My sole gripe about concentration on Hunters mark is just about low level play, where Faerie Fire is my go-to because I like to be a team player and support my allies, and I still have to make that choice rather than being able to do both. I agree with all your high level points though!
So here's what's good:
It's not using your Faerie Fire spell slot, so you can still cast Faerie Fire sometimes, and you can cast Hunter's Mark on top of that throughout the adventuring day.
Getting fries with a burger doesn't mean you have to fill up on the fries.
But I can’t have both up at the same time, meaning I’m compromising my own damage to be a team player, or maximizing my own damage and not helping others when I could
Not trying to be snarky, but isn't the choice what makes it a tactical decision? Like, do you have to be able to do both on one turn, rather than choose one that you think suits the situation best, or spread those actions over two turns? Aren't restrictions part of what makes those choices meaningful?
I would ideally get to use faerie fire start of a fight to help my allies, then next turn hunters mark to boost myself. Restrictions like one spell per turn is enough to restrict it. I wouldn’t be able to do both at once even without concentration on it
It's the principle of taking what they want to be the "core" of the class (hunters mark) and making it the only option by making it concentration, while also being a mediocre ability AND the worst offence... its boring. More damage can be done in so many different and interesting ways. Drakewarden is basicly better hunters mark, 1d6+X damage as a bonus action attack, another body on the field, it scales with level, etc. Now it has to compete with the BA economy of getting Hunters mark up (a spell I never used since I'd rather have my dragon bite someone, and be free to concentrate on something cooler)
It's exactly the same as Hex, but they don't force Warlocks to use that. (Which is good, neither are that good of spells).
Well, no, you're just doing a bit of one sometimes and a bit of the other, other times.
You could play exactly the same and say that having advantage is helping your damage and your team (at low levels this is especially true).
This just gives you a choice. Faerie Fire is great against a group, and HM is good against a single target.
I’m already making a choice to attack or cast. I shouldn’t be further limited by what I can cast for what are core class spells because they all conflict. Bad take champ
The difference is that you’re going to eat the whole meal with an unlimited timeframe. Because so many DMs run very few combats per day, the Ranger is on a time limit. Do I eat my burger and risk not having fries later? (I do love this analogy even if I disagree haha)
I kinda feel like if they made Hunter's Mark not be concentration and a ranger class feature that you get at lvl 3 it would have been received sooo much better.
Then each different ranger subclass's hunters mark grows to match the vibe of the subclass
My understanding is that's not how the playtest went. They gave us concentration-less Hunter's Mark and it wasn't received well due to multi-class issues (which seems to be the bane of our existence with 5e) via Warlocks stacking it with Hex.
If the game was mono-class, Hunter's Mark could be concentration-less without pain points. As it is, I don't think we'll ever see that be the case without severe nerfs on an already middling spell.
Getting real sick of playtests being the end all be all.
I'm becoming the mindset that maybe it's time to kill off multiclassing if it keeps leading to making this less fun
If you waste 3 levels in ranger for hunters mark good that's on you tbh lol. That's why I was saying have it be a lvl 3 feature that you invest in. A 3 level dip is a big deal but if they're building Rangers all around Hunters mark it should be good
Oh, well at lvl 1 yeah. It's just immediate free damage with little investment. By level 3-6 it would make rangers feel like hunters with the proper investment
My understanding is that it wasn't removed due to the level but instead because the feedback they received was Hunter's Mark with no concentration is way too powerful. Multiclass is one of the causes
A Barbarian 7/Ranger 3 would do crazy damage with Hunter's Mark, easily more than a level 10 Barbarian.
Warlock 7/Ranger 3 would do crazy damage with both Hex and Warlock.
That's fair. They'd probably have to make it a once per turn ability similar to zealot barbarian, if it's not going to be concentration. I still think it's a weird thing to build around. But idk maybe there are ranger fans that love the changes
You were right, Tasha's only gave Entangle and Searing Smite to rangers for 1st level spells (and Speak with Animals as a free prep but that was already known), but they gave Faerie Fire (and Web!) to the Swarmkeeper.
I'm still in the mindset that, Ranger's level 20 capstone should have been:
Added WIS to all attack and damage rolls (on top of usual weapon, Dex, proficiency, etc. bonuses).
Increased die on HM is laughable and insulting at once.
Concentration free unlimited uses of Hunter's mark. They're building the whole class around it might as well just make it easy to use once you make it to the end
Right, but that's buffing a buff. So you do an average of 7-10.5 damage at level 5. At level 11 (Hunter) that doubles to 14-21. At level 20 that's an additional 22-31 damage. I would call that reasonable damage progression. Plus you get advantage on all attacks against the target, can't lose concentration from damage, and know all the targets vulnerabilities, resistances, and immunities. And you can do this for free 6 times a day.
Doing the math, with tef it's something like 46dpr at level 20 and that's including chance to hit.
Umm, am I missing something?
Ranger gets 3 attacks (assuming dual wield). BM can apply HM to 1 beast attack.
So at best, your increase is 4d6 to 4d10 (so 8 extra damage per round). This of course assumes all attacks hit, which the BM has a fairly big problem with unless they have maxed Wisdom and a +X druidic focus. And also requires the ranger to have already setup HM so that their Bonus Action is free to command their beast.
The Hunter gets to add HM damage to a secondary target in the AoE of their spell. Even a high level ranger doesn't have a lot slots for AoE spells, so this isn't even something they can do every round. And that only comes out to an extra 1d10 damage, but spread out instead of focused on a single target (focus fire is generally >>> spread). And casting an AoE spell prevents you from taking the attack action, so you miss out on 3d10 potential HM damage from dual wielding. Not to mention that AoE spells from a half caster are generally far behind the expected damage output necessary to make them useful.
How are you seeing a 6d10 damage increase?
You Beast attacks twice each round so it should be applying HM to both those attacks. So 5 with twf. Hunter applies HM damage to a secondary target every time you deal the damage to your primary target. With twf that 3 attacks so hunters mark is applied 3 times to two targets. 6.
> You Beast attacks twice each round so it should be applying HM to both those attacks.
The BM feature only applies to one beast attack per turn.
> Hunter applies HM damage to a secondary target every time you deal the damage to your primary target.
I was under the impression that this was only once per turn, just like the beast.
And even if it did apply to every attack, spread damage is much worse than single target damage. So dealing 6 extra damage to both a primary and secondary target (if all 3 of your attacks hit) isn't that great overall.
Oh I think you're right. That'd be my mistake. I'm not sure about the Hunter tho. I'll go back thru the video.
Edit: JC implies it's every attack for the Hunter in the video. And that's a potential 10.5 average damage extra per turn. Even on a second target that's ok. Probably an average of like 7dpr with no save.
As you mention in OP though, the Beast Master is going to have to juggle using their BA for HM and their pet activation, which really only makes it worth doing on large enemies that won't go down in a turn or two. In most fights it will be better to just keep activating your pet rather than trying to keep HM up. I'm not sure how this would be fixed short of making the pet independent and no longer requiring your BA to act, which I find pretty unlikely.
I'm also not sure how you're figuring that the Hunter can get 6 HM triggers, unless I missed some changes the subclass received.
And the other subclasses just get even less benefit. A core class feature working well for 1, maybe 2 subclasses is still pretty disappointing.
The pet wouldn't have to be completely independent, just smart enough to automatically attack the target you just marked for death, without needing an extra Command.
I think I'd fix the BA contest by making it so the pet attacks whatever is Hunter's Marked unless you BA command it to do something different. It's disappointing this wasn't considered more before publishing.
Beast Master against individual enemies with good health then it's still worth it to put HM on them. For Hunter: if you attack 3 times, and Hunters Mark does damage on all three of those attacks, it also does damage 3 times to another target. 6 times.
Assuming it does trigger on every attack, that's decent for the Hunter. Though it still requires 2 enemies in range, and for the first target to not die on the first or second attack. Still very situational for the Beast Master though. That leaves it being an ok, though unexciting, feature for 1 subclass, and situationally useful at best for the others. I feel that's a pretty poor showing for an ability that uses up multiple levels worth of features for the class, including their capstone.
I've actually been playing a Ranger using the UA for a while. While Hunter's Mark is not the best thing to use really ever, the fact that it's free to cast so often is quite nice.
It has become my default spell and bonus action if I don't have anything better to do, and it for sure is better than Guardian of Nature if combined with Vex mastery. But mind you, I've been playing a Fey Wanderer, so I don't have much competition for the bonus action besides Misty Step and Rabbit Hop, as well as inspiration from my Bard multiclass.
In my opinion, the Hunter's Mark improvements in the base class are pretty nice, tho I'd rather have Land's Stride back instead.
> Assuming it does trigger on every attack, that's decent for the Hunter.
Is it?
If the hunter makes 3 attacks and all hit, the primary target takes 3d10 extra damage instead of 3d6 extra damage, and the secondary target takes the same. So that is a level 20 feature that says +6 average damage to your primary target and 6 extra damage to the secondary target. And that is only if every attack hits.
The problem is that you not only need a second target within range, but that spreading your damage around is much less effective than pure single target damage.
JC stated the level 11 feature of the Hunter subclass would allow you to deal HM damage to a second target within 30ft whenever you hit with an attack. If you can attack 3 times, like with dual wielding, then Hunters mark damage is applied 3 times to a separate target
I more so laughed at the capstone then got upset lol. Because like what percentage of players have played a monoclassed lvl 20 ranger for multiple sessions
Can we please remember that the majority of campaigns and games rarely reach 20..... I can count in one finger the amount of campaigns I've played at level 20. Griping about level 20 capstones in my opinion is redundant. Buffs to tiers 1, 2 and 3 are what we should be focusing on because unless something has been drastically changed in the new DMG and MM the norm is still going to be that most play occurs in those lower tiers
I mean, just because games don't really reach high level/have support for it does not and should not mean we shouldn't care about problems at that level. Having a better class support for those levels is one of the first steps to having high level support
Yea, but from what has been shown off, kinda lacking spice and fun at its core. I think we should give the subclasses more credit though. They sound fun (though god I can’t wait for a new Swarmkeeper)
Yeah. I think the fact that so many other classes got really flavorful and fun changes that were ALSO stronger, makes the ranger look the worst so far. Even though it is (to me) strictly better than the 2014 version.
Yeah honestly this. I think it could use more in the “powers” department too, like if the Mage Hand provided could pull a more significant weight, if you could maybe access poison damage, and if damaged got a tiny bump of d8 at 7th level and d10 at 11th level, and d12 at 15th.
Or if your “move 5 feet horizontally” is replaced with 10 feet any direction, and the 10 feet flying speed becomes just passive.
Still not super strong, but more freeing. Or a new spell to really disperse a swarm onto a series of foes, “spending” an attack or weapon mastery effect to AoE a marked foe or something. I want to see it interact with the new design
That's fair but I feel like every other features more than makes up for it. Honestly I'd say it's the second best Ranger subclass just from it's sheer utility but that's my opinion
If spells aren't adjusted, then ranger gets an underwhelming set of spells at level 13. Literally the one one that isn't concentration is *freedom of movement*, and none of the spells are ranger-only, so they can't be buffed to be non-concentration without buffing druids and others more. I'm counting on them buffing *flame arrows* and *lightning arrows* to be non-concentration, and for them and *conjure barrage* to be decent upcasts for use with 4th-level spell slots. All of the ranger's summon spells (*summon beast*, *summon fey*, *summon elemental*) conflict with *hunter's mark* except for Fey Wanderer's non-concentration version of *summon fey*, and all of those are best used in combat, so that part is quite unfortunate.
Yep. The TCE ranger often made use of druid spells to great effect. Spells like Spike Growth, Fog Cloud, Conjure X, Summon X, and the like.
Those spells can’t be changed to be concentration feee without dramatically increasing the power of the Druid. So now the ranger is in a tough spot, as their effectiveness relies on Hunter’s Mark, but casting it prevents them from being able to make use of other tactics.
No one cares if the ranger now has higher DPR. They care if it is a fun and interesting class. Its not as bad as the baseline ranger in 5e, but it is certainly not a good as it could have been or should have been.
Counterpoint: have you playtested it yet?
Ranger is fun and interesting. It has utility spells, fun combat options (especially now with Weapon Mastery), and now gets three expertise over the course of its life so it can even succeed in social encounters if you want it.
Just taking a step back and looking at Ranger vs Fighter or Paladin, what about Ranger is less fun than either of those martials? I can’t see anything personally.
So why is it only Ranger is getting the hate yet other Martials (like Fighter) get less overall and got praise?
> So why is it only Ranger is getting the hate yet other Martials (like Fighter)
Ranger is not a martial, it's a Half-Caster.
Most of the issues mentioned whenever ranger's shortcomings come up is the overreliance on Hunter's Mark, which was made worse at least according to the previews of 24 ranger.
It might be that 2024 version of spells has removed concentration from a lot of spells on ranger's list - in which case it should be fine.
If not, then we're pretty much back where we started - the class is designed to push you to use your bonus action and concentration for Hunter's Mark, and any cool stuff is gonna hurt that - Ensnaring strike, Hail of Thorns, Lightning Arrow, some others.
The main justification for keeping HM concentration based was that it made multiclassing too powerful. What that ends up with, is a ranger that fails to deliver on the "nature based half caster/half fighter" because of concentration spent on HM, or losing out on features because of lost HM, and because the combat capabilities are weaker than fighter.
Removing concentration from spells is a really bad idea.
A lot of those spells cause additional effects that need to be tracked, which requires more and more mental capacity. Last friday I played some level 20 dungeon and it was crazy how many effects and aura's and buffs we had to track. It was common to forget something every turn, and then having to interrupt the current turn to retcon what happened earlier.
Concentration is not only a mechanic intended to reign in power, it is also there to limit bookkeeping.
Hunter's Mark isn't really much book keeping. Like in 99% of situations you could summarize it with "for 1 hour, your weapon attacks deal an extra d6 force damage against the last target of your attacks and your checks to find em have advantage. You need to use a bonus action to reactivate it if you switch target". It's practically something which doesn't require much book keeping.
There are various other spells which also have amounts of book keeping so minuscule that having them be concentration isn't really worth it.
You’re getting downvoted but you’re right. There’s a reason that Ranger is one of the most played classes in spite of the fact that Reddit hates it, it’s because it’s an incredibly fun and versatile class.
"There’s a reason that Ranger is one of the most played classes in spite of the fact that Reddit hates it"
In the video posted on Friday, Crawford outright says that, despite the Ranger being a commonly played class, it's never polled well in terms of satisfaction.
This is absolutely not an only reddit thing.
"In the video posted on Friday, Crawford outright says that, despite the Ranger being a commonly played class, it's never polled well in terms of satisfaction."
Yeah that's always been the interesting thing about the Ranger. Mathematically, even the original PHB Ranger is fine. It's just a clunky design that, for many players, doesn't fulfil the fantasy.
"This is absolutely not an only Reddit thing"
Anyone who thinks WoTC sacrificed the development time they did (the only class after being released to receive a alternate UA, the class with the most changed in Tasha's etc) on the Ranger because a few people complained on Reddit is severely overestimating this site.
I remember playing a ranger for two years before going online to discover Reddit hated it. I thought it was a great class, even the 2014 one. Yes, I barely used many of its features, but it also felt like a slightly more interesting flavored fighter.
People on reddit often mix up (both when talking to eachother and when making posts) the difference between class strength, class design and how fun the gameplay for a class is.
Statements like "Ranger is strong", "Ranger is fun" and "Ranger's class design is bad" can coexist, which is what doesn't reach people sadly.
> Counterpoint: have you playtested it yet?
Of course not, this sub and /r/dndmemes don't actually play DnD, they just talk about it online and 90% have never even read the PHB or UA materials they are ranting about
I'm playing a UA Ranger right now and I don't even like Ranger in general, and still say it's a very solid class with a lot of good options and versatility.
Tons of people do. It's why they complain that Rangers weak. And sure, more could have been done, but depending on spell changes and the new spell list more might have been done.
I'm tired of the Ranger complaining, but you're actually not right about this one. They're mad that Hunter's Mark is so central to the class without making it any cooler or appreciably more useful. A bunch of people are talking about buffing Hunter's Mark, but not because it's weak -- because if you use it, you can't use anything *different* at the same time. They want to use other things, not necessarily stronger things just for the purpose of strength.
Right but that's my point. You get more spells, you can cast those spells more, and you get more expertise. Ritual casting means no more burning slots on tons of utility spells. Free HM means more slots for Longstride, Goodberry, Spike Growth, Zephyr Strike, Aid, Plant Growth, and tons of other spells. It IS more versatile now. Plus you can swap out a spell on a long rest now and more often than not that alone is enough.
The issue 5.14 ranger had was that hunters mark was how they kept up good damage on the ranger but it competed with other concentration spells.
5.24 seems to be in the same boat.
Yes and no. HM is now just flat out better against a small number of enemies than other concentration spells. Against big groups, it's not really competing because that's not was it was designed to be used for. If you need to use Zephyr Strike (assuming concentration wasn't removed like with smite spells) just drop HM, Zephyr Strike, then cast HM again on your next turn. You get a ton of free uses of it.
Zephyr Strike can't have concentration removed without being turning into a 1 round duration spell. Otherwise it is too easy to poach via Magic Initiate.
1 minute of concentration free movement that never provokes opportunity attacks is quite powerful for a level 1 spell. Especially for archers, but also useful for rogues, monks, or any caster using Booming Blade.
And there is the problem with the ranger spells. Low level spells can't be buffed without unintended consequences when used by other classes.
And the useful higher level spells can't be buffed because they were all druid spells.
And right there is the problem I have with the 5e24 ranger. You have more spell slots available for the cool spells, but most of them need concentration, so you effectively cannot use them.
I mean, even 2 of the spells you just listed (Spike Growth and Zephyr Strike) need concentration (if they didn't change that in 5e24, which is pretty unlikely).
Zephyr Strike can compete with HM, but Spike Growth you would use in entirely different situations. You can just use HM in situations that call for it and other spells in situations that don't.
People aren't complaining about it being weak. Just like the original complaints about the baseline ranger we're not about it being weak.
They're complaining about it being boring. Uninteresting.
Counterpoint: 2014 Ranger is more fun and interesting than 2024 Ranger.
TLDR: 2024 Ranger feels like the worst of the 2 UA versions we were presented with. Slightly higher DPR than 2014, in exchange for all the unique features that made it stand out at early levels. Tasha's is no different.
I've been playing a 2014 Ranger in a campaign for a while now, and both Favored Enemy & Natural Explorer (the original versions, the ones everyone likes to complain about) have come up \*at least\* twice almost every session. The fact that Favored Enemy has 0 combat application only means that there's no reason to get rid of it. Why not both, I say! I Want my Ranger to be extra knowledgeable about a certain group of enemies. I want my Ranger to be extra good at things like tracking, surviving, and navigating in the wilderness. They \*almost\* had that. It was in the last playtest, even! But it got scrapped in favor of poor man's Expertise.
Now don't get me wrong, 2014 Natural Explorer isn't perfect. It's real value was hidden behind a literal laundry list of hand-waving. The 2nd UA we saw just removed the laundry list that actively made wilderness exploration less fun, and instead allowed you to hot-swap the terrain on a long rest. Which was amazing. But honestly now, BOTH versions gave you Expertise in \*\*5\*\* SKILLS!! But not all the time, only when thematically appropriate for a Ranger. Which is perfect. And they replaced it with \*\*1\*\* expertise all the time, that eventually goes up to 3.
Similarly, 2014 Favored Enemy gives you advantage on \*\*10\*\* skills, again when thematically appropriate. Like when a vampire-hunting Ranger needs to know anything about or track down a vampire.
Primeval Awareness... The concept was always good. The only problem it had was that in trying to prevent it from trivializing tracking, they overcorrected and made it useless. The first time you read it, the ability seems really cool and useful. The second time you read it, you realize it doesn't actually do what you think it does. They fixed this in the old Revised Ranger UA from 7-8 years ago, but for whatever reason no-one that worked on Tasha's OR the 2024 book seems to remember that. Instead, we got a couple free spells in Tasha's, and a larger selection of prepared spells in 2024.
I mean, it just objectively is not worse than the 2014 ranger. It *is* worse than the Tasha's ranger. But that had a lot of updates.
Because Natural Explorer doesn't actually 'come up' it negates the one situation it applies to and skips it. It makes you so good at the thing you want to be good at you don't even get to play it out. It's just auto resolved.
Meh, depends on how you define “worse”. Math-wise does 2024 & Tasha’s do more damage than 2014? Yes, definitely. And some features are definitely more streamlined. But many of the most flavorful features were replaced by bland ones, which is a different kind of “worse”.
Right, that’s exactly my point with Natural Explorer in the playtest. The 2014 Natural Explorer has 2 components: Expertise on 5 skills while in the appropriate environment, and a long list of little exploration benefits. The situational expertise was great, but the list just killed any attempts at making exploration interesting. It made it so when the DM wanted the players to experience wilderness exploration, the Ranger player would just say “no, we don’t need to play through any of this. I fixed it.” Which isn’t fun.
However, the second playtest had a Natural Explorer feature that was *only* the situational expertise, and you could swap it on a long rest. Which solves *all* of the problems. And they didn’t keep that. Instead we just got poor man’s expertise and an extra language.
>does 2024 & Tasha’s do more damage than 2014?
Damage was never the issue of the Ranger. The lack of interesting and useful features was.
>many of the most flavorful features
There weren't any really. Some *sounded* flavourful, but never actually came up in play and when they did skipped the part of the game they *should* have interacted with.
>Instead we just got poor man’s expertise and an extra language.
Examining a *single* feature and not the whole class for how good the class is, is a pretty narrow-sighted approach. You're missing the forest for the trees as it were.
The Ranger as a *whole* is better than the 2014 version. It's just still not good enough.
EDIT: Also, it was never expertise on 5 skills. It was expertise for those 5 skills *if it was something about the environment you were in.* Which is borderline useless in actual play. And massively different from expertise in 5 different skills.
all of your points are valid, except for one fact that -5/+10 is gone, and unlike other classes that are super dependent on it (fighter/barbarian), ranger did not received a major boost like brutal strike or indomitable.
i would say rangers are playable if they keep HM's damage upscale though, but still it is going to be a boring hitter like 2014 because it disincentivize you to use other concentrations like entangle/spike growth/silence etc.
Do keep in mind that most of Rangers upper level scaling has historically been in their subclass. BM gets a second attack, plus a small HM bonus by the sounds of it. And I'd argue Tasha's BM was competitive without -5/+10. But it is up in the air.
I don't understand this thinking at all. You prepare Hunter's Mark for free. At level 1, you can cast Hunter's Mark for free twice a day. You don't have to choose between using Hunter's Mark and your combat spell list! Sometimes, you have to look at a situation and say, "Okay, I should stop concentrating on Hunter's Mark to cast this now." I see everybody complaining about this, as if casters don't have to do it all the time.
I do realize there are more levels than the first, yes. I'm trying to convey to you that you have free casts of Hunter's Mark. Since these are their own resource, independent of spell slots, I think you should have the point of view that they're more expendable, and that having to end concentration on it do something useful like Entangle, Ensnaring Strike, Faerie Fire or Spike Growth is a reasonable gameplay balancing choice.
I don't think that juggling concentration between multiple abilities is fun. I think its very unfun. I think wasting ability charges for nothing is unfun, even when you have plenty charges left. It's not about balance, not strong or weak this is going to be, it's more about perception. Game design is a lot about perception and feelings.
I can't imagine how you could possibly waste dealing 1d6 more damage on all attacks for one hour, but sure? You literally land like 3 attacks and you've gotten good value out of the spell.
Midway through t2, I have stopped using HM. since as a Swarm Keeper, I have better concentration spells to use. And if DPR is needed, summons can do better.
HM now has free uses, wee at least my CLASS DEFINING FEATURE ca be used when everything else has been used up.
My vote is to just revamp hunters mark. It's so boring. So so so boring.
Get favored enemy that you can change at the end of a long rest thats informed by a survival roll. Grant the bane property to your weapons for the chosen favored enemy, or double hunters mark.
Hunters Mark doubles at level 11 for Hunters and Beast Masters and the spell might get reworked but is honestly fine as is since so much around it was changed. At level 5 a twf ranger does 3d6 (potentially) extra damage per turn. By level 11 if they're a hunter that 6d6. By 20th level that's 6d10.
If the playtest hunter's mark comes through unchanged then it's just on the first hit of your turn...but you can upcast it to 2d6 at level 9 and 3d6 at 17. Presumably that becomes 3d10 if you use a 5th level spell at 20th level. Would you be disappointed if HM looked like this? That playtest used conjure barrage as a key feature however, which seems to have been relegated, so perhaps there was some balance between the two which will look different.
I would be disappointed, but not because I inherently dislike that (the math equals out to be better) but because that would make getting a bunch of level one castings kinda moot. Granted, they reverted hex in later playtests so I'd be a little surprised if they didn't do the same with HM.
Ranger being weak has never been the issue.
The issue is that it doesn't fulfill the fantasy by simply adding numbers to what it does in unflavorful ways.
And that other comparable classes pay so much less for the same kind of power. i.e. Paladins and Improved Divine Smite.
I don't want to use a level 1 spell to have features. I don't want to be defined by a single level 1 spell.
If some random caster casts silence I can't use half my class because I can't use hunter's mark.
Full casters have very few combat-relevant spells with verbal components. Clerics, for example, have literally no non-verbal spells.
Sorcerers specifically can get by with Subtle Spell, but when they must use that metamagic they're paying an additional cost for reach spell and locking themselves out of being able to use other metamagics instead. I think the ranger is still less hampered. (If the ranger cast *hunter's mark* before the combat and is still holding onto it, the verbal component isn't even relevant.)
If walking out of the room was a solution to the *silence*, the ranger would do so as well, I'm assuming the ranger and caster are under the same premise.
*Counterspell* is limited to only some full-casters and can now fail against *silence*, and if the *silence* does go through, the ranger would be far more likely to remove it by breaking the caster's concentration.
Warlock is often joked about as being defined by Eldritch Blast, but all of its features that interact with it are optional. (Even if getting at least one is optimal)
To be fair, defining yourself by a cantrip is more sustainable -- no resource use.
I think the new ranger is fine, but I would be a lot friendlier to Hunters Mark if the ranger (like warlock does) had a bevy of options to customise their defining spell to a certain playstyle (extra damage/knockback/slow/extra range/etc)
I agree with this sentiment. If, for instance, each subclass modified Hunter's Mark in some way, such as the Fey Wanderer charmed the mark, or something like that. Also, I think giving the ranger extra debuff or weapon mastery options like the rogue or fighter, tied into HM, would have also been a decent option.
They made the changes that you can use those features for ANY cantrip. I don't get what this has to do with Eldritch blast. Really poor ground to stand on.
This is a great example though, if Warlock's Eldritch blast locked them out of casting other good spells or was flat out worse than other cantrips it would be bad design. Eldritch blast is their defining unique spell which the class is based around but it does that without stepping on the toes of anything else they can do.
And they get decision points where they can opt out of Eldritch Blast too if that's not their preference- where is the equivalent for Rangers?
The Pre-Eminent Warlock class feature is the same Pre-Eminent class feature Wizard/Druid/Cleric/Bard/Sorcerer have, being a fucking 9th level spellcaster. Somebody who gets Fireball at 5 and Wish at 17 having anything else as "pre-eminent" is laughable. Eldritch Blast serves as a reliable at-will damage option, the same way a Bladesinger can stab people with a rapier if he wants, but if you tried telling me with a serious face that martial weapon proficiency and Extra Attack was the most "pre-eminent feature" of a Wizard I'd still laugh in your face. Eldritch Blast is effectively a Force damage heavy crossbow warlocks get 4 attacks with for no investment besides simply leveling up.
Pact Magic has a unique recharge scheme compared to normal spellcasting, better on days with lots of short rests and worst on days with one big fight, but they are still undeniably spellcasters and pretending that it's comparable to the new Ranger being shackled to a lame first level spell for half their class features is a joke. Maybe if Warlock had their spell progression slashed in half and all their Invocations required concentrating on Hex it'd be comparable.
4 features out of 20 levels of features is nowhere near "half your class"
What do you do if some random caster casts silence? Stab them. Probably with hunter's mark damage. Because you're a ranger you probably went before them.
Paladins have Channel Divinity, Divine Sense, Lay on Hands and Auras that feel very characteristic.
And even if you can't cast smite at level 11 your attacks just do more radiant damage.
You take away all the HM features, and you're still left with a better Ranger than post Tasha's. Also if a random caster casts silence on your party it turns off all the class features for like half the classes so that's kind of a bad comparison.
I mean ya, this is objectively stronger, yes. But ranger was “technically” never that bad in terms of damage, for the simple combination of feats, fighting styles, good subclasses, and weapon enhancing spells. The problem was that many, many of the abilities did next to nothing.
If you removed divine sense, divine smite, divine health, cleansing touch and aura improvements, from Paladin, it would still technically be good because you have other smite spells and abilities and consistent dps. That’s what ranger was. Tasha’s fixed this to an extent, but did the bare minimum which was satisfactory but not amazing. Onednd had the opportunity to improve this, but they failed. They just buffed a few numbers here and there (and removed some features) and called it good. It’s lazy and disappointing. The fact that they even made the 20th level feature somehow worse just shows how awful their design team is with ranger.
Edit: throw improved divine smite in their as well. Paladins get a straight damage upgrade at level 11 for all their attacks and it’s great but not overpowered. Meanwhile, at 13th level, rangers can’t lose concentration on their extra d6 damage they have to set up, but still have to concentrate cuz Crawford says “it would be too powerful.”
I think the ranger is actually going to deal a solid amount of damage and be really strong in tiers 1-3 (HM as a 20th level capstone is a joke).
That being said - I think that they're just objectively better than rogues as their spell casting will make up for any skill differences and they get multiattack and other damage buffs.
I agree with you. Been trying to reply and engage quite a few posts the last few days. I was also less than thrilled. I think there are some rough edges in as free spots, but ranger looks like it was a good but of versatility. They have utility and damage options. I'm fairly certain their spells offer control since many are druid spells.
I think they will be fun in play. If the spells do get some QoL reworks, even better.
You're definitely right that the Ranger was already mechanically sound and versatile. They were my favourite class to play in 5e, and they'll probably remain so in the new edition. But when almost all the other classes that were also already strong hard-hitters like Paladins and Druids got a lot of new features and buffs, and the Ranger is stuck being nearly the same as the 5e version, it's hard to argue that they don't need more.
Charger works with ranged weapons (arguably better, because that is literally the gameplan with a ranged weapon to kite) and GWM works with longbows so far...
But everyone else lost sharpshooter too. If anything, Hunter’s Mark is actually more powerful now, relatively, because it’s on every attack whereas most damage boosts have shifted to once per turn.
And the point being that everyone else got way better features. Hence why I don't understand why people keep spouting "well compared to 2014..." when we should be looking at what they got vs what other martials got 10 years later. Also you say every attack as if it isn't two attacks proccing a d6. That's 2d6 for a whole turn meanwhile other classes are doing wild shit with their features.
But what did the other Martials get that Rangers didn’t? Everyone got Weapon Mastery, so we’ll call that a wash.
**Utility.** **Barbarians** can use their rage to switch certain skills to use Strength and therefore gain advantage. While the new duration and being able to use a bonus action to extend it helps, they do need to use their rages which are a semi-limited resource. **Fighters** can now use their Second Wind to add a d10 to their ability checks. This has the benefit of working on any ability check, not a predefined list, but it still uses a combat resource as well. **Rangers** started out far ahead of the other two classes, with Dex and Wisdom being their primary skills and getting an additional skill proficiency and Expertise. Rangers also have spellcasting, with many utility spells on their list. What’s new for Rangers is: two additional Expertises, more spells prepared than previously known, the ability to swap out a spell on long rest, and Ritual Casting.
Results: Ranger is still FAR ahead of the other two, though in less flashy ways because Fighter and Barbarian had literally no features before and now they each have one.
**Damage.** This is a harder one because there are a lot of things we don’t know for sure yet. When it comes to both weapon mastery and feats, it seems like damage is going to be better for melee than ranged, which is generally a boost to **Fighters** and **Barbarians**. For **Rangers**, a lot is going to depend on how the spells have been reworked. If spells like *Ensnaring Strike*, *Hail of Thorns*, and *Zephyr Strike* have been redesigned in the same way that the Smite spells have, then Rangers will be much more free to use those free Hunter’s Mark casts to boost their damage.
**Result**: I think Barbarian and Fighter generally come out ahead here, though Rangers will probably be able to do pretty well **if** they choose to prioritize straight damage over their own health. The more important outcome is that **Melee>>Ranged** which I think is great for the health of the game.
This is super long so I’m gonna stop now, but I’ve really enjoyed thinking this through. Overall, I think that Rangers got less than Foghters and Barbarians, but are still generally ahead. Rangers got huge (though less obvious) buffs to their spellcasting through Ritual Casting and prepared spells and I don’t think the buffs the Fighter and Barbarian got are enough to pull them ahead of the deficit they had.
I like how you focus on the differences between what they got for skills when you know the conversation is about their martial prowess, not skill checks. For damage, you didn't list a single feature fighters and barbarians get unlike you did for skills, and you know why you didn't. Because they got a hell of a lot more. We should also be looking at monks and Paladins, not just those two.
All you said of relevance boils down to "melee is looking to be stronger then ranged but rangers have spells to hopefully make up for it." Let's just ignore most of Ranger's combat spells are pretty awful and funnily enough compete with hunters mark, the main core of the issue. We don't know how they've messed with the spells and we're judging what we have currently.
The damage comparison is a lot harder. How am I supposed to, in a single comment, compare every possible application of Weapon Mastery, Feats, and the new subclass features? Barbarians and Fighters are going to be better at damage than Rangers, except for dual wielding Rangers who will be comparable but nowhere near as durable.
For Paladins, the damage is going to be nearly identical, though probably a slightly higher baseline because Paladins don’t really have the option of going ranged. I would expect that the average melee ranged will slightly out damage the average melee Paladin due to Hunter’s mark on a dual wielding build being very strong, but Paladin’s have a lot to offer as well that Rangers can’t.
I can’t compare monks at all until the video comes out, though.
>Let's just ignore most of Ranger's combat spells are pretty awful and funnily enough compete with hunters mark, the main core of the issue. We don't know how they've messed with the spells and we're judging what we have currently.
I literally addressed this! I explicitly said a lot of the Rangers combat power is going to be dependent on how they’ve redesigned the combat spells but if they have made the primary damage spells work more like the smites then Rangers will be able to focus on Hunter’s Mark
Still a net negative IMO. They boosted spells known across the board for many classes. Rangers lose free castings. Ritual is free, but Rituals take 10 minutes and not all the PA spells are ritual. Not to mention Ritual casting was easy to get with 1 level dip.
PA was great for the class fantasy in a way that more known spells and ritual casting do not.
It's not a net loss. Net neutral at worst. And 3 of them were rituals, so you can now cast them multiple times per day for free. And PM was only ever a nifty trait. The spells were intentionally niche. Now you can just grab whatever spell you like. And again, since you can cast HM for free 2-6 times a day, you have less pressure on your spell slots than you did before.
From a design point of view, PA was much better. And hunters mark is a shitty trap spell.
Again, other classes are getting more spells known without having to lose features.
HM is a lot more powerful at higher levels than most comparable spells. By the time you get Guardian of Nature Hunters Mark is about as good and doesn't cost a 4th level spell slot. And no, getting more spells of your choice is better than getting pre selected spells you can only cast once, even if it's free.
We have to wait and see if they will continue the scaling on Hunter's Marks that they had in the UA Playtest 6 rules when it's upcast. If so, then replacing d6 with d10s is a significant boost.
cast as first level spell: 1d6 for 1hr for first hit of round
cast as 3rd or 4th level spell: 2d6 for 8hrs for first hit of round
cast as 5th level spell: 3d6 for 1 day for first hit of round
Now realise that you can't lose concentration so you can keep a 5th level spell for a day (new level 13). Now realise that you do all HM attacks with advantage (new level 17). Now, replace d6 with d10 in all of the above.
Level 20 Ranger using HM as a 5th level spell is a damage machine, even without BM or Hunter adding additional attacks from Beast or Hunter options or doing TWF.
Imagine going invisible for 2 turns with nature's veil (all attacks at disadvantage on you), using a long bow to snipe enemies for 2 attacks at advantage + 3d10 on the first hit. If beastmaster, throw in your beast's two attacks + 3d10.
Or, throw in a smoke/cloud bomb to obscure all vision, then attack melee with scimitar (with nick weapon mastery) + another light weapon for TWF. Using your blindsight to hit them (level 18), they have disadvantage to hit you due to heavy obscured area, you can get 3 attacks in all with advantage and with +3d10 on the first hit, and the scimitar nick weapon mastery means you keep your bonus action to change targets if required.
This has the potential to be an absolute damage nightmare.
I can understand why they'd keep concentration requirement on HM if they are going to keep the upcast damage scaling. Of course I'd prefer it if they didn't require concentration on HM, but being able to do this on all attacks plus use other magic would be a bit over the top.
\[edited a couple of small typos\]
Correction: HM in UA playtest 6 states that the damage bonus only occurs on the first attack of the round, so I reworded sections above to reflect this. We will need to see what the final version is in the PHB2024 to see if the bonus damage added per hit so that HM damage is scaled when number of attacks increase or whether they upscale the damage by allowing it to be upcast but make the bonus damage only apply once per turn rather than per attack.
I agree that upcasting makes a big difference to the versatility and damage. The only problem with your comment is that that spell had the damage only apply on the first time you hit on an attack roll on any turn. So it would be 3d10 per turn, not per hit. I'm hoping they found a middle ground.
I just realised the same thing about UA 6 HM as well - that it only applies to the first hit of the round rather than all hits - and popped in a correction right at the end.
Still 3d10/round for an entire fight is still pretty good for a single spell. This will still apply for the beastmaster's beast too, so potential for another 3d10/round. Unclear if this will apply to Hunter's additional attacks.
To be fair, that playtest Ranger was trying to use conjure barrage as it's equally signature spell, and that seems to have gone. Maybe that changes the balance equation.
doesn't 3d10 equals 16.5 damage, and you're using a 5th level spell and concentration and bonus action in the first round just to do that? and if you're using BM you cannot attack with the beast in the first because you need your bonus action? this is all at level 20 also, that the die becomes a 1d10.
Advantage is great okay, but it's not hard to get many other ways, and doesn't stack
Yeah upscaled HM was in many ways worse than 2014 HM.
You had to burn 3rd level spells on it to get the equivalent of level 5+ HM damage (a very small buff in the cases where you hit one but not both attacks but hardly worth 2 extra spell levels and waiting till you got access to 3rd level spells) and for TWF it was straight up a downgrade requiring you to spend a 5th level spell slot To get what is effectively a 5th level rogue sneak attack.
>First: everything from Tasha's either stayed the same, was improved, or was replaced with a more flexible feature.
I think there are also some things that make the Ranger weaker:
* Due to the Nerf of SS Ranged damage is now significantly lower
* Due to the changes to Spells and (sub-)Class Features the Ranger is more MAD, since he is more reliant on a good Wis score
So it is at the moment hard to say if 2024 Ranger is stronger or weaker than TCE Ranger.
I kinda feel like if they had Hunter's Mark not be concentration and instead a ranger class feature that you get at lvl 3 it would have been received sooo much better.
Then each different ranger subclass's hunters mark grows to match the vibe of the subclass
Honestly I probably should have used a different phrase since that implies a hierarchy and without a copy of the new phb I couldn't say for sure.
But hazarding a guess, I'd say they're probably above Rogues, Barbarians, and maybe Monks. So lower middle depending on how you'd like to cut it. Tho honestly I think even the "worst" classes will still be pretty good in the new edition.
> I see a lot of complaints that half of Rangers spell list is concentration and that's true, but most of those are either out of combat spells or **less valuable than a super charged Hunters Mark**
This is the crux of the issue IMO. Hunter’s mark is fine, but not interesting enough to base a whole class theming around. It’s mechanically alright dpr-wise sure, but doing anything interesting or different (ensnaring strike, spike growth, summon beast, etc) feeling just *worse* than hunter’s mark **and** being mutually exclusive sucks.
Fair but Spike Growth, Ensnaring Strike, and to a degree Summon Beast all have different utility, and can be used in different situations. If there are a dozen goblins or something, I'm gonna cast Spike Growth everytime. But if I'm fighting the BBEG then Spike Growth is likely way less useful than HM.
And the opportunity cost of casting them and the spell slot cost is what you are supposed to give up for that utility.
Also losing the damage the class is balanced around feels awful.
I agree with you. I had the same initial reaction when seeing the spark notes for the changes. After fully reading the in depth version and getting the details, I very much agree with you. They essentially converted the niche and situations features into perpetually applicable ones that still ultimately provide benefit in the niche situations. Like rangers don’t get to ignore difficult terrain….but DO just now get a flat movement boost, which is always useful, still useful in difficult terrain, and ALSO useful in magical difficult terrain. So that’s an absolute improvement.
The change to being a prepared caster is also massive for this version of ranger and one of single best improvements as it allows the ranger the adaptability they lacked this edition.
Mastery for two weapon fighting is also huge, as it frees up your bonus action for spells and other class features.
They number of free casts of hunters mark makes it the default fallback, which keeps improving as you go…but I don’t think I agree with the folks saying it’s the required method of play. I did think that when it sounded like the number of free castings didn’t scale…so it seemed like dropping concentration to swap spells would be a huge drawback and spell slot waste. The sheer number of castings you get for free though…really means you can swap to your other situational concentration spells when needed. People seem to take issue with trading damage for crowd control, utility, or exploiting enemy vulnerabilities…but that very temporary and relatively free trade is balanced. It’s similar to a paladin taking their turn to cast a utility or support spell instead of smiting things.
Oh, the new Ranger is fantastic in terms of strength both based on Utiliy and Damage.
My issue is Hunters Mark itself and reliance on it:
Why do I get a bunch free cast of a Spell I might not want to cast, why didn't they just give me an ability to regenerate 1st level spell slots to use on Ranger Spells?
Why do I only get unbreakable concentration on Hunters Mark and not all my spells? Rangers on average will roll more Concentration checks and have no Proficiency on Con Checks so why not encompass all spells as a treat, its a **Level 13** feature for gods sake.
Why do I only get advantage on attacks on marked targets, couldn't I just get the Vex Mastery on all attacks?
Why do I need to use a 1st level spell to get a small bonus to my damage as a **Capstone** feature, why can't I just add Wis to damage on all attacks? Barbarians get +2 to damage, AC, all Str and Con Rolls and they get +40 HP with no strings attached.
Basically anything would've been better than 2014 PHB, I'm just mad that I have to wait for another decade before WOTC can take another crack at designing sometimes with more flavor than hunters mark. If this was some yearly video game update I probably wouldn't care but this isn't that, we will be stuck with this for a long time
I don't care that it's stronger, I care that I have to use fucking *Hunter's Mark*, one of the least interesting spells they ever tried to call a class feature.
I don't want to hunters mark. I don't care if you give me infinity uses of it and it makes the class technically better because of it.
I'm not playing 8 encounters of combat.
The Ranger may be more versatile than before, but that only caused their identity to be muddled further.
Tell me: what's the difference between a 5.24 Ranger and a Fighter/Rogue multiclass of the same book besides the spellcasting?
That's something Ranger has struggled with since 2014. Not helping their case either is that, while the level 13 and 17 features don't *replace* anything, they also don't give much power to Ranger as a whole.
There is a difference between not being well designed and not being strong. Like for as bad as stuff like Favored Enemy was, it didn't really block other stuff you had. Cast Hunter's Mark and you suddently have to choose between having your class features being usable or concentrating on a true spell, with the upgrade features really being something that truly fixes it either. Even if it did... The spellcasting feature is there to allow you to be flexible in combat still to various degrees. The fact a class feature basically tells you to ignore that world is an extremely bad design. Imagine if Channel Divinity made you unable to concentrate on features, that would feel awful!
I agree, its more powerful. Im also not sure its keeping up with other classes boosts, but yeah, objectively more powerful. I just...I dont like that in any situation i have to choose between my flavorful and sometimes very useful spells and my main class feature. There is a reason so many builds are just about building damage and this goes out of its way to encourage that. The spells will take a backseat, especially to newer players, and every new cool concentration spells (new conjure animals for example) becomes a choice between my core class tool and the cool effect of having the spirits of animals attack with me.
I'll be choosing the flavor and fun of having furry friends rampage with a lot of the time, but losing 4 or 5 or even 6 class features to do so feels bad man.
Im still hopeful that some ranger spells are dropping concentration as a requirement, and that hunters mark scales as a level one spell so i dont have to waste high level spell slots as well, but I really dont like that they declared ranger fixed after that first ranger ua with high satisfaction scores, but immediately killed one of the primary reasons it got that score, and never did a general referendum on the class updates again.
Who cares? They’re boring. They have features we’ve seen before that don’t fulfill the Ranger class fantasy with an awful capstone and mechanics built around a feature people don’t enjoy using.
People aren’t mad because they mistakenly think the numbers on a spreadsheet comparing theoretical DPR are different. They’re mad because the class is disappointing and dull - maybe it isn’t to you, but to the vast majority of people it was a huge let down.
I feel like ranger is still a meh kit that relies on a level one concentration spell (even for its capstone wtf?) and we’re just going to have to rely on the subclasses for its power. Honestly hunters mark is such a crappy trap you do more damage just using Xbow expert instead of setting it up since enemies rarely live long enough for hunters mark to out pace just blasting with xbow expert. I’m not sure if it’s still that way I haven’t done the math yet, but it still seems meh.
Oh strength-wise it's probably the strongest iteration we've seen in a while, just not sure that is where the complaints are coming from
It's also the most clunky and flavourless... could have at least kept Land Stride to have SOMETHING Nature-y actually left in the base kit
It's poor design, same as the divine smite for paladin.
I don't like the ranger being defined by a level 1 spell that really needs to be active all the time for a ranger to get most of its power.
It turns off the ability to use many other spells and feels clunky. This class feels like it needed another round of play testing and now we're stuck with this, whatever it is.
Not everything from Tasha's stayed the same or was improved.
1. Tireless and Nature's Veil both have uses based on your Wisdom modifier rather than your proficiency bonus; with the exception of possibly having +5 Wisdom between 10th-12th levels, this means you either have the same number of uses or (more likely, and definitely at 17th+ levels) fewer.
2. In addition, Nature's Veil is received a full 4 levels later than in Tasha's, at 14th level rather than 10th.
3. Favored Foe's previous effect is replaced with free castings of Hunter's Mark. The previous version of Favored Foe was usable without an action or bonus action, making it better than Hunter's Mark in some scenarios. For most rangers, I think 2024 Favored Foe is slightly better; for some rangers, it's instead much worse, especially at lower levels.
4. Primal Awareness is fully removed. The loss of extra spells known might be more than offset by an increase in the number of spells rangers can prepare, but Primal Awareness also let you cast each of those spells without a spell slot once per long rest, and that feature has just been taken away.
5. Land's Stride and Vanish, both features of the 2014 ranger, are fully removed.
In exchange for these removed or nerfed features, the 2024 ranger receives a slightly better movement speed increase from Roving, expertise in two skills at 9th level, Relentless Hunter at 13th level, Precise Hunter at 17th level, and an improved Foe Slayer at 20th level.
Keeping in mind the improvements to Hunter's Mark in the subclasses, I would gladly play a 2024 ranger at 13th level or higher. At lower levels, though, I honestly think I might prefer adding Weapon Mastery to a 2014+Tasha's ranger.
People just want something to complain about. PHB ranger was meh, Tasha's Ranger was decent and this ranger is undoubtedly better, dare I say Good.
Probably the same people complaining that Paladins can't nuke anymore and now they have to build mechanically useful characters now lol
The problem with ranger was never him being weak tge ranger is a strong class, the problem is that the central identity mechanics are basically nonfunctional. That was a problem in 2014 and now in 2024
Huh? Other classes are bad so ranger is fine? The mental gymnastics are impressive.
Very specifically....the Ranger is outclassed by several other classes and needs MASSIVE buffs. That other classes also needs this is irrelevant and not terribly productive to the conversation.
If your complaint is just that WotC can't balance and you provide no additional commentary then it's a pointless comment. And I didn't say ranger was fine, don't put words in my mouth.
My sole gripe about concentration on Hunters mark is just about low level play, where Faerie Fire is my go-to because I like to be a team player and support my allies, and I still have to make that choice rather than being able to do both. I agree with all your high level points though!
So here's what's good: It's not using your Faerie Fire spell slot, so you can still cast Faerie Fire sometimes, and you can cast Hunter's Mark on top of that throughout the adventuring day. Getting fries with a burger doesn't mean you have to fill up on the fries.
But I can’t have both up at the same time, meaning I’m compromising my own damage to be a team player, or maximizing my own damage and not helping others when I could
Not trying to be snarky, but isn't the choice what makes it a tactical decision? Like, do you have to be able to do both on one turn, rather than choose one that you think suits the situation best, or spread those actions over two turns? Aren't restrictions part of what makes those choices meaningful?
I would ideally get to use faerie fire start of a fight to help my allies, then next turn hunters mark to boost myself. Restrictions like one spell per turn is enough to restrict it. I wouldn’t be able to do both at once even without concentration on it
It's the principle of taking what they want to be the "core" of the class (hunters mark) and making it the only option by making it concentration, while also being a mediocre ability AND the worst offence... its boring. More damage can be done in so many different and interesting ways. Drakewarden is basicly better hunters mark, 1d6+X damage as a bonus action attack, another body on the field, it scales with level, etc. Now it has to compete with the BA economy of getting Hunters mark up (a spell I never used since I'd rather have my dragon bite someone, and be free to concentrate on something cooler) It's exactly the same as Hex, but they don't force Warlocks to use that. (Which is good, neither are that good of spells).
Well, no, you're just doing a bit of one sometimes and a bit of the other, other times. You could play exactly the same and say that having advantage is helping your damage and your team (at low levels this is especially true). This just gives you a choice. Faerie Fire is great against a group, and HM is good against a single target.
Right, you have options you have to choose from rather than being able to do everything you want to do. That is how a game should work.
I’m already making a choice to attack or cast. I shouldn’t be further limited by what I can cast for what are core class spells because they all conflict. Bad take champ
The difference is that you’re going to eat the whole meal with an unlimited timeframe. Because so many DMs run very few combats per day, the Ranger is on a time limit. Do I eat my burger and risk not having fries later? (I do love this analogy even if I disagree haha)
Wait which is the burger and which is the fries. ~~this analogy is making me hungry~~
I kinda feel like if they made Hunter's Mark not be concentration and a ranger class feature that you get at lvl 3 it would have been received sooo much better. Then each different ranger subclass's hunters mark grows to match the vibe of the subclass
My understanding is that's not how the playtest went. They gave us concentration-less Hunter's Mark and it wasn't received well due to multi-class issues (which seems to be the bane of our existence with 5e) via Warlocks stacking it with Hex. If the game was mono-class, Hunter's Mark could be concentration-less without pain points. As it is, I don't think we'll ever see that be the case without severe nerfs on an already middling spell.
Getting real sick of playtests being the end all be all. I'm becoming the mindset that maybe it's time to kill off multiclassing if it keeps leading to making this less fun
If you waste 3 levels in ranger for hunters mark good that's on you tbh lol. That's why I was saying have it be a lvl 3 feature that you invest in. A 3 level dip is a big deal but if they're building Rangers all around Hunters mark it should be good
My point was they did exactly what you’re saying they should’ve and it wasnt received “sooo much better”.
Wait did they actually move it to level 3 and made it a concentration free class feature that adapted to your specific subclass????
Well, they removed concentration and because of that it was super busted. So they went back.
Oh, well at lvl 1 yeah. It's just immediate free damage with little investment. By level 3-6 it would make rangers feel like hunters with the proper investment
My understanding is that it wasn't removed due to the level but instead because the feedback they received was Hunter's Mark with no concentration is way too powerful. Multiclass is one of the causes A Barbarian 7/Ranger 3 would do crazy damage with Hunter's Mark, easily more than a level 10 Barbarian. Warlock 7/Ranger 3 would do crazy damage with both Hex and Warlock.
That's fair. They'd probably have to make it a once per turn ability similar to zealot barbarian, if it's not going to be concentration. I still think it's a weird thing to build around. But idk maybe there are ranger fans that love the changes
~~Only a problem for Swarmkeeper (faerie fire still not on ranger's list, right?)~~, but also... high five Swarmkeepers!
It’s on all Ranger lists since Tasha’s I think. My horizon walker had it and he was a RAW character
Ah yes! I got it mixed up with Web.
You were right, Tasha's only gave Entangle and Searing Smite to rangers for 1st level spells (and Speak with Animals as a free prep but that was already known), but they gave Faerie Fire (and Web!) to the Swarmkeeper.
I'm still in the mindset that, Ranger's level 20 capstone should have been: Added WIS to all attack and damage rolls (on top of usual weapon, Dex, proficiency, etc. bonuses). Increased die on HM is laughable and insulting at once.
The sad part is that this was their exact capstone in UA6. I was so hoping they'd keep it. It's not a flashy one, but it is effective.
Concentration free unlimited uses of Hunter's mark. They're building the whole class around it might as well just make it easy to use once you make it to the end
Since Hunters and Beast Masters essentially double the damage from HM, it's not a small buff. 4d10-6d10 is a pretty reasonable damage buff.
That averages out to 8-12 damage more per round assuming hits. That to me is pretty lack luster given other capstones
4d6-6d6 to 4d10-6d10 is a whopping 8-12 extra damage, not including to hit modifiers which make it even less.
Right, but that's buffing a buff. So you do an average of 7-10.5 damage at level 5. At level 11 (Hunter) that doubles to 14-21. At level 20 that's an additional 22-31 damage. I would call that reasonable damage progression. Plus you get advantage on all attacks against the target, can't lose concentration from damage, and know all the targets vulnerabilities, resistances, and immunities. And you can do this for free 6 times a day. Doing the math, with tef it's something like 46dpr at level 20 and that's including chance to hit.
Umm, am I missing something? Ranger gets 3 attacks (assuming dual wield). BM can apply HM to 1 beast attack. So at best, your increase is 4d6 to 4d10 (so 8 extra damage per round). This of course assumes all attacks hit, which the BM has a fairly big problem with unless they have maxed Wisdom and a +X druidic focus. And also requires the ranger to have already setup HM so that their Bonus Action is free to command their beast. The Hunter gets to add HM damage to a secondary target in the AoE of their spell. Even a high level ranger doesn't have a lot slots for AoE spells, so this isn't even something they can do every round. And that only comes out to an extra 1d10 damage, but spread out instead of focused on a single target (focus fire is generally >>> spread). And casting an AoE spell prevents you from taking the attack action, so you miss out on 3d10 potential HM damage from dual wielding. Not to mention that AoE spells from a half caster are generally far behind the expected damage output necessary to make them useful. How are you seeing a 6d10 damage increase?
You Beast attacks twice each round so it should be applying HM to both those attacks. So 5 with twf. Hunter applies HM damage to a secondary target every time you deal the damage to your primary target. With twf that 3 attacks so hunters mark is applied 3 times to two targets. 6.
> You Beast attacks twice each round so it should be applying HM to both those attacks. The BM feature only applies to one beast attack per turn. > Hunter applies HM damage to a secondary target every time you deal the damage to your primary target. I was under the impression that this was only once per turn, just like the beast. And even if it did apply to every attack, spread damage is much worse than single target damage. So dealing 6 extra damage to both a primary and secondary target (if all 3 of your attacks hit) isn't that great overall.
Oh I think you're right. That'd be my mistake. I'm not sure about the Hunter tho. I'll go back thru the video. Edit: JC implies it's every attack for the Hunter in the video. And that's a potential 10.5 average damage extra per turn. Even on a second target that's ok. Probably an average of like 7dpr with no save.
As you mention in OP though, the Beast Master is going to have to juggle using their BA for HM and their pet activation, which really only makes it worth doing on large enemies that won't go down in a turn or two. In most fights it will be better to just keep activating your pet rather than trying to keep HM up. I'm not sure how this would be fixed short of making the pet independent and no longer requiring your BA to act, which I find pretty unlikely. I'm also not sure how you're figuring that the Hunter can get 6 HM triggers, unless I missed some changes the subclass received. And the other subclasses just get even less benefit. A core class feature working well for 1, maybe 2 subclasses is still pretty disappointing.
The pet wouldn't have to be completely independent, just smart enough to automatically attack the target you just marked for death, without needing an extra Command.
I think I'd fix the BA contest by making it so the pet attacks whatever is Hunter's Marked unless you BA command it to do something different. It's disappointing this wasn't considered more before publishing.
Beast Master against individual enemies with good health then it's still worth it to put HM on them. For Hunter: if you attack 3 times, and Hunters Mark does damage on all three of those attacks, it also does damage 3 times to another target. 6 times.
Assuming it does trigger on every attack, that's decent for the Hunter. Though it still requires 2 enemies in range, and for the first target to not die on the first or second attack. Still very situational for the Beast Master though. That leaves it being an ok, though unexciting, feature for 1 subclass, and situationally useful at best for the others. I feel that's a pretty poor showing for an ability that uses up multiple levels worth of features for the class, including their capstone.
I've actually been playing a Ranger using the UA for a while. While Hunter's Mark is not the best thing to use really ever, the fact that it's free to cast so often is quite nice. It has become my default spell and bonus action if I don't have anything better to do, and it for sure is better than Guardian of Nature if combined with Vex mastery. But mind you, I've been playing a Fey Wanderer, so I don't have much competition for the bonus action besides Misty Step and Rabbit Hop, as well as inspiration from my Bard multiclass. In my opinion, the Hunter's Mark improvements in the base class are pretty nice, tho I'd rather have Land's Stride back instead.
> Assuming it does trigger on every attack, that's decent for the Hunter. Is it? If the hunter makes 3 attacks and all hit, the primary target takes 3d10 extra damage instead of 3d6 extra damage, and the secondary target takes the same. So that is a level 20 feature that says +6 average damage to your primary target and 6 extra damage to the secondary target. And that is only if every attack hits. The problem is that you not only need a second target within range, but that spreading your damage around is much less effective than pure single target damage.
How do we get the Hunter to 6 times per turn applying hunters mark(on your fourth point in post)?
JC stated the level 11 feature of the Hunter subclass would allow you to deal HM damage to a second target within 30ft whenever you hit with an attack. If you can attack 3 times, like with dual wielding, then Hunters mark damage is applied 3 times to a separate target
Oh shoot! Nice pick up on that detail. Very exciting! >short edit: if horde breaker is still a thing and retaliator, Hunter could proc this more.
If you moved your HM after your last attack, I think you're right.
I more so laughed at the capstone then got upset lol. Because like what percentage of players have played a monoclassed lvl 20 ranger for multiple sessions
Can we please remember that the majority of campaigns and games rarely reach 20..... I can count in one finger the amount of campaigns I've played at level 20. Griping about level 20 capstones in my opinion is redundant. Buffs to tiers 1, 2 and 3 are what we should be focusing on because unless something has been drastically changed in the new DMG and MM the norm is still going to be that most play occurs in those lower tiers
I mean, just because games don't really reach high level/have support for it does not and should not mean we shouldn't care about problems at that level. Having a better class support for those levels is one of the first steps to having high level support
Yea, but from what has been shown off, kinda lacking spice and fun at its core. I think we should give the subclasses more credit though. They sound fun (though god I can’t wait for a new Swarmkeeper)
Yeah. I think the fact that so many other classes got really flavorful and fun changes that were ALSO stronger, makes the ranger look the worst so far. Even though it is (to me) strictly better than the 2014 version.
I mean, the old one will work fine. It doesn't really need adjustment and you can use old subclasses that aren't in the new phb.
Swarmkeeper needs an update though. 10 movement speed flight is really bad subclass feature.
Yeah honestly this. I think it could use more in the “powers” department too, like if the Mage Hand provided could pull a more significant weight, if you could maybe access poison damage, and if damaged got a tiny bump of d8 at 7th level and d10 at 11th level, and d12 at 15th. Or if your “move 5 feet horizontally” is replaced with 10 feet any direction, and the 10 feet flying speed becomes just passive. Still not super strong, but more freeing. Or a new spell to really disperse a swarm onto a series of foes, “spending” an attack or weapon mastery effect to AoE a marked foe or something. I want to see it interact with the new design
That's fair but I feel like every other features more than makes up for it. Honestly I'd say it's the second best Ranger subclass just from it's sheer utility but that's my opinion
If spells aren't adjusted, then ranger gets an underwhelming set of spells at level 13. Literally the one one that isn't concentration is *freedom of movement*, and none of the spells are ranger-only, so they can't be buffed to be non-concentration without buffing druids and others more. I'm counting on them buffing *flame arrows* and *lightning arrows* to be non-concentration, and for them and *conjure barrage* to be decent upcasts for use with 4th-level spell slots. All of the ranger's summon spells (*summon beast*, *summon fey*, *summon elemental*) conflict with *hunter's mark* except for Fey Wanderer's non-concentration version of *summon fey*, and all of those are best used in combat, so that part is quite unfortunate.
Yep. The TCE ranger often made use of druid spells to great effect. Spells like Spike Growth, Fog Cloud, Conjure X, Summon X, and the like. Those spells can’t be changed to be concentration feee without dramatically increasing the power of the Druid. So now the ranger is in a tough spot, as their effectiveness relies on Hunter’s Mark, but casting it prevents them from being able to make use of other tactics.
No one cares if the ranger now has higher DPR. They care if it is a fun and interesting class. Its not as bad as the baseline ranger in 5e, but it is certainly not a good as it could have been or should have been.
Counterpoint: have you playtested it yet? Ranger is fun and interesting. It has utility spells, fun combat options (especially now with Weapon Mastery), and now gets three expertise over the course of its life so it can even succeed in social encounters if you want it. Just taking a step back and looking at Ranger vs Fighter or Paladin, what about Ranger is less fun than either of those martials? I can’t see anything personally. So why is it only Ranger is getting the hate yet other Martials (like Fighter) get less overall and got praise?
> So why is it only Ranger is getting the hate yet other Martials (like Fighter) Ranger is not a martial, it's a Half-Caster. Most of the issues mentioned whenever ranger's shortcomings come up is the overreliance on Hunter's Mark, which was made worse at least according to the previews of 24 ranger. It might be that 2024 version of spells has removed concentration from a lot of spells on ranger's list - in which case it should be fine. If not, then we're pretty much back where we started - the class is designed to push you to use your bonus action and concentration for Hunter's Mark, and any cool stuff is gonna hurt that - Ensnaring strike, Hail of Thorns, Lightning Arrow, some others. The main justification for keeping HM concentration based was that it made multiclassing too powerful. What that ends up with, is a ranger that fails to deliver on the "nature based half caster/half fighter" because of concentration spent on HM, or losing out on features because of lost HM, and because the combat capabilities are weaker than fighter.
Removing concentration from spells is a really bad idea. A lot of those spells cause additional effects that need to be tracked, which requires more and more mental capacity. Last friday I played some level 20 dungeon and it was crazy how many effects and aura's and buffs we had to track. It was common to forget something every turn, and then having to interrupt the current turn to retcon what happened earlier. Concentration is not only a mechanic intended to reign in power, it is also there to limit bookkeeping.
Hunter's Mark isn't really much book keeping. Like in 99% of situations you could summarize it with "for 1 hour, your weapon attacks deal an extra d6 force damage against the last target of your attacks and your checks to find em have advantage. You need to use a bonus action to reactivate it if you switch target". It's practically something which doesn't require much book keeping. There are various other spells which also have amounts of book keeping so minuscule that having them be concentration isn't really worth it.
You’re getting downvoted but you’re right. There’s a reason that Ranger is one of the most played classes in spite of the fact that Reddit hates it, it’s because it’s an incredibly fun and versatile class.
"There’s a reason that Ranger is one of the most played classes in spite of the fact that Reddit hates it" In the video posted on Friday, Crawford outright says that, despite the Ranger being a commonly played class, it's never polled well in terms of satisfaction. This is absolutely not an only reddit thing.
"In the video posted on Friday, Crawford outright says that, despite the Ranger being a commonly played class, it's never polled well in terms of satisfaction." Yeah that's always been the interesting thing about the Ranger. Mathematically, even the original PHB Ranger is fine. It's just a clunky design that, for many players, doesn't fulfil the fantasy.
"This is absolutely not an only Reddit thing" Anyone who thinks WoTC sacrificed the development time they did (the only class after being released to receive a alternate UA, the class with the most changed in Tasha's etc) on the Ranger because a few people complained on Reddit is severely overestimating this site.
What do you think the overlap is between “is on D&D Reddit” and “fills out the surveys” ?
I don't think it's as large as you think tbh. Redditors tend to overestimate the reach of these types of things
I remember playing a ranger for two years before going online to discover Reddit hated it. I thought it was a great class, even the 2014 one. Yes, I barely used many of its features, but it also felt like a slightly more interesting flavored fighter.
People on reddit often mix up (both when talking to eachother and when making posts) the difference between class strength, class design and how fun the gameplay for a class is. Statements like "Ranger is strong", "Ranger is fun" and "Ranger's class design is bad" can coexist, which is what doesn't reach people sadly.
Oh of course I’m being downvoted. It’s not popular to be positive about the Ranger, regardless of how justified it is.
> Counterpoint: have you playtested it yet? Of course not, this sub and /r/dndmemes don't actually play DnD, they just talk about it online and 90% have never even read the PHB or UA materials they are ranting about I'm playing a UA Ranger right now and I don't even like Ranger in general, and still say it's a very solid class with a lot of good options and versatility.
Tons of people do. It's why they complain that Rangers weak. And sure, more could have been done, but depending on spell changes and the new spell list more might have been done.
I'm tired of the Ranger complaining, but you're actually not right about this one. They're mad that Hunter's Mark is so central to the class without making it any cooler or appreciably more useful. A bunch of people are talking about buffing Hunter's Mark, but not because it's weak -- because if you use it, you can't use anything *different* at the same time. They want to use other things, not necessarily stronger things just for the purpose of strength.
Right but that's my point. You get more spells, you can cast those spells more, and you get more expertise. Ritual casting means no more burning slots on tons of utility spells. Free HM means more slots for Longstride, Goodberry, Spike Growth, Zephyr Strike, Aid, Plant Growth, and tons of other spells. It IS more versatile now. Plus you can swap out a spell on a long rest now and more often than not that alone is enough.
The issue 5.14 ranger had was that hunters mark was how they kept up good damage on the ranger but it competed with other concentration spells. 5.24 seems to be in the same boat.
Yes and no. HM is now just flat out better against a small number of enemies than other concentration spells. Against big groups, it's not really competing because that's not was it was designed to be used for. If you need to use Zephyr Strike (assuming concentration wasn't removed like with smite spells) just drop HM, Zephyr Strike, then cast HM again on your next turn. You get a ton of free uses of it.
Zephyr Strike can't have concentration removed without being turning into a 1 round duration spell. Otherwise it is too easy to poach via Magic Initiate. 1 minute of concentration free movement that never provokes opportunity attacks is quite powerful for a level 1 spell. Especially for archers, but also useful for rogues, monks, or any caster using Booming Blade. And there is the problem with the ranger spells. Low level spells can't be buffed without unintended consequences when used by other classes. And the useful higher level spells can't be buffed because they were all druid spells.
And right there is the problem I have with the 5e24 ranger. You have more spell slots available for the cool spells, but most of them need concentration, so you effectively cannot use them. I mean, even 2 of the spells you just listed (Spike Growth and Zephyr Strike) need concentration (if they didn't change that in 5e24, which is pretty unlikely).
Zephyr Strike can compete with HM, but Spike Growth you would use in entirely different situations. You can just use HM in situations that call for it and other spells in situations that don't.
People aren't complaining about it being weak. Just like the original complaints about the baseline ranger we're not about it being weak. They're complaining about it being boring. Uninteresting.
Counterpoint: 2014 Ranger is more fun and interesting than 2024 Ranger. TLDR: 2024 Ranger feels like the worst of the 2 UA versions we were presented with. Slightly higher DPR than 2014, in exchange for all the unique features that made it stand out at early levels. Tasha's is no different. I've been playing a 2014 Ranger in a campaign for a while now, and both Favored Enemy & Natural Explorer (the original versions, the ones everyone likes to complain about) have come up \*at least\* twice almost every session. The fact that Favored Enemy has 0 combat application only means that there's no reason to get rid of it. Why not both, I say! I Want my Ranger to be extra knowledgeable about a certain group of enemies. I want my Ranger to be extra good at things like tracking, surviving, and navigating in the wilderness. They \*almost\* had that. It was in the last playtest, even! But it got scrapped in favor of poor man's Expertise. Now don't get me wrong, 2014 Natural Explorer isn't perfect. It's real value was hidden behind a literal laundry list of hand-waving. The 2nd UA we saw just removed the laundry list that actively made wilderness exploration less fun, and instead allowed you to hot-swap the terrain on a long rest. Which was amazing. But honestly now, BOTH versions gave you Expertise in \*\*5\*\* SKILLS!! But not all the time, only when thematically appropriate for a Ranger. Which is perfect. And they replaced it with \*\*1\*\* expertise all the time, that eventually goes up to 3. Similarly, 2014 Favored Enemy gives you advantage on \*\*10\*\* skills, again when thematically appropriate. Like when a vampire-hunting Ranger needs to know anything about or track down a vampire. Primeval Awareness... The concept was always good. The only problem it had was that in trying to prevent it from trivializing tracking, they overcorrected and made it useless. The first time you read it, the ability seems really cool and useful. The second time you read it, you realize it doesn't actually do what you think it does. They fixed this in the old Revised Ranger UA from 7-8 years ago, but for whatever reason no-one that worked on Tasha's OR the 2024 book seems to remember that. Instead, we got a couple free spells in Tasha's, and a larger selection of prepared spells in 2024.
I mean, it just objectively is not worse than the 2014 ranger. It *is* worse than the Tasha's ranger. But that had a lot of updates. Because Natural Explorer doesn't actually 'come up' it negates the one situation it applies to and skips it. It makes you so good at the thing you want to be good at you don't even get to play it out. It's just auto resolved.
Meh, depends on how you define “worse”. Math-wise does 2024 & Tasha’s do more damage than 2014? Yes, definitely. And some features are definitely more streamlined. But many of the most flavorful features were replaced by bland ones, which is a different kind of “worse”. Right, that’s exactly my point with Natural Explorer in the playtest. The 2014 Natural Explorer has 2 components: Expertise on 5 skills while in the appropriate environment, and a long list of little exploration benefits. The situational expertise was great, but the list just killed any attempts at making exploration interesting. It made it so when the DM wanted the players to experience wilderness exploration, the Ranger player would just say “no, we don’t need to play through any of this. I fixed it.” Which isn’t fun. However, the second playtest had a Natural Explorer feature that was *only* the situational expertise, and you could swap it on a long rest. Which solves *all* of the problems. And they didn’t keep that. Instead we just got poor man’s expertise and an extra language.
>does 2024 & Tasha’s do more damage than 2014? Damage was never the issue of the Ranger. The lack of interesting and useful features was. >many of the most flavorful features There weren't any really. Some *sounded* flavourful, but never actually came up in play and when they did skipped the part of the game they *should* have interacted with. >Instead we just got poor man’s expertise and an extra language. Examining a *single* feature and not the whole class for how good the class is, is a pretty narrow-sighted approach. You're missing the forest for the trees as it were. The Ranger as a *whole* is better than the 2014 version. It's just still not good enough. EDIT: Also, it was never expertise on 5 skills. It was expertise for those 5 skills *if it was something about the environment you were in.* Which is borderline useless in actual play. And massively different from expertise in 5 different skills.
all of your points are valid, except for one fact that -5/+10 is gone, and unlike other classes that are super dependent on it (fighter/barbarian), ranger did not received a major boost like brutal strike or indomitable.
i would say rangers are playable if they keep HM's damage upscale though, but still it is going to be a boring hitter like 2014 because it disincentivize you to use other concentrations like entangle/spike growth/silence etc.
Do keep in mind that most of Rangers upper level scaling has historically been in their subclass. BM gets a second attack, plus a small HM bonus by the sounds of it. And I'd argue Tasha's BM was competitive without -5/+10. But it is up in the air.
The 2024 ranger is an improvement The 2024 ranger is underwhelming and kind of a letdown These are not mutually exclusive
I don't think the problem was "weak". The problem is its super unfun choosing between a core class feature and most of your combat spell list.
I don't understand this thinking at all. You prepare Hunter's Mark for free. At level 1, you can cast Hunter's Mark for free twice a day. You don't have to choose between using Hunter's Mark and your combat spell list! Sometimes, you have to look at a situation and say, "Okay, I should stop concentrating on Hunter's Mark to cast this now." I see everybody complaining about this, as if casters don't have to do it all the time.
You do realize there are more levels than the first one? And even at level 1 the best combat spells require concentration
I do realize there are more levels than the first, yes. I'm trying to convey to you that you have free casts of Hunter's Mark. Since these are their own resource, independent of spell slots, I think you should have the point of view that they're more expendable, and that having to end concentration on it do something useful like Entangle, Ensnaring Strike, Faerie Fire or Spike Growth is a reasonable gameplay balancing choice.
I don't think that juggling concentration between multiple abilities is fun. I think its very unfun. I think wasting ability charges for nothing is unfun, even when you have plenty charges left. It's not about balance, not strong or weak this is going to be, it's more about perception. Game design is a lot about perception and feelings.
I can't imagine how you could possibly waste dealing 1d6 more damage on all attacks for one hour, but sure? You literally land like 3 attacks and you've gotten good value out of the spell.
Midway through t2, I have stopped using HM. since as a Swarm Keeper, I have better concentration spells to use. And if DPR is needed, summons can do better. HM now has free uses, wee at least my CLASS DEFINING FEATURE ca be used when everything else has been used up.
Original ranger had this problem too. Because it had a lot of bad features, players treated it as worse than they’d have without them.
True
My vote is to just revamp hunters mark. It's so boring. So so so boring. Get favored enemy that you can change at the end of a long rest thats informed by a survival roll. Grant the bane property to your weapons for the chosen favored enemy, or double hunters mark.
Hunters Mark doubles at level 11 for Hunters and Beast Masters and the spell might get reworked but is honestly fine as is since so much around it was changed. At level 5 a twf ranger does 3d6 (potentially) extra damage per turn. By level 11 if they're a hunter that 6d6. By 20th level that's 6d10.
If the playtest hunter's mark comes through unchanged then it's just on the first hit of your turn...but you can upcast it to 2d6 at level 9 and 3d6 at 17. Presumably that becomes 3d10 if you use a 5th level spell at 20th level. Would you be disappointed if HM looked like this? That playtest used conjure barrage as a key feature however, which seems to have been relegated, so perhaps there was some balance between the two which will look different.
I would be disappointed, but not because I inherently dislike that (the math equals out to be better) but because that would make getting a bunch of level one castings kinda moot. Granted, they reverted hex in later playtests so I'd be a little surprised if they didn't do the same with HM.
Ranger being weak has never been the issue. The issue is that it doesn't fulfill the fantasy by simply adding numbers to what it does in unflavorful ways. And that other comparable classes pay so much less for the same kind of power. i.e. Paladins and Improved Divine Smite.
I don't want to use a level 1 spell to have features. I don't want to be defined by a single level 1 spell. If some random caster casts silence I can't use half my class because I can't use hunter's mark.
If a random caster casts *silence*, full casters lose far more than just half their class.
You have some (not many) spell without V component. Also I think sorcerer should be able to **Subtle Spell**.
Full casters have very few combat-relevant spells with verbal components. Clerics, for example, have literally no non-verbal spells. Sorcerers specifically can get by with Subtle Spell, but when they must use that metamagic they're paying an additional cost for reach spell and locking themselves out of being able to use other metamagics instead. I think the ranger is still less hampered. (If the ranger cast *hunter's mark* before the combat and is still holding onto it, the verbal component isn't even relevant.)
If you're a cleric, you have none.
May I introduce you to Counterspell, or... walking out of the room with the Silence in it.
If walking out of the room was a solution to the *silence*, the ranger would do so as well, I'm assuming the ranger and caster are under the same premise. *Counterspell* is limited to only some full-casters and can now fail against *silence*, and if the *silence* does go through, the ranger would be far more likely to remove it by breaking the caster's concentration.
Thinking it of "half your class" is half your problem.
Warlock is often joked about as being defined by Eldritch Blast, but all of its features that interact with it are optional. (Even if getting at least one is optimal)
Would you like to be defined by a single cantrip; looking at you warlock?
To be fair, defining yourself by a cantrip is more sustainable -- no resource use. I think the new ranger is fine, but I would be a lot friendlier to Hunters Mark if the ranger (like warlock does) had a bevy of options to customise their defining spell to a certain playstyle (extra damage/knockback/slow/extra range/etc)
I agree with this sentiment. If, for instance, each subclass modified Hunter's Mark in some way, such as the Fey Wanderer charmed the mark, or something like that. Also, I think giving the ranger extra debuff or weapon mastery options like the rogue or fighter, tied into HM, would have also been a decent option.
Eldritch Blast doesn’t take concentration, so you can still use Shadow of Moil, Hunger of Hadar, etc alongside it.
Warlocks are known for eldrich blast but they do not relly on it for a level 13,17 and 20 feature.
No, just for half of all of their invocations, which are their preeminent class feature.
Not in the 2024 version, they don't. Meanwhile ranger relies on HM even harder.
Rn I counted around 40 different invocations and 5 that have Eldritch Blast as a prerequisite.
They made the changes that you can use those features for ANY cantrip. I don't get what this has to do with Eldritch blast. Really poor ground to stand on.
This is a great example though, if Warlock's Eldritch blast locked them out of casting other good spells or was flat out worse than other cantrips it would be bad design. Eldritch blast is their defining unique spell which the class is based around but it does that without stepping on the toes of anything else they can do. And they get decision points where they can opt out of Eldritch Blast too if that's not their preference- where is the equivalent for Rangers?
The Pre-Eminent Warlock class feature is the same Pre-Eminent class feature Wizard/Druid/Cleric/Bard/Sorcerer have, being a fucking 9th level spellcaster. Somebody who gets Fireball at 5 and Wish at 17 having anything else as "pre-eminent" is laughable. Eldritch Blast serves as a reliable at-will damage option, the same way a Bladesinger can stab people with a rapier if he wants, but if you tried telling me with a serious face that martial weapon proficiency and Extra Attack was the most "pre-eminent feature" of a Wizard I'd still laugh in your face. Eldritch Blast is effectively a Force damage heavy crossbow warlocks get 4 attacks with for no investment besides simply leveling up. Pact Magic has a unique recharge scheme compared to normal spellcasting, better on days with lots of short rests and worst on days with one big fight, but they are still undeniably spellcasters and pretending that it's comparable to the new Ranger being shackled to a lame first level spell for half their class features is a joke. Maybe if Warlock had their spell progression slashed in half and all their Invocations required concentrating on Hex it'd be comparable.
Literally one of the two most commonly brought up issues of Warlock.
4 features out of 20 levels of features is nowhere near "half your class" What do you do if some random caster casts silence? Stab them. Probably with hunter's mark damage. Because you're a ranger you probably went before them.
Hell, most of the Hunter's Mark stuff came in at levels with no class features or a relatively weak feature.
Hell HM features apart from the obvious capstone problem, are filler features that come together with abilities like 4th level spells...
This is mostly true of paladin too. Do we think paladin is a bad class now?
Smite is literally one single feature. It may have multiple aspects to it, but isn't taking up multiple of their features.
Paladins have Channel Divinity, Divine Sense, Lay on Hands and Auras that feel very characteristic. And even if you can't cast smite at level 11 your attacks just do more radiant damage.
You take away all the HM features, and you're still left with a better Ranger than post Tasha's. Also if a random caster casts silence on your party it turns off all the class features for like half the classes so that's kind of a bad comparison.
Power level has never been the issue. The OG Ranger was never bottom tier. Fun level and feel bad features, remains the issue.
I mean ya, this is objectively stronger, yes. But ranger was “technically” never that bad in terms of damage, for the simple combination of feats, fighting styles, good subclasses, and weapon enhancing spells. The problem was that many, many of the abilities did next to nothing. If you removed divine sense, divine smite, divine health, cleansing touch and aura improvements, from Paladin, it would still technically be good because you have other smite spells and abilities and consistent dps. That’s what ranger was. Tasha’s fixed this to an extent, but did the bare minimum which was satisfactory but not amazing. Onednd had the opportunity to improve this, but they failed. They just buffed a few numbers here and there (and removed some features) and called it good. It’s lazy and disappointing. The fact that they even made the 20th level feature somehow worse just shows how awful their design team is with ranger. Edit: throw improved divine smite in their as well. Paladins get a straight damage upgrade at level 11 for all their attacks and it’s great but not overpowered. Meanwhile, at 13th level, rangers can’t lose concentration on their extra d6 damage they have to set up, but still have to concentrate cuz Crawford says “it would be too powerful.”
I think the ranger is actually going to deal a solid amount of damage and be really strong in tiers 1-3 (HM as a 20th level capstone is a joke). That being said - I think that they're just objectively better than rogues as their spell casting will make up for any skill differences and they get multiattack and other damage buffs.
It's definitely better but a one level dip in any class is better than the Capstone and that's a shame
It did lose 3 class features, its best feature was pushed back 4 levels, Tireless took a small hit, and the already lackluster capstone got nerfed
I'm not a fan of Hunter's Mark becoming the Ranger's main identity.
I agree with you. Been trying to reply and engage quite a few posts the last few days. I was also less than thrilled. I think there are some rough edges in as free spots, but ranger looks like it was a good but of versatility. They have utility and damage options. I'm fairly certain their spells offer control since many are druid spells. I think they will be fun in play. If the spells do get some QoL reworks, even better.
Yes, stronger. But I'm not the powergamer type and I would have much prefered if they focused on establishing a strong class identity.
Ranger was strengthened and got a bunch of goodies. The complaint is that they didn't get as many goodies as other classes.
And they didn’t need it. Rangers were already one of the most versatile classes and were incredibly good at being a striker.
You're definitely right that the Ranger was already mechanically sound and versatile. They were my favourite class to play in 5e, and they'll probably remain so in the new edition. But when almost all the other classes that were also already strong hard-hitters like Paladins and Druids got a lot of new features and buffs, and the Ranger is stuck being nearly the same as the 5e version, it's hard to argue that they don't need more.
Ranger, Bard, Wizard, Rogue, Druid all tout versatility some claiming to be better jack of all trades. Awesome I guess.
They absolutely do need it when they lost sharpshooter.
Charger works with ranged weapons (arguably better, because that is literally the gameplan with a ranged weapon to kite) and GWM works with longbows so far...
But everyone else lost sharpshooter too. If anything, Hunter’s Mark is actually more powerful now, relatively, because it’s on every attack whereas most damage boosts have shifted to once per turn.
And the point being that everyone else got way better features. Hence why I don't understand why people keep spouting "well compared to 2014..." when we should be looking at what they got vs what other martials got 10 years later. Also you say every attack as if it isn't two attacks proccing a d6. That's 2d6 for a whole turn meanwhile other classes are doing wild shit with their features.
But what did the other Martials get that Rangers didn’t? Everyone got Weapon Mastery, so we’ll call that a wash. **Utility.** **Barbarians** can use their rage to switch certain skills to use Strength and therefore gain advantage. While the new duration and being able to use a bonus action to extend it helps, they do need to use their rages which are a semi-limited resource. **Fighters** can now use their Second Wind to add a d10 to their ability checks. This has the benefit of working on any ability check, not a predefined list, but it still uses a combat resource as well. **Rangers** started out far ahead of the other two classes, with Dex and Wisdom being their primary skills and getting an additional skill proficiency and Expertise. Rangers also have spellcasting, with many utility spells on their list. What’s new for Rangers is: two additional Expertises, more spells prepared than previously known, the ability to swap out a spell on long rest, and Ritual Casting. Results: Ranger is still FAR ahead of the other two, though in less flashy ways because Fighter and Barbarian had literally no features before and now they each have one. **Damage.** This is a harder one because there are a lot of things we don’t know for sure yet. When it comes to both weapon mastery and feats, it seems like damage is going to be better for melee than ranged, which is generally a boost to **Fighters** and **Barbarians**. For **Rangers**, a lot is going to depend on how the spells have been reworked. If spells like *Ensnaring Strike*, *Hail of Thorns*, and *Zephyr Strike* have been redesigned in the same way that the Smite spells have, then Rangers will be much more free to use those free Hunter’s Mark casts to boost their damage. **Result**: I think Barbarian and Fighter generally come out ahead here, though Rangers will probably be able to do pretty well **if** they choose to prioritize straight damage over their own health. The more important outcome is that **Melee>>Ranged** which I think is great for the health of the game. This is super long so I’m gonna stop now, but I’ve really enjoyed thinking this through. Overall, I think that Rangers got less than Foghters and Barbarians, but are still generally ahead. Rangers got huge (though less obvious) buffs to their spellcasting through Ritual Casting and prepared spells and I don’t think the buffs the Fighter and Barbarian got are enough to pull them ahead of the deficit they had.
I like how you focus on the differences between what they got for skills when you know the conversation is about their martial prowess, not skill checks. For damage, you didn't list a single feature fighters and barbarians get unlike you did for skills, and you know why you didn't. Because they got a hell of a lot more. We should also be looking at monks and Paladins, not just those two. All you said of relevance boils down to "melee is looking to be stronger then ranged but rangers have spells to hopefully make up for it." Let's just ignore most of Ranger's combat spells are pretty awful and funnily enough compete with hunters mark, the main core of the issue. We don't know how they've messed with the spells and we're judging what we have currently.
The damage comparison is a lot harder. How am I supposed to, in a single comment, compare every possible application of Weapon Mastery, Feats, and the new subclass features? Barbarians and Fighters are going to be better at damage than Rangers, except for dual wielding Rangers who will be comparable but nowhere near as durable. For Paladins, the damage is going to be nearly identical, though probably a slightly higher baseline because Paladins don’t really have the option of going ranged. I would expect that the average melee ranged will slightly out damage the average melee Paladin due to Hunter’s mark on a dual wielding build being very strong, but Paladin’s have a lot to offer as well that Rangers can’t. I can’t compare monks at all until the video comes out, though. >Let's just ignore most of Ranger's combat spells are pretty awful and funnily enough compete with hunters mark, the main core of the issue. We don't know how they've messed with the spells and we're judging what we have currently. I literally addressed this! I explicitly said a lot of the Rangers combat power is going to be dependent on how they’ve redesigned the combat spells but if they have made the primary damage spells work more like the smites then Rangers will be able to focus on Hunter’s Mark
Primal awareness was removed from Tasha’s.
And replace with more spells known and ritual casting.
Still a net negative IMO. They boosted spells known across the board for many classes. Rangers lose free castings. Ritual is free, but Rituals take 10 minutes and not all the PA spells are ritual. Not to mention Ritual casting was easy to get with 1 level dip. PA was great for the class fantasy in a way that more known spells and ritual casting do not.
It's not a net loss. Net neutral at worst. And 3 of them were rituals, so you can now cast them multiple times per day for free. And PM was only ever a nifty trait. The spells were intentionally niche. Now you can just grab whatever spell you like. And again, since you can cast HM for free 2-6 times a day, you have less pressure on your spell slots than you did before.
From a design point of view, PA was much better. And hunters mark is a shitty trap spell. Again, other classes are getting more spells known without having to lose features.
HM is a lot more powerful at higher levels than most comparable spells. By the time you get Guardian of Nature Hunters Mark is about as good and doesn't cost a 4th level spell slot. And no, getting more spells of your choice is better than getting pre selected spells you can only cast once, even if it's free.
Guardian of nature was never that great. HM is only better with like 4 class features boosting it.
We have to wait and see if they will continue the scaling on Hunter's Marks that they had in the UA Playtest 6 rules when it's upcast. If so, then replacing d6 with d10s is a significant boost. cast as first level spell: 1d6 for 1hr for first hit of round cast as 3rd or 4th level spell: 2d6 for 8hrs for first hit of round cast as 5th level spell: 3d6 for 1 day for first hit of round Now realise that you can't lose concentration so you can keep a 5th level spell for a day (new level 13). Now realise that you do all HM attacks with advantage (new level 17). Now, replace d6 with d10 in all of the above. Level 20 Ranger using HM as a 5th level spell is a damage machine, even without BM or Hunter adding additional attacks from Beast or Hunter options or doing TWF. Imagine going invisible for 2 turns with nature's veil (all attacks at disadvantage on you), using a long bow to snipe enemies for 2 attacks at advantage + 3d10 on the first hit. If beastmaster, throw in your beast's two attacks + 3d10. Or, throw in a smoke/cloud bomb to obscure all vision, then attack melee with scimitar (with nick weapon mastery) + another light weapon for TWF. Using your blindsight to hit them (level 18), they have disadvantage to hit you due to heavy obscured area, you can get 3 attacks in all with advantage and with +3d10 on the first hit, and the scimitar nick weapon mastery means you keep your bonus action to change targets if required. This has the potential to be an absolute damage nightmare. I can understand why they'd keep concentration requirement on HM if they are going to keep the upcast damage scaling. Of course I'd prefer it if they didn't require concentration on HM, but being able to do this on all attacks plus use other magic would be a bit over the top. \[edited a couple of small typos\] Correction: HM in UA playtest 6 states that the damage bonus only occurs on the first attack of the round, so I reworded sections above to reflect this. We will need to see what the final version is in the PHB2024 to see if the bonus damage added per hit so that HM damage is scaled when number of attacks increase or whether they upscale the damage by allowing it to be upcast but make the bonus damage only apply once per turn rather than per attack.
A buff would be nice but what I'd personally like us if they made casting it part of the attack action. Solves most of my problems right there.
I agree that upcasting makes a big difference to the versatility and damage. The only problem with your comment is that that spell had the damage only apply on the first time you hit on an attack roll on any turn. So it would be 3d10 per turn, not per hit. I'm hoping they found a middle ground.
I just realised the same thing about UA 6 HM as well - that it only applies to the first hit of the round rather than all hits - and popped in a correction right at the end. Still 3d10/round for an entire fight is still pretty good for a single spell. This will still apply for the beastmaster's beast too, so potential for another 3d10/round. Unclear if this will apply to Hunter's additional attacks.
To be fair, that playtest Ranger was trying to use conjure barrage as it's equally signature spell, and that seems to have gone. Maybe that changes the balance equation.
doesn't 3d10 equals 16.5 damage, and you're using a 5th level spell and concentration and bonus action in the first round just to do that? and if you're using BM you cannot attack with the beast in the first because you need your bonus action? this is all at level 20 also, that the die becomes a 1d10. Advantage is great okay, but it's not hard to get many other ways, and doesn't stack
Yeah upscaled HM was in many ways worse than 2014 HM. You had to burn 3rd level spells on it to get the equivalent of level 5+ HM damage (a very small buff in the cases where you hit one but not both attacks but hardly worth 2 extra spell levels and waiting till you got access to 3rd level spells) and for TWF it was straight up a downgrade requiring you to spend a 5th level spell slot To get what is effectively a 5th level rogue sneak attack.
>First: everything from Tasha's either stayed the same, was improved, or was replaced with a more flexible feature. I think there are also some things that make the Ranger weaker: * Due to the Nerf of SS Ranged damage is now significantly lower * Due to the changes to Spells and (sub-)Class Features the Ranger is more MAD, since he is more reliant on a good Wis score So it is at the moment hard to say if 2024 Ranger is stronger or weaker than TCE Ranger.
I kinda feel like if they had Hunter's Mark not be concentration and instead a ranger class feature that you get at lvl 3 it would have been received sooo much better. Then each different ranger subclass's hunters mark grows to match the vibe of the subclass
I'm not trying to deny that the update was lazy. I'm just pointing out that is by no means bad.
Yeah it's definitely playable but ranger right now feels like that kid that didn't get a Christmas gift when all of the other siblings did lol
Re: “middle of the pack” I’m curious, not saying you’re wrong but, what classes do you think the ranger is beating? Rogue? Any others?
Honestly I probably should have used a different phrase since that implies a hierarchy and without a copy of the new phb I couldn't say for sure. But hazarding a guess, I'd say they're probably above Rogues, Barbarians, and maybe Monks. So lower middle depending on how you'd like to cut it. Tho honestly I think even the "worst" classes will still be pretty good in the new edition.
> I see a lot of complaints that half of Rangers spell list is concentration and that's true, but most of those are either out of combat spells or **less valuable than a super charged Hunters Mark** This is the crux of the issue IMO. Hunter’s mark is fine, but not interesting enough to base a whole class theming around. It’s mechanically alright dpr-wise sure, but doing anything interesting or different (ensnaring strike, spike growth, summon beast, etc) feeling just *worse* than hunter’s mark **and** being mutually exclusive sucks.
Fair but Spike Growth, Ensnaring Strike, and to a degree Summon Beast all have different utility, and can be used in different situations. If there are a dozen goblins or something, I'm gonna cast Spike Growth everytime. But if I'm fighting the BBEG then Spike Growth is likely way less useful than HM.
And the opportunity cost of casting them and the spell slot cost is what you are supposed to give up for that utility. Also losing the damage the class is balanced around feels awful.
I agree with you. I had the same initial reaction when seeing the spark notes for the changes. After fully reading the in depth version and getting the details, I very much agree with you. They essentially converted the niche and situations features into perpetually applicable ones that still ultimately provide benefit in the niche situations. Like rangers don’t get to ignore difficult terrain….but DO just now get a flat movement boost, which is always useful, still useful in difficult terrain, and ALSO useful in magical difficult terrain. So that’s an absolute improvement. The change to being a prepared caster is also massive for this version of ranger and one of single best improvements as it allows the ranger the adaptability they lacked this edition. Mastery for two weapon fighting is also huge, as it frees up your bonus action for spells and other class features. They number of free casts of hunters mark makes it the default fallback, which keeps improving as you go…but I don’t think I agree with the folks saying it’s the required method of play. I did think that when it sounded like the number of free castings didn’t scale…so it seemed like dropping concentration to swap spells would be a huge drawback and spell slot waste. The sheer number of castings you get for free though…really means you can swap to your other situational concentration spells when needed. People seem to take issue with trading damage for crowd control, utility, or exploiting enemy vulnerabilities…but that very temporary and relatively free trade is balanced. It’s similar to a paladin taking their turn to cast a utility or support spell instead of smiting things.
Oh, the new Ranger is fantastic in terms of strength both based on Utiliy and Damage. My issue is Hunters Mark itself and reliance on it: Why do I get a bunch free cast of a Spell I might not want to cast, why didn't they just give me an ability to regenerate 1st level spell slots to use on Ranger Spells? Why do I only get unbreakable concentration on Hunters Mark and not all my spells? Rangers on average will roll more Concentration checks and have no Proficiency on Con Checks so why not encompass all spells as a treat, its a **Level 13** feature for gods sake. Why do I only get advantage on attacks on marked targets, couldn't I just get the Vex Mastery on all attacks? Why do I need to use a 1st level spell to get a small bonus to my damage as a **Capstone** feature, why can't I just add Wis to damage on all attacks? Barbarians get +2 to damage, AC, all Str and Con Rolls and they get +40 HP with no strings attached.
Inigo Montoya has something to say to you.
Basically anything would've been better than 2014 PHB, I'm just mad that I have to wait for another decade before WOTC can take another crack at designing sometimes with more flavor than hunters mark. If this was some yearly video game update I probably wouldn't care but this isn't that, we will be stuck with this for a long time
I don't care that it's stronger, I care that I have to use fucking *Hunter's Mark*, one of the least interesting spells they ever tried to call a class feature.
LOL. This sub now become a self-gaslighting chamber.
Make them spell-less and give them proper subclass features to compensate and all of the issues are gone!
I don't want to hunters mark. I don't care if you give me infinity uses of it and it makes the class technically better because of it. I'm not playing 8 encounters of combat.
The Ranger may be more versatile than before, but that only caused their identity to be muddled further. Tell me: what's the difference between a 5.24 Ranger and a Fighter/Rogue multiclass of the same book besides the spellcasting? That's something Ranger has struggled with since 2014. Not helping their case either is that, while the level 13 and 17 features don't *replace* anything, they also don't give much power to Ranger as a whole.
There is a difference between not being well designed and not being strong. Like for as bad as stuff like Favored Enemy was, it didn't really block other stuff you had. Cast Hunter's Mark and you suddently have to choose between having your class features being usable or concentrating on a true spell, with the upgrade features really being something that truly fixes it either. Even if it did... The spellcasting feature is there to allow you to be flexible in combat still to various degrees. The fact a class feature basically tells you to ignore that world is an extremely bad design. Imagine if Channel Divinity made you unable to concentrate on features, that would feel awful!
I agree, its more powerful. Im also not sure its keeping up with other classes boosts, but yeah, objectively more powerful. I just...I dont like that in any situation i have to choose between my flavorful and sometimes very useful spells and my main class feature. There is a reason so many builds are just about building damage and this goes out of its way to encourage that. The spells will take a backseat, especially to newer players, and every new cool concentration spells (new conjure animals for example) becomes a choice between my core class tool and the cool effect of having the spirits of animals attack with me. I'll be choosing the flavor and fun of having furry friends rampage with a lot of the time, but losing 4 or 5 or even 6 class features to do so feels bad man. Im still hopeful that some ranger spells are dropping concentration as a requirement, and that hunters mark scales as a level one spell so i dont have to waste high level spell slots as well, but I really dont like that they declared ranger fixed after that first ranger ua with high satisfaction scores, but immediately killed one of the primary reasons it got that score, and never did a general referendum on the class updates again.
Who cares? They’re boring. They have features we’ve seen before that don’t fulfill the Ranger class fantasy with an awful capstone and mechanics built around a feature people don’t enjoy using. People aren’t mad because they mistakenly think the numbers on a spreadsheet comparing theoretical DPR are different. They’re mad because the class is disappointing and dull - maybe it isn’t to you, but to the vast majority of people it was a huge let down.
I feel like ranger is still a meh kit that relies on a level one concentration spell (even for its capstone wtf?) and we’re just going to have to rely on the subclasses for its power. Honestly hunters mark is such a crappy trap you do more damage just using Xbow expert instead of setting it up since enemies rarely live long enough for hunters mark to out pace just blasting with xbow expert. I’m not sure if it’s still that way I haven’t done the math yet, but it still seems meh.
CBE bonus attack is now added to your attack action. Same with TWF if you have the weapon mastery for it.
Oh strength-wise it's probably the strongest iteration we've seen in a while, just not sure that is where the complaints are coming from It's also the most clunky and flavourless... could have at least kept Land Stride to have SOMETHING Nature-y actually left in the base kit
It's poor design, same as the divine smite for paladin. I don't like the ranger being defined by a level 1 spell that really needs to be active all the time for a ranger to get most of its power. It turns off the ability to use many other spells and feels clunky. This class feels like it needed another round of play testing and now we're stuck with this, whatever it is.
Not everything from Tasha's stayed the same or was improved. 1. Tireless and Nature's Veil both have uses based on your Wisdom modifier rather than your proficiency bonus; with the exception of possibly having +5 Wisdom between 10th-12th levels, this means you either have the same number of uses or (more likely, and definitely at 17th+ levels) fewer. 2. In addition, Nature's Veil is received a full 4 levels later than in Tasha's, at 14th level rather than 10th. 3. Favored Foe's previous effect is replaced with free castings of Hunter's Mark. The previous version of Favored Foe was usable without an action or bonus action, making it better than Hunter's Mark in some scenarios. For most rangers, I think 2024 Favored Foe is slightly better; for some rangers, it's instead much worse, especially at lower levels. 4. Primal Awareness is fully removed. The loss of extra spells known might be more than offset by an increase in the number of spells rangers can prepare, but Primal Awareness also let you cast each of those spells without a spell slot once per long rest, and that feature has just been taken away. 5. Land's Stride and Vanish, both features of the 2014 ranger, are fully removed. In exchange for these removed or nerfed features, the 2024 ranger receives a slightly better movement speed increase from Roving, expertise in two skills at 9th level, Relentless Hunter at 13th level, Precise Hunter at 17th level, and an improved Foe Slayer at 20th level. Keeping in mind the improvements to Hunter's Mark in the subclasses, I would gladly play a 2024 ranger at 13th level or higher. At lower levels, though, I honestly think I might prefer adding Weapon Mastery to a 2014+Tasha's ranger.
People just want something to complain about. PHB ranger was meh, Tasha's Ranger was decent and this ranger is undoubtedly better, dare I say Good. Probably the same people complaining that Paladins can't nuke anymore and now they have to build mechanically useful characters now lol
The problem with ranger was never him being weak tge ranger is a strong class, the problem is that the central identity mechanics are basically nonfunctional. That was a problem in 2014 and now in 2024
It's "stronger" but still massively outclassed by full spellcasters...I.e. it was weak and is still weak.
You could say that about every non-caster except paladin.
Absolutely. Thanks WOTC.
Then this isn't a Ranger specific complaint and not terribly productive to the conversation then.
Huh? Other classes are bad so ranger is fine? The mental gymnastics are impressive. Very specifically....the Ranger is outclassed by several other classes and needs MASSIVE buffs. That other classes also needs this is irrelevant and not terribly productive to the conversation.
If your complaint is just that WotC can't balance and you provide no additional commentary then it's a pointless comment. And I didn't say ranger was fine, don't put words in my mouth.