance on a mount is next up Doing on the average turn (non-raging) 27 damage or (raging) 35 damage ... plus a bit of misc damage from great weapon fighting that I really don't want to get into calculating

Then strength based Paladin same set up with lance 36 (smite does 1d8 on every hit + 2/hit for dueling)

Next: The Ranger same lance set up does 31.5 damage per turn... (+2 per hit dueling, +4.5 if creature doesn't have full hit points... which it doesn't - you hit it 2 times in the same turn)

Just after that is college of Valor bard same lance set up 23 damage per turn and that's before considering that the bard has a full 5 spell slots higher casting in addition to almost doing the same damage on the average turn when it isn't cast spells as a ranger.

And finally the lonely rogue with nowhere to hide, no advantage to be found, and no one to help her: A measly 9.5

BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE Rogues get the ability to do stuff that makes it near trivial as long as you are paying attention to do obseen damage without help at 2nd level Fighters can prevent themselves from turning on their allies (indomidable) Barbarians get rage Powers Paladins get smite abilities Bards get spells(aformentioned) to a much greater degree than rangers ... and rangers... might get a pet?

Rangers at least in the PHB are the most mathematically sad class - all because instead of a swift action to target a creature (4th) and it is your quarry they went with the dumb 'every single playable race has it's own subtype - I sure hope you don't pick the wrong one for this campaign' favored enemy and then decided to nerf that to 3 choices down from 5 in 3.5 and to be honest I don't think the 3 favored terrains make up for that. To be perfectly honest - if they were to have gone the route of 'just use ranger off of 3.5' it would be ... significantly better balanced with the rest of 5th edition than the current version of the ranger (both if you decide to force you to get composite to add str, or if you decide to go dex for damage like typical 5th rules) That is how poorly rangers are made in 5th at least in base game.

• edit: I forgot that a lance on a horse is a one handed weapon somehow after specifically choosing it for that effect - updated numerical stats appropriately, still leaves ranger in a fairly sad state

Ok so I am going to ignore one off effects and crits and do the average expected damage assuming you hit, also going to assume phb only - which then means that subclasses at least in this regard matter little and all characters are listed as level 20.

Let's start with Dex based rogue and assume that you are actively attacking people next to your party... that is 79.5 damage per round - but you do have to hope your allies are paying attention (see below)

Second place is Str based Fighter with a non-magical lance on a mount is the best damage option Doing on the average turn 54 damage (+2 per hit with dueling)

Third: A Strength based Barbarian with a non-magical lance on a mount is next up Doing on the average turn (non-raging) 27 damage or (raging) 35 damage ... plus a bit of misc damage from great weapon fighting that I really don't want to get into calculating

Then strength based Paladin same set up with lance 36 (smite does 1d8 on every hit + 2/hit for dueling)

Next: The Ranger same lance set up does 31.5 damage per turn... (+2 per hit dueling, +4.5 if creature doesn't have full hit points... which it doesn't - you hit it 2 times in the same turn)

Just after that is college of Valor bard same lance set up 23 damage per turn and that's before considering that the bard has a full 5 spell slots higher casting in addition to almost doing the same damage on the average turn when it isn't cast spells as a ranger.

And finally the lonely rogue with nowhere to hide, no advantage to be found, and no one to help her: A measly 9.5

BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE Rogues get the ability to do stuff that makes it near trivial as long as you are paying attention to do obscene damage without help at 2nd level Fighters can prevent themselves from turning on their allies (indomitable) Barbarians get rage Powers Paladins get smite abilities Bards get spells(aformentioned) to a much greater degree than rangers ... and rangers... might get a pet?

Rangers at least in the PHB are the most mathematically sad class - all because instead of a swift action to target a creature (4th) and it is your quarry they went with the dumb 'every single playable race has it's own subtype - I sure hope you don't pick the wrong one for this campaign' favored enemy and then decided to nerf that to 3 choices down from 5 in 3.5 and to be honest I don't think the 3 favored terrains make up for that. To be perfectly honest - if they were to have gone the route of 'just use ranger off of 3.5' it would be ... significantly better balanced with the rest of 5th edition than the current version of the ranger (both if you decide to force you to get composite to add str, or if you decide to go dex for damage like typical 5th rules) That is how poorly rangers are made in 5th at least in base game.

• edit: I forgot that a lance on a horse is a one handed weapon somehow after specifically choosing it for that effect - updated numerical stats appropriately, still leaves ranger in a fairly sad state

Ok so I am going to ignore one off effects and crits and do the average expected damage assuming you hit, also going to assume phb only - which then means that subclasses at least in this regard matter little and all characters are listed as level 20.

Let's start with Dex based rogue and assume that you are actively attacking people next to your party... that is 79.5 damage per round - but you do have to hope your allies are paying attention (see below)

Second place is Str based Fighter with a non-magical lance on a mount is the best damage option Doing on the average turn 54 damage (+2 per hit with dueling)

Third: A Strength based Barbarian with a non-magical lance on a mount is next up Doing on the average turn (non-raging) 27 damage or (raging) 35 damage ... plus a bit of misc damage from great weapon fighting that I really don't want to get into calculating

Then strength based Paladin same set up with lance 36 (smite does 1d8 on every hit + 2/hit for dueling)

Next: The Ranger same lance set up does 27 damage per turn... (+2 per hit dueling)

Just after that is college of Valor bard same lance set up 23 damage per turn and that's before considering that the bard has a full 5 spell slots higher casting in addition to almost doing the same damage on the average turn when it isn't cast spells as a ranger.

And finally the lonely rogue with nowhere to hide, no advantage to be found, and no one to help her: A measly 9.5

BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE Rogues get the ability to do stuff that makes it near trivial as long as you are paying attention to do obseen damage without help at 2nd level Fighters can prevent themselves from turning on their allies (indomidable) Barbarians get rage Powers Paladins get smite abilities Bards get spells(aformentioned) to a much greater degree than rangers ... and rangers... might get a pet?

Rangers at least in the PHB are the most mathematically sad class - all because instead of a swift action to target a creature (4th) and it is your quarry they went with the dumb 'every single playable race has it's own subtype - I sure hope you don't pick the wrong one for this campaign' favored enemy and then decided to nerf that to 3 choices down from 5 in 3.5 and to be honest I don't think the 3 favored terrains make up for that. To be perfectly honest - if they were to have gone the route of 'just use ranger off of 3.5' it would be ... significantly better balanced with the rest of 5th edition than the current version of the ranger (both if you decide to force you to get composite to add str, or if you decide to go dex for damage like typical 5th rules) That is how poorly rangers are made in 5th at least in base game.

• edit: I forgot that a lance on a horse is a one handed weapon somehow after specifically choosing it for that effect - updated numerical stats appropriately, still leaves ranger in a fairly sad state

Ok so I am going to ignore one off effects and crits and do the average expected damage assuming you hit, also going to assume phb only - which then means that subclasses at least in this regard matter little and all characters are listed as level 20.

Let's start with Dex based rogue and assume that you are actively attacking people next to your party... that is 79.5 damage per round - but you do have to hope your allies are paying attention (see below)

Second place is Str based Fighter with a non-magical lance on a mount is the best damage option Doing on the average turn 54 damage (+2 per hit with dueling)

Third: A Strength based Barbarian with a non-magical lance on a mount is next up Doing on the average turn (non-raging) 27 damage or (raging) 35 damage ... plus a bit of misc damage from great weapon fighting that I really don't want to get into calculating

Then strength based Paladin same set up with lance 36 (smite does 1d8 on every hit + 2/hit for dueling)

Next: The Ranger same lance set up does 31.5 damage per turn... (+2 per hit dueling, +4.5 if creature doesn't have full hit points... which it doesn't - you hit it 2 times in the same turn)

Just after that is college of Valor bard same lance set up 23 damage per turn and that's before considering that the bard has a full 5 spell slots higher casting in addition to almost doing the same damage on the average turn when it isn't cast spells as a ranger.

And finally the lonely rogue with nowhere to hide, no advantage to be found, and no one to help her: A measly 9.5

BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE Rogues get the ability to do stuff that makes it near trivial as long as you are paying attention to do obseen damage without help at 2nd level Fighters can prevent themselves from turning on their allies (indomidable) Barbarians get rage Powers Paladins get smite abilities Bards get spells(aformentioned) to a much greater degree than rangers ... and rangers... might get a pet?

Rangers at least in the PHB are the most mathematically sad class - all because instead of a swift action to target a creature (4th) and it is your quarry they went with the dumb 'every single playable race has it's own subtype - I sure hope you don't pick the wrong one for this campaign' favored enemy and then decided to nerf that to 3 choices down from 5 in 3.5 and to be honest I don't think the 3 favored terrains make up for that. To be perfectly honest - if they were to have gone the route of 'just use ranger off of 3.5' it would be ... significantly better balanced with the rest of 5th edition than the current version of the ranger (both if you decide to force you to get composite to add str, or if you decide to go dex for damage like typical 5th rules) That is how poorly rangers are made in 5th at least in base game.

• edit: I forgot that a lance on a horse is a one handed weapon somehow after specifically choosing it for that effect - updated numerical stats appropriately, still leaves ranger in a fairly sad state

Ok so I am going to ignore one off effects and crits and do the average expected damage assuming you hit, also going to assume phb only - which then means that subclasses at least in this regard matter little and all characters are listed as level 20.

Let's start with Dex based rogue and assume that you are actively attacking people next to your party... that is 79.5 damage per round - but you do have to hope your allies are paying attention (see below)

Second place is Str based Fighter with a non-magical lance on a mount is the best damage option Doing on the average turn 46 damage ... plus a bit of misc damage from great weapon fighting that I really don't want to get into calculating

Third: A Strength based Barbarian with a non-magical lance on a mount is next up Doing on the average turn (non-raging) 27 damage or (raging) 35 damage ... plus a bit of misc damage from great weapon fighting that I really don't want to get into calculating

Then strength based Paladin same set up with lance 32 (smite does 1d8 on every hit)

To throw salt in the wound: Next is College of Valor Bard without spells tied with Ranger at 23 damage per turn  ... and that's before considering that the bard has a full 5 spell slots higher casting in addition to doing the same damage on the average turn when it isn't cast spells as a ranger.

And finally the lonely rogue with nowhere to hide, no advantage to be found, and no one to help her: A measly 9.5

BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE Rogues get the ability to do stuff that makes it near trivial as long as you are paying attention to do obseen damage without help at 2nd level Fighters can prevent themselves from turning on their allies (indomidable) Barbarians get rage Powers Paladins get smite abilities Bards get spells(aformentioned) to a much greater degree than rangers ... and rangers... might get a pet?

Rangers at least in the PHB are the most mathematically sad class - all because instead of a swift action to target a creature (4th) and it is your quarry they went with the dumb 'every single playable race has it's own subtype - I sure hope you don't pick the wrong one for this campaign' favored enemy and then decided to nerf that to 3 choices down from 5 in 3.5 and to be honest I don't think the 3 favored terrains make up for that. To be perfectly honest - if they were to have gone the route of 'just use ranger off of 3.5' it would be ... significantly better balanced with the rest of 5th edition than the current version of the ranger (both if you decide to force you to get composite to add str, or if you decide to go dex for damage like typical 5th rules) That is how poorly rangers are made in 5th at least in base game.

Ok so I am going to ignore one off effects and crits and do the average expected damage assuming you hit, also going to assume phb only - which then means that subclasses at least in this regard matter little and all characters are listed as level 20.

Let's start with Dex based rogue and assume that you are actively attacking people next to your party... that is 79.5 damage per round - but you do have to hope your allies are paying attention (see below)

Second place is Str based Fighter with a non-magical lance on a mount is the best damage option Doing on the average turn 54 damage (+2 per hit with dueling)

Third: A Strength based Barbarian with a non-magical lance on a mount is next up Doing on the average turn (non-raging) 27 damage or (raging) 35 damage ... plus a bit of misc damage from great weapon fighting that I really don't want to get into calculating

Then strength based Paladin same set up with lance 36 (smite does 1d8 on every hit + 2/hit for dueling)

Next: The Ranger same lance set up does 27 damage per turn... (+2 per hit dueling)

Just after that is college of Valor bard same lance set up 23 damage per turn and that's before considering that the bard has a full 5 spell slots higher casting in addition to almost doing the same damage on the average turn when it isn't cast spells as a ranger.

And finally the lonely rogue with nowhere to hide, no advantage to be found, and no one to help her: A measly 9.5

BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE Rogues get the ability to do stuff that makes it near trivial as long as you are paying attention to do obseen damage without help at 2nd level Fighters can prevent themselves from turning on their allies (indomidable) Barbarians get rage Powers Paladins get smite abilities Bards get spells(aformentioned) to a much greater degree than rangers ... and rangers... might get a pet?

Rangers at least in the PHB are the most mathematically sad class - all because instead of a swift action to target a creature (4th) and it is your quarry they went with the dumb 'every single playable race has it's own subtype - I sure hope you don't pick the wrong one for this campaign' favored enemy and then decided to nerf that to 3 choices down from 5 in 3.5 and to be honest I don't think the 3 favored terrains make up for that. To be perfectly honest - if they were to have gone the route of 'just use ranger off of 3.5' it would be ... significantly better balanced with the rest of 5th edition than the current version of the ranger (both if you decide to force you to get composite to add str, or if you decide to go dex for damage like typical 5th rules) That is how poorly rangers are made in 5th at least in base game.

• edit: I forgot that a lance on a horse is a one handed weapon somehow after specifically choosing it for that effect - updated numerical stats appropriately, still leaves ranger in a fairly sad state