I agree, the only way Hunter's mark makes sense is if Ranger spells have been changed. So hopefully on Monday we'll get to hear about that.
*However* if the spells have been changed I feel like it was a misstep to not mention it in the Ranger video because this is a long known issue with the ranger.
I actually laughed when he said "precious spell slots" in regards to the free castings because running out of spell slots has NEVER been the ranger's issue.
Being unable to use those spell slots because of concentration has.
Ah yes, the heady Ranger gameplay of casting one Concentration spell at the start of the combat and... that's it, every spell takes concentration so, guess we're done here. The most variety comes if you take damage and fail a concentration check, and get to decide whether the fight deserves a second spell slot.
The only thing that would shock me about that is the fact they bothered to compare Ranger and Paladin to each other in the first place. Because one of them is clearly just... better in both design and power.
Jeremy Crawford - "We heard your complaints and we've taken action. Paladins now must enter a Divine Smite stance to be able to use the divine smite spell" Entering this stance requires a bonus action and maintaining it uses concentration.
Divine Smite still costs a bonus action. All other smites cannot be used while in this stance.
So, yeah, precious spell slots. Cause now you can have HM up, drop it to cast a concentration spell, then put HM back on something when that concentration spell has either run it's course or is no longer useful while only using 1 spell slot instead of 3.
Yea, now that I’ve had a little time to sit with it I don’t hate this design as much. Hunters Mark now exists in a “if you aren’t concentrating on something else, use this” space
The spells would need a crazy amount of overhaul. Such as having casting times of “when you take the Attack action” so that they do not use a bonus action, of which the Ranger is already starved. And I seriously doubt we will see spells with such casting times in 5.24
Even if many of the Ranger spells no longer require concentration like paladin smite spells, the Ranger still suffers from the fact that at the end of the day, their bonus action must first go towards hunters mark and they need a bonus action to reapply HM to a new target.
So even if spells like Guardian of Nature or Swift Quiver have concentration removed (unlikely as that would make poaching them in other classes too powerful), the ranger is uniquely poorly designed as round 1 HM has to be their go to move.
We have playtested the UAs a lot at my table, and one of the things we noted in a few of the UA reviews was that, if they want this many cool tools to use the Bonus Action, they need to either make ways to use two bonus actions, or they need to make a third category of actions that they can shift some things into. Or better yet, limit how much requires the bonus action. Not everything needs to use an action or Bonus Action.
All of the smite-type spells could easily have had the same wording as the blade cantrips, while allowing extra attacks. Or even a Reaction on hitting a target with a weapon attack. Or hell, even no action requirement at all, but simply a "when you hit with a weapon attack" requirement.
My personal copium right now is that they knew that the “revised” Ranger would cause conversation over the weekend, and there will be a revised set of Ranger spells upcoming. Maybe upcasting HM can remove concentration? Maybe using multiple free castings at once can upcast?
Honestly, we needed a spell UA pretty early on in the process, too. We can't really judge most casters very well without knowing what they plan for spell changes.
I'm worried about where the ranger is for comparative power, beyond not really feeling the vibe for the ranger class fantasy.
But the strength of the class could have been moved more into its magic. And that could have been the plan all along, but we haven't seen much in the way of spells overall, not just the ranger, but for any class. There have been some pieces but not enough to judge them in context with most classes.
A Spells UA would have meant a Spells playtest and therefore survey. There's no way that nerfing spells in the way they need to be would have gotten good feedback, so I don't blame them for not doing a UA with them. However, that means that they absolutely need to get it right purely off of internal balance testing, which is... questionable
You saw how people cried after smite nerf (even though paladin was buffed). Now imagine if they nerf some outlier spells? People don't listen to reason in Silvery Barbs discussions no matter what arguments people use (who cares if metamagic option is weaker, more expensive and less versatile, right?). We would never see spell nerfs with "No nerfs, only buffs" mentality tons of people have.
So, no spell UA is at least potentially a good thing.
Facts, a lot of people that play this game want everything brought up to match the most absurdly broken spells and combos imaginable when what we really need is rebalancing and nerfs. I have been very happy with all of the subclasses changes except the ranger. Even the rogue at least got new toys and some abilities moved down on the level list a bit. But ranger 100% got the shaft, at least from what we have seen here. And I don’t think that a spell list is going to save it. Kinda just feels like cope.
We don't know how ranger's spells would change, but yeah - don't removing HM concentration even at 13th level is just stupid. Just why? HM is weak. They could change it, but if they do - why they don't speak about it? It is important.
It is not that i want onky buffs.
I believe that "3.5 tier 3" is more or less the level of power a class should have. It just so happen that 5e is so weak only it's most powerful builds can match that standard.
I fail to see how paladin was buffed in the slightest. All the seperate subclass control abilities were mashed together and put at level nine, Lay on hands has the exact same problem the 2014 version has because now it competes with smite for the bonus action and the find steed spell really won’t see much use.
The changes are either ridiculous downgrades that could have stopped at the halfway mark and been completely fine (playtest divine smite vs paladin’s smite), sacrifice flavour for a generic “stronger” option(that is tied to the frightened condition and therefore can be negated by spellcasters) that gets put at later levels or are absolute nothing burgers
Well, here:
1. General QoL changes, cleaner wording and whatnot.
2. You can't smite with 2014 LoH either. Even more - LoH competing with smite and LoH competing with whole turn of attacks and other actions (like spells) is two different things, it is 100% buff, no matter how you look at it.
3. Weapon Masteries.
4. More Chanel Divinities;
5. Find Steed;
6. Restoring Touch remove actual conditions instead of spells (much more versatile).
7. Even though smite was nerfed - you still get free use, which is a buff no matter how you look at it.
8. Smite spells was buffed - you don't need to concentrate on them beforehand anymore. So, some smite spells now don't requre concentration at all.
9. Pretty much all subclasses get better action economy, some features don't require any actions at all. Also tons of features last longer too.
Paladin and subclasses also get revised spell list, but i can't say how good or bad it is until release, but just keep it in mind.
There is also thing like Oath of Ancients' Aura of Warding, which technicaly was "nerfed", but in actual play you would meet creatures who deal Necrotic, Radiant and Psychic damage more often than spellcasters. On top of that - some spellcasters do this kinds of damage too. On top of that - blaster caster monsters are quite rare, most casters are control casters. Also also - new monsters may get more spell-like abilities instead of flat out spells.
I don't list it as a buff, but i personaly like this change - i played Ancient Paladin for some time and people laughted at me for multiclassing at level 6 because of how "broken" Aura of Warding is. We fought casters who deal significant spell damage like five times in a year (weekly games btw). And some of this fights was before 7th level at all. There were more non-blaster casters, but they had control spells (AoP for the win) and used minions for damage. I get much more profit from sorcerer levels than i would ever get from Aura of Warding.
And outside of buffs - Aura of Protection and other auras aren't nerfed at all. AoP is strongest feature in the game, and it still is. Only thing paladin lost is nova damage - and it's ok. Let fighter and barbarian deal damage.
> Honestly, we needed a spell UA pretty early on in the process, too. We can't really judge most casters very well without knowing what they plan for spell changes.
At this point it's just a matter of what specifically they fuck up. Because they *will* fuck up some spells, it's inevitable, even just from what little we've seen Conjure Minor Elementals was stupidly overpowered.
I have no doubt they'll nerf some of the original outliers, but between current "bad" spell buffs and whatever new stuff is being added, them missing the mark on some things is inevitable. It's crazy to me they didn't think it was worth doing a public playtest on, especially when their most overpowered classes have most of their power tied up in spells and that's how they justify buffing caster classes.
Spells are such complex things that it's nearly impossible to fully balance dozens of them while also making sure they are worded in a way that's not ambiguous or prone to potential exploits.
The fact that the strongest classes, universally full casters, have so much of their power budget in spells (to the point that odd levels were normally empty or just ribbon abilities for full casters, to the point that ONE out of FIVE full casters used to get their subclass at 3rd level because 2nd level spells were the power boost for that level, to the point that even half casters didn't get new features on levels with new spell levels!!...
Even with that sort of recognition and reverence for spells, they had us do a whole playtest without detailing most of the spells those casters would use and expect us to be able to give reasonable feedback is pretty insane.
So now we're getting a lot of spells that have no public testing that will be applied to classes that went through a public testing/approval proceess without full context.
What could go wrong? (answer: everything)
Most Paladin Smite spells lack concentration as of playtest 6.
So hopefully the similar ranger spells will be the same. The issue however is the bonus action cost is especially restrictive to the ranger. Not only do they need their bonus action to set up Hunter's Mark. They also need it for many of the subclass features. So bonus action spell usage will already be somewhat constrained.
True. But there is a huge disconnect between the design of these two half casters and I really have no hope of that happening.
If they considered this an issue, then hunters mark could require no concentration at 11, when paladins get improved divine smite. And it still wouldn’t be as good as improved divine smite that just happens instead of spending a bonus action.
I wouldn’t get your hopes up about the Ranger spells. They’ve been aware of the community issues with Hunter’s Mark since the initial UAs (if not for years now). Why would they not mention anything about alleviating that concentration burden on the Ranger in this video, then? They could have at least alluded to it here.
Maybe that has changed and we’ll find out more Monday idk but if that’s the case whoever was in charge of determining the release order of the videos did a pretty poor job planning it.
Our only real general hint is that Treantmonk (who has early access to the new PHB) mentioned that the martial-caster divide hasn’t been eliminated only narrowed. Meaning that having access to spells probably makes you stronger than not but maybe the difference isn’t AS stark as before.
I'd love to see the text of Hunter's Mark itself, too.
I like the 2014 per-hit version, but if it could also work with spells, it would be nice to have for a WIS Beast Master or other Druidic Warrior.
If it were upcastable for more damage dice *and* compatible with the capstone wording, that would be nice, too. FWIW.
I think think it'll be d6 per hit, based on the wording in the dnd beyond article. Every time its mentioned, there's no rider about being once per turn, its always just says "on a hit". There \*is\* a rider that says once per turn when referring to the Beastmaster though, limiting your beast to only benefitting once. I feel like this rider would not be necessary if the spell only worked on the first hit or whatever the playtest 7 version says. So, I'm confident it'll be d6 \*per hit\*.
Which works great with dual wielding/the nick mastery!
[Dan Dillon was just talking about this.](https://x.com/Dan_Dillon_1/status/1806741926273777847) Dan Dillon, who worked on the 2024 phb, was just chatting about this with some folks on ye olde tweetor. From what he says, I'm personally hopeful.
Additionally, if the changes to smite spells are any indication, I think most of the spells you mention could get spruced up and now be concentration free. I'd honestly be surprised (and deeply disappointed) if that were not the case.
As someone who has been playing devils advocate for the Ranger reveal, it is pretty underwhelming past level 10, and the capstone is legit God-awful.
They needed to shift the 13, 17, and 20 HM features each one step earlier and then give them a real capstone.
man the cope truly is strong. Even including the most optimal spell list changes for ranger its still a class thats far weaker and less feature heavy than the other classes showcased so far. At this point its just blind optimism
This isn't just a issue with ranger this is a issue in general with all casters. Spells are a main part of their classes. I'm not saying I don't dislike the current state of ranger. I just want to know what I'm working with
I am hoping there's a severe rebalancing to some spells 6th level and above, but I really don't think they've had the time or put the effort in to do that.
My biggest concern is over how much emphasis is possibly being placed on the Ranger's bonus action. Like... That's how the Beast master controls their beast, how Hunter's Mark is cast, **and** likely how they cast their other combat spells.
If I'm having to give up my Lightning Arrows every turn to let my beast attack, then my ability to be an in-combat spellcaster is now no longer a feature.
I'm a bit frustrated because they clearly needed to do one of two things to make Ranger a solid class, and likely dropped the ball:
- At level 5, remove concentration from Hunter's Mark and make it so you can cast it as part of the attack action. Let Hunter's Mark scale with upcasting.
- Let the Ranger cast things like *Zephyr Strike* and *Lightning Arrows* as part of taking the attack action.
Blamo, your Hunter now shoots lightning out of their bow every turn.
I agree, the only way Hunter's mark makes sense is if Ranger spells have been changed. So hopefully on Monday we'll get to hear about that. *However* if the spells have been changed I feel like it was a misstep to not mention it in the Ranger video because this is a long known issue with the ranger.
I actually laughed when he said "precious spell slots" in regards to the free castings because running out of spell slots has NEVER been the ranger's issue. Being unable to use those spell slots because of concentration has.
Ah yes, the heady Ranger gameplay of casting one Concentration spell at the start of the combat and... that's it, every spell takes concentration so, guess we're done here. The most variety comes if you take damage and fail a concentration check, and get to decide whether the fight deserves a second spell slot.
I wonder if they thought the Ranger had a similar issue to the Paladin…. Somehow.
"They are both hybrid martial/spellcasters they must be the same" - Jeremy Crawford ~probably
The only thing that would shock me about that is the fact they bothered to compare Ranger and Paladin to each other in the first place. Because one of them is clearly just... better in both design and power.
Jeremy Crawford - "We heard your complaints and we've taken action. Paladins now must enter a Divine Smite stance to be able to use the divine smite spell" Entering this stance requires a bonus action and maintaining it uses concentration. Divine Smite still costs a bonus action. All other smites cannot be used while in this stance.
That... might unironically still be better than trying to use other spells in combat with a 2024 Beastmaster Ranger.
So, yeah, precious spell slots. Cause now you can have HM up, drop it to cast a concentration spell, then put HM back on something when that concentration spell has either run it's course or is no longer useful while only using 1 spell slot instead of 3.
At the low low cost of 3 bonus actions! For this whole situation!
Depends what spell your casting. But also, yeah so? 3 bonus actions is better than 3 actions.
It's also better than being stabbed. My statement is about as relevant as yours...
Yea, now that I’ve had a little time to sit with it I don’t hate this design as much. Hunters Mark now exists in a “if you aren’t concentrating on something else, use this” space
Yeah, that's how I'm looking at it. I still find it boring design wise but it's not the worst thing.
Agreed; tho at that point my frustration will be with the presentation of the Ranger, rather than the class itself, which is certainly better
The spells would need a crazy amount of overhaul. Such as having casting times of “when you take the Attack action” so that they do not use a bonus action, of which the Ranger is already starved. And I seriously doubt we will see spells with such casting times in 5.24 Even if many of the Ranger spells no longer require concentration like paladin smite spells, the Ranger still suffers from the fact that at the end of the day, their bonus action must first go towards hunters mark and they need a bonus action to reapply HM to a new target. So even if spells like Guardian of Nature or Swift Quiver have concentration removed (unlikely as that would make poaching them in other classes too powerful), the ranger is uniquely poorly designed as round 1 HM has to be their go to move.
My favorite 5e gameplay! Turn 1: Hunter's Mark Turn 2: Ensnaring Strike Turn 3: Nature's Veil Turn 4: Beastmaster Atta- oh, the fight is over...
We have playtested the UAs a lot at my table, and one of the things we noted in a few of the UA reviews was that, if they want this many cool tools to use the Bonus Action, they need to either make ways to use two bonus actions, or they need to make a third category of actions that they can shift some things into. Or better yet, limit how much requires the bonus action. Not everything needs to use an action or Bonus Action. All of the smite-type spells could easily have had the same wording as the blade cantrips, while allowing extra attacks. Or even a Reaction on hitting a target with a weapon attack. Or hell, even no action requirement at all, but simply a "when you hit with a weapon attack" requirement.
It seems very unlikely that they changes the rangers spell and didn't mention it during the ranger video.
They have a dedicted video coming Canada Day on Spells.
My personal copium right now is that they knew that the “revised” Ranger would cause conversation over the weekend, and there will be a revised set of Ranger spells upcoming. Maybe upcasting HM can remove concentration? Maybe using multiple free castings at once can upcast?
[It's Monday's stream](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/1dqnv9d/2024_phb_reveal_videos_for_weeks_712024_7122024/).
There's still a good chance they only go over the few spells already covered in the Playtest that we already know about.
Honestly, we needed a spell UA pretty early on in the process, too. We can't really judge most casters very well without knowing what they plan for spell changes. I'm worried about where the ranger is for comparative power, beyond not really feeling the vibe for the ranger class fantasy. But the strength of the class could have been moved more into its magic. And that could have been the plan all along, but we haven't seen much in the way of spells overall, not just the ranger, but for any class. There have been some pieces but not enough to judge them in context with most classes.
A Spells UA would have meant a Spells playtest and therefore survey. There's no way that nerfing spells in the way they need to be would have gotten good feedback, so I don't blame them for not doing a UA with them. However, that means that they absolutely need to get it right purely off of internal balance testing, which is... questionable
You saw how people cried after smite nerf (even though paladin was buffed). Now imagine if they nerf some outlier spells? People don't listen to reason in Silvery Barbs discussions no matter what arguments people use (who cares if metamagic option is weaker, more expensive and less versatile, right?). We would never see spell nerfs with "No nerfs, only buffs" mentality tons of people have. So, no spell UA is at least potentially a good thing.
Facts, a lot of people that play this game want everything brought up to match the most absurdly broken spells and combos imaginable when what we really need is rebalancing and nerfs. I have been very happy with all of the subclasses changes except the ranger. Even the rogue at least got new toys and some abilities moved down on the level list a bit. But ranger 100% got the shaft, at least from what we have seen here. And I don’t think that a spell list is going to save it. Kinda just feels like cope.
We don't know how ranger's spells would change, but yeah - don't removing HM concentration even at 13th level is just stupid. Just why? HM is weak. They could change it, but if they do - why they don't speak about it? It is important.
It is not that i want onky buffs. I believe that "3.5 tier 3" is more or less the level of power a class should have. It just so happen that 5e is so weak only it's most powerful builds can match that standard.
I fail to see how paladin was buffed in the slightest. All the seperate subclass control abilities were mashed together and put at level nine, Lay on hands has the exact same problem the 2014 version has because now it competes with smite for the bonus action and the find steed spell really won’t see much use. The changes are either ridiculous downgrades that could have stopped at the halfway mark and been completely fine (playtest divine smite vs paladin’s smite), sacrifice flavour for a generic “stronger” option(that is tied to the frightened condition and therefore can be negated by spellcasters) that gets put at later levels or are absolute nothing burgers
Well, here: 1. General QoL changes, cleaner wording and whatnot. 2. You can't smite with 2014 LoH either. Even more - LoH competing with smite and LoH competing with whole turn of attacks and other actions (like spells) is two different things, it is 100% buff, no matter how you look at it. 3. Weapon Masteries. 4. More Chanel Divinities; 5. Find Steed; 6. Restoring Touch remove actual conditions instead of spells (much more versatile). 7. Even though smite was nerfed - you still get free use, which is a buff no matter how you look at it. 8. Smite spells was buffed - you don't need to concentrate on them beforehand anymore. So, some smite spells now don't requre concentration at all. 9. Pretty much all subclasses get better action economy, some features don't require any actions at all. Also tons of features last longer too. Paladin and subclasses also get revised spell list, but i can't say how good or bad it is until release, but just keep it in mind. There is also thing like Oath of Ancients' Aura of Warding, which technicaly was "nerfed", but in actual play you would meet creatures who deal Necrotic, Radiant and Psychic damage more often than spellcasters. On top of that - some spellcasters do this kinds of damage too. On top of that - blaster caster monsters are quite rare, most casters are control casters. Also also - new monsters may get more spell-like abilities instead of flat out spells. I don't list it as a buff, but i personaly like this change - i played Ancient Paladin for some time and people laughted at me for multiclassing at level 6 because of how "broken" Aura of Warding is. We fought casters who deal significant spell damage like five times in a year (weekly games btw). And some of this fights was before 7th level at all. There were more non-blaster casters, but they had control spells (AoP for the win) and used minions for damage. I get much more profit from sorcerer levels than i would ever get from Aura of Warding. And outside of buffs - Aura of Protection and other auras aren't nerfed at all. AoP is strongest feature in the game, and it still is. Only thing paladin lost is nova damage - and it's ok. Let fighter and barbarian deal damage.
> Honestly, we needed a spell UA pretty early on in the process, too. We can't really judge most casters very well without knowing what they plan for spell changes. At this point it's just a matter of what specifically they fuck up. Because they *will* fuck up some spells, it's inevitable, even just from what little we've seen Conjure Minor Elementals was stupidly overpowered. I have no doubt they'll nerf some of the original outliers, but between current "bad" spell buffs and whatever new stuff is being added, them missing the mark on some things is inevitable. It's crazy to me they didn't think it was worth doing a public playtest on, especially when their most overpowered classes have most of their power tied up in spells and that's how they justify buffing caster classes.
Spells are such complex things that it's nearly impossible to fully balance dozens of them while also making sure they are worded in a way that's not ambiguous or prone to potential exploits. The fact that the strongest classes, universally full casters, have so much of their power budget in spells (to the point that odd levels were normally empty or just ribbon abilities for full casters, to the point that ONE out of FIVE full casters used to get their subclass at 3rd level because 2nd level spells were the power boost for that level, to the point that even half casters didn't get new features on levels with new spell levels!!... Even with that sort of recognition and reverence for spells, they had us do a whole playtest without detailing most of the spells those casters would use and expect us to be able to give reasonable feedback is pretty insane. So now we're getting a lot of spells that have no public testing that will be applied to classes that went through a public testing/approval proceess without full context. What could go wrong? (answer: everything)
Next week, friend
Most Paladin Smite spells lack concentration as of playtest 6. So hopefully the similar ranger spells will be the same. The issue however is the bonus action cost is especially restrictive to the ranger. Not only do they need their bonus action to set up Hunter's Mark. They also need it for many of the subclass features. So bonus action spell usage will already be somewhat constrained.
True. But there is a huge disconnect between the design of these two half casters and I really have no hope of that happening. If they considered this an issue, then hunters mark could require no concentration at 11, when paladins get improved divine smite. And it still wouldn’t be as good as improved divine smite that just happens instead of spending a bonus action.
Ranger 11s damage buffs usual come from subclasses.
I wouldn’t get your hopes up about the Ranger spells. They’ve been aware of the community issues with Hunter’s Mark since the initial UAs (if not for years now). Why would they not mention anything about alleviating that concentration burden on the Ranger in this video, then? They could have at least alluded to it here. Maybe that has changed and we’ll find out more Monday idk but if that’s the case whoever was in charge of determining the release order of the videos did a pretty poor job planning it. Our only real general hint is that Treantmonk (who has early access to the new PHB) mentioned that the martial-caster divide hasn’t been eliminated only narrowed. Meaning that having access to spells probably makes you stronger than not but maybe the difference isn’t AS stark as before.
I'd love to see the text of Hunter's Mark itself, too. I like the 2014 per-hit version, but if it could also work with spells, it would be nice to have for a WIS Beast Master or other Druidic Warrior. If it were upcastable for more damage dice *and* compatible with the capstone wording, that would be nice, too. FWIW.
I think think it'll be d6 per hit, based on the wording in the dnd beyond article. Every time its mentioned, there's no rider about being once per turn, its always just says "on a hit". There \*is\* a rider that says once per turn when referring to the Beastmaster though, limiting your beast to only benefitting once. I feel like this rider would not be necessary if the spell only worked on the first hit or whatever the playtest 7 version says. So, I'm confident it'll be d6 \*per hit\*. Which works great with dual wielding/the nick mastery!
They are incapable of merging casters. They will find a way to buff spells if possible while seeming to smooth it out.
[Dan Dillon was just talking about this.](https://x.com/Dan_Dillon_1/status/1806741926273777847) Dan Dillon, who worked on the 2024 phb, was just chatting about this with some folks on ye olde tweetor. From what he says, I'm personally hopeful. Additionally, if the changes to smite spells are any indication, I think most of the spells you mention could get spruced up and now be concentration free. I'd honestly be surprised (and deeply disappointed) if that were not the case.
this is cope. their chasis itself is not great.
As someone who has been playing devils advocate for the Ranger reveal, it is pretty underwhelming past level 10, and the capstone is legit God-awful. They needed to shift the 13, 17, and 20 HM features each one step earlier and then give them a real capstone.
their capstone might be worst than just multiclassing into a lvl 1 warlock or something. its awful
man the cope truly is strong. Even including the most optimal spell list changes for ranger its still a class thats far weaker and less feature heavy than the other classes showcased so far. At this point its just blind optimism
This isn't just a issue with ranger this is a issue in general with all casters. Spells are a main part of their classes. I'm not saying I don't dislike the current state of ranger. I just want to know what I'm working with
If they could make Smite spells cast on a hit like the Divine Smite that would be fantastic.
Fingers crossed 🤞
Do we? We'll all know in September. Chill out, we don't "need" to know anything.
All in due time friend, all in due time.
I am hoping there's a severe rebalancing to some spells 6th level and above, but I really don't think they've had the time or put the effort in to do that.
My biggest concern is over how much emphasis is possibly being placed on the Ranger's bonus action. Like... That's how the Beast master controls their beast, how Hunter's Mark is cast, **and** likely how they cast their other combat spells. If I'm having to give up my Lightning Arrows every turn to let my beast attack, then my ability to be an in-combat spellcaster is now no longer a feature. I'm a bit frustrated because they clearly needed to do one of two things to make Ranger a solid class, and likely dropped the ball: - At level 5, remove concentration from Hunter's Mark and make it so you can cast it as part of the attack action. Let Hunter's Mark scale with upcasting. - Let the Ranger cast things like *Zephyr Strike* and *Lightning Arrows* as part of taking the attack action. Blamo, your Hunter now shoots lightning out of their bow every turn.