The fact that they pushed hunters mark so much yet didn’t address any of the issues with it and only let it scale at 20th level is absurd

@InsightCheck

15 күн бұрын

The capstone is big sad…

@malmasterson3890

15 күн бұрын

If we keep spamming them on every page hopefully we can get an errata to the Divine Smite & Hunter's Mark spells. It's much easier to do that then changing entire features, so maybe there's a chance.

@nyanbrox5418

15 күн бұрын

@@InsightCheck it actually is xD

@razzy6593

15 күн бұрын

@@malmasterson3890divine smite isn’t even that bad

@fortunatus1

15 күн бұрын

Technically we don't know that yet since we don't know what the new hunter's mark does. Maybe it can be upcast for higher damage. BUT if this is true, then why wasn't this mentioned in the interview?? Very sus!

This version of the ranger is exactly what they strayed away from with the warlock. The warlock memes with eldritch blast will now be ranger memes with hunter's mark...

@AnaseSkyrider

15 күн бұрын

Except worse, because Eldritch Blast gets more attacks at 11 and 17, and Ranger doesn't.

@shaclown7721

15 күн бұрын

@@AnaseSkyrider you forgot 5th level. The one every warlock can at least reach.. but yeah, you're right. The worst part is the fact hunters mark only scales up in damage as their CAPSTONE...

@AnaseSkyrider

14 күн бұрын

@@shaclown7721 I didn't forget, I said it gets worse than EBlock because of the missing 11 and 17

@dragonriderabens9761

12 күн бұрын

@@shaclown7721 they both get 1 extra attack at 5th only EB gets even more at 11 and 17

@shaclown7721

12 күн бұрын

@@dragonriderabens9761 i honestly didn't understand anase, until i read your comment. My bad, it indeed is worse!

As someone playing a Drakewarden Ranger: I did not take Hunter's Mark. I did not *want* Hunter's Mark. Trading in my subclass, the thing I built my entire character and backstory around, for 3.5 damage per hit is just....awful. In fact, regardless of how much damage it *did* do (The capstone basically says to do 2 extra damage.....my God that's horrifically bad), I wouldn't want to use it over ordering my dragon. Because the dragon is, at least to me, way more flavorful and fun to use than just roll one more d6. New Ranger is overall better, but now I'm ignoring the class for the subclass. *Such* a shame.

@AnaseSkyrider

15 күн бұрын

You should ask your DM to give you the ability for your pet to share your Mark, same as Beast Master.

@HighCharityYT

14 күн бұрын

I don't even know if its necessarily better - after 5th level, using HM is a damage loss always. Favored Foe basically gives you all the damage hunter's mark would've and then you can skip taking it. Any time you could cast it, you could cast Entangle or Spike Growth instead, increasing your crit odds for multiple enemies and dramatically increasing damage

@robertterrell7057

14 күн бұрын

​@@AnaseSkyrider He probably has or wants to play with the actual rules the game has lol

@sayther01

10 күн бұрын

I played a Horizon Walker Ranger and I did the same as you. I despise Hunter's Mark. I never choose it as a spell and never will, it's just bad and don't go well with the rest of the ranger. This changes to make Hunter's Mark the central piece of the Ranger are a mistake.

@AnaseSkyrider

10 күн бұрын

@@robertterrell7057 Updating old to work with the new is kind of the point of compatibility.

If some of the key Ranger spells have concentration taken away, like the Paladin's smite spells have, then it will make Hunter's Mark feel *a little bit* less bad. Still not a good route to go, though.

@hawkname1234

15 күн бұрын

Good point. Not likely, though, as most spells will be shared with other classes.

@jefferystafford9657

5 күн бұрын

Especially the druids. And yhey hate giving druids non concentration spells​@@hawkname1234

HM doing D10 as a capstone is terrible, paladins do 1D8 at lvl 11 with no concentration and no tax of bonus action

This is the first time I think WotC have really dropped the ball in the new PHB. Trying to force you to rely on a lvl 1 concentration spell is just so frustrating. And power wise the capstone is just so so sad (and boring). Either you skip hunters mark and lose out on several class feature. Or you use it and skip out on a bunch of more interesting concentration spells. A true lose lose and a huge fail on WoTC. I'm honestly baffled how they ended up thinking this would be a good idea and especially the capstone.

@brettmajeske3525

15 күн бұрын

Obviously if a Ranger doesn't want to rely on Hunter's Mark, they need to multi-class at level 13 into Fighter, Druid, or Cleric. Maybe even Monk, if that has been improved. There just doesn't to b a good reason to stay in Ranger after level 12 if Hunter's Mark is not the play style one wants.

@vortigern7021

15 күн бұрын

@@brettmajeske3525 Unless the subclasses have some good features i cant see a reason stay ranger after level 5.

@brettmajeske3525

14 күн бұрын

@@vortigern7021 To be honest that was true of the old Ranger as well. I was assuming Gloomstalker, which I would keep until at least 11, and then might as well pick up a ASI. Maybe 13 to pick up Improved Invisibility, but even then likely not.

I feel like two tiny things they could’ve done could’ve fixed a lot- • Hunter’s Mark steadily scales like Monk die • Hunter’s Mark is no longer a concentration spell and is more of an exclusive class feature that you can spend slots on. A barb or concentration caster would be nice with the mark. If this requires a second spell level mark or the free marks are at higher ranger level to strip away the concentration effect, that’s fine. Not a fan of the power dip. Though if the Mark is a class feature now, it’s be nice to have different kinds of Hunter’s Mark, like how there are different smite types. Give debuffs and elements there. Kinda hate how many features default to force, radiant, necrotic, or psychic now

@thecactusman17

15 күн бұрын

Per JCraw Hunters Mark is still a concentration spell. I'd love for him to have made a major mistake because Hunters Mark being a concentration spell is 90% of why it's a bad feature.

@razzy6593

15 күн бұрын

@@thecactusman17unfortunately treatentmonk has confirmed it’s still concentration so it’s unlikely

@XanderHarris1023

15 күн бұрын

Smite was a feature that you could spend slots on and they changed it to a spell. Doing the opposite to Hunter's Mark would go against their design philosophy. You can argue pretty convincingly that it is bad design philosophy but it is consistent.

@BlueFrenzy

15 күн бұрын

Even if Hunter's mark scales like monk's unarmed strikes does, it will still lock you out of your features if you decide to concentrate on anything else.

@brettmajeske3525

14 күн бұрын

@@BlueFrenzy Hopefully they will change it to be cast as part of an attack (like they did with Booming Blade and GFB). But I am doubtful.

They had so many ways to deal with Hunter's Mark, and they still chose to drop the ball. - Rebalance the HM spell without concentration (probably less damage, improved tracking abilities) - Remove HM spell and just make into a class feature - A Smite Spells time of table where the other bonus action concentration spells can essentially share concentration.

@Ahglock

15 күн бұрын

Given all the free casts they get they could have shortened its duration to like 10 minutes, but no concentration.

@AnaseSkyrider

15 күн бұрын

​@@AhglockMake it 1 minute, but let you choose to expend a spell slot any time it's active to increase the duration to its normal duration. Tracking a fleeing creature becomes a spell slot tax of approximately once per campaign, I think nobody would mind.

I think the issue is that they compare HM to Sneak Attack, in that it is a damage booster that was initially situational (Advantage for SA, Concentration and spell slot use for HM), but with the evolution of the combat mechanics and the Rogue, getting their required conditions to use their damage booster became trivial, whereas because Hunter's Mark remained a spell that still required concentration and could be dispelled/counterspelled (sharing the same issue with Paladin's smite in that last regard) it fell off. And by making several abilities entirely reliant on HM being up and active, it made all their other abilities have a single point of weakness. I have no idea why they are so reluctant to move HM from spell to class ability similar to Sneak Attack, and in the same boat in terms of balancing difficulty with other spell/signature abilities like Holy Smite and Eldritch Blast. Make it a class ability, remove the concentration need, then hang the kickers and riders off of it - maybe in a similar fashion to Cunning Strikes (making a trade of damage for effect) or the new Barbarian strike effects. You could then make removing the exchange of damage for effect either a high level Hunter-only ability or a high-level base ability of the class. Then you can leave HM as a spell for non-rangers to use, similar to how Holy Smite can remain as a spell for non-paladins; AND the fact that only the Ranger gets bonuses from its use it's preserving uniqueness. In 4e the Ranger also had the ability to sometimes add multiple creatures to their HM effects. This could be a great ability for the anti-Horde type Ranger.

@bigsmoke8816

15 күн бұрын

You could go further with it. Give rangers invocation style abilities that'd let them customize their hunters mark. Something like being able to deal additional damaga against undead, or something that'd improve your tracking ability by letting them use hunters mark on a creature if they see their footprints, etc. Yk cool abilities that'd let you customize your character in interesting ways

Yeah, Hunters Mark is like being forced into a Warlock hex. Should have been part of Hunter subclass instead. Wanted different kinds of attacks we can do with a bow. A design problem is the Ranger is the best solo class that can do the most things well, which doesn't fit a D&D party design.

@MrSeals1000

15 күн бұрын

This ranger is literally one of the versions of Warlock we saw in the UA. Which they promptly changed because the feedback all round was that tying the warlock class to hex was a bad idea. No clue why they listened to that, but went and doubled down with it for the ranger.

What I don't understand is why not concentration free hunter's mark at level 13. At level 11 Paladin's get +1d8 on all attack, no resource use or concentration. By 13 Ranger's (if Hunter's Mark is going to be the whole class) should get concentration free, apply when making an attack, and use a d8. By level 20 it should be d10 + Wis mod in bonus damage. Why does WOTC hate Rangers?

@brettmajeske3525

15 күн бұрын

I should point out that I like Hunter's Mark, at lower levels it is a decent spell. There are just better concentration spells at higher levels. Protected concentration at level 13 doesn't matter if one has stopped using the spell. Unless it has been redesigned it just doesn't hold up in late play. I likely would return to Hunter's Mark at 17, consistent advantage is good, but 10-16 I would not.

For the beastmaster sake i hope the HM in the new phb isn't as heavily reliant on BA or you can still spend one of your attacks to make your pet attack because otherwise you have to juggle around HM and controlling your pet. Effectively being in the dilemma on weather you want to have a class or a subclass which you already would have to at lvl 3 and 4 if HM require you to use your bonus action.

@XanderHarris1023

15 күн бұрын

Just being able to move it to a new enemy, for free, when the target dies would help a lot.

@orandor6249

14 күн бұрын

It should just be a free action, unless you want to command it to do something different imo. Same as the spore druid gets to do with the zombies.

@booklover4078

14 күн бұрын

@orandor6249 Granted I haven't played a beastmaster but I played the wildfire druid, artillerist and battlesmith artificer and the drakewarden ranger. While I can see it thematically feeling bad power wise I think it is fair for getting an extra capable body on the battlefield that allows you for the at most the price of a 1st lvl spellslot you get to be 2 places at once and have a ton of extra hit points. Like the damage your pet takes is damage that ultimately isn't going to matter because you can just get it back at full hp. Granted this could be different since the pet classes I played the most is close to unkillable because those where the wildfire and drakewarden and they just require an action to return and bring stuff like teleportation on demand or free damage you can crit fish with everyone on your team that does weapon damage

Even though I'm not super invested in the new edition I really enjoy this series and watch each video at least twice! Thanks for the great content! As for the Ranger, I kinda feel like it's lost its bearing thematically. Traditionally the Ranger was just straight up Aragorn, basically a fighter but with Really Good At Everything And Doesn't Even Try kind of energy. However as D&D became its own genre and less reliant on tropes from classic fantasy, I feel like the "point" of the ranger has become muddled if not completely lost. So, with this disconnection from the core fantasy, Wizards has to find a more mechanical niche for the Ranger to fill. I feel like they tried here but just made Hunter's Mark its entire personality 😆 I would personally love to see the Ranger building more on its capacity for support and control!

I feel like the force on hunter's mark is the issue I have with the new Paladin smite. They say they limit it so you can use your spell slots for your actual spells but then one of the subclasses gives extra AC to all your allies whenever you do smite. =T Like that sounds great but now it makes it even harder to justify saving spell slots for spells..

We don't know if Hunter's Mark scales in the spell description or can be upcast for increased damage. But if it can, why didn't Jeremy Crawford mention that in the interview? We also don't know if Hunter's Mark gives Advantage on Survival and perception checks, which is needed to bring the Ranger up to the level of Barb's Primal Knowledge. If you want the Ranger to be a spellcaster than you need to design incentives to cast spells other than hunter's mark. And being forced to use hunter's mark just to have access to 4 of your class features is a very BAD design choice. Those 4 HM features almost force you into not using other spells.. And if the baddies silence or counterspell you, or dispel magic on your target, you lose the ability to use 4 features of your class until you recast. /facepalm

I totally agree with you. I really love class synergy, but it feels like you're tied into one style of play with HM. I think either not requiring concentration or making it a feature that just lets you mark an enemy as prey (for maybe a 1d6, that scales) then allow HM to stack on top of that. But even if we homebrew that we lose out on several other class features.. I get where they were trying to go. Let's just hope the buff to the spells make this class a little better. Would love to see less concentrations spells for the ranger, if they want to keep HM working the way it does.

@InsightCheck

15 күн бұрын

Yeah that’s the thing. It’s printed now so even addressing HM at your table doesn’t deal with the other features unless you plan to re write the whole class lol. I do hope the other spell buffs come in clutch for Ranger though… they deserve it

@AnaseSkyrider

15 күн бұрын

I strongly suggest you look into how the Ranger was implemented in PF2e. They give you an action called Hunt Prey (you have 3 actions per turn). It marks a target as your Prey basically indefinitely. The base action does some stuff, then your subclass (called your Hunter's Edge) adds more on top. At its base, it gives you a +2 to checks to Seek and Track your prey, basically the same thing as Hunter's Mark. PF2e has granular range increments, where each increment adds a stacking -2 to hit; attacking your prey ignores the first increment penalty, but doesn't increase your maximum range. For context, a Shortbow has a range increment of 60 feet in the system. Then for your Edge, you pick one and get more benefits against your Prey. - Flurry: PF2e has accuracy penalties for spending all 3 actions attacking, this reduces those penalties against your Prey by A LOT, and it only gets better. - Precision: you get 1/turn +1d8 precision damage against your Prey (precision damage is basically just weapon damage, unless a creature doesn't have like any vital organs to speak of) - Outwit (the weakest one): You get a bunch of extra bonuses to skill checks against your Prey, and also an AC bonus against them.

@chowdaire7343

15 күн бұрын

That's my biggest criticism, you are essentially being forced into HM. I played three rangers, all beastmasters, in the past decade. The first was a dex based HM build. The second was wis based, which focused entirely on cc like entangle and spike growth. My current character is a STRanger who uses summon beast and conjure animals. Now I have only one correct way to play my ranger... how exciting....

@WisdomSavePodcast

14 күн бұрын

@@InsightCheck Yes hopefully we'll get a sneak peek this morning at the new spells and see how it goes I guess haha

@AnaseSkyrider

14 күн бұрын

@@WisdomSavePodcast We got basically fucking nothing

While Nature's Veil did a buff in duration, it was also moved from 10th level to 14th. PB times per long rest now seems to be reserved for the abilities of species, but class features are a stat's modifier. I definitely get that for multiclassing purposes, this was necessary, but now certain classes are much more MAD. Ranger's beast companion got boosted by the ranger's PB, now it's just Wisdom. This means that unless the ranger is maxing out the Wisdom modifier all the way to 19th to make the Wis 22, the companion is going to be weaker than Tasha's. Also, Tasha's gave Primal Awareness which gave bonus casting of spells. That and Primeval Awareness have both been removed.

The fix I mentioned on Nerd Immersion's stream turned out to be very similar to how it was in 4e (5e is my first edition). Basically, have Hunter's Mark as a Feature instead of a Spell, and design it around Sneak Attack with a scaling dice pool, but less dice, every attack or round against the Marked creature. My first playtest would use 1d6 at level 1 and add a d6 at the same levels as Cantrips upgrade and then modify from there by increasing dice size or number.

@halozoo2436

15 күн бұрын

That's definitely the best way to have it, but unfortunately, that wasn't going to work given the way the 2024 PHB works, as Hunter’s Mark was already a 1st Rank Spell, so they can't really change it to be a Feature easily. Thus, what we have coming in 2024 is the best we can get in 5e given the circumstances, except for maybe losing Concentration, but I understand them not giving that to stop Multiclass abuse, especially since it seems like several Ranger Spells will get changed to not use Concentration, notably several previously ignored Spells in Hail of Thorns and Lightning Arrow, so that issue will actually be lessened. Plus, many of the Spells Hunter’s Mark can't function with are ones that are actually kinda fair to not stack with since they're similarly adding Damage over multiple turns at their base, but have different utilities like Ensnaring Strike, Summon Beast, etc.

@EitherProductions

15 күн бұрын

@@halozoo2436 They could just call the Feature something other than Hunter's Mark (such as Hunter's Prey or Hunter's Quarry), since it would function differently enough from the spell, making it possible to stack with the spell, but there's probably still better things to Concentrate on considering how weak it is. We could even remove the tracking component that's in the spell to completely differentiate it from the Feature. From what I've gathered over a few reviews from various channels is that even if we did let it stack with the way it is currently, it would still be weaker or barely on par with other damage boost classes who otherwise can do the same thing but better than the Ranger (primary example I've seen is the Paladin feature that lets you add Radiant damage to any attack with no requirements. IIRC, I think it was 1d8 bonus for the initial feature, and it's upgraded to 2d8 a little later, which is way better scaling than 1d10 which nets you an average of only 2 more damage per attack, and only at level 20 as a capstone feature. Letting it be able to stack wouldn't really break the game at the levels it is applicable. So basically, the solution is to either fix Hunter's Mark so that it's competitive, or leave it as is and make a broad damage boost as a feature to contrast the damage spike classes of Rogue and Paladin.

@halozoo2436

15 күн бұрын

@@EitherProductions The issue is that no matter what, Hunter’s Mark already exists, so with D&D 2024 being backwards compatible, whatever is made next has to account for that Spell exiting, which is why Favored Foe in Tasha’s failed to properly fix the problems since it couldn't be allowed to stack with Hunter’s Mark, and why this new version of Ranger using Hunter’s Mark is about the best we could possibly get until a 6e comes along and can remedy their original mistake with Ranger in 2024.

@EitherProductions

15 күн бұрын

@@halozoo2436 None of what I've provided conflicts with that statement/slash goal. The Hunter's Mark spell would still exist. It would be stackable with the Feature (which would not break the game) because the current Hunter's Mark is weak. WotC has been fixing other spells while keeping the name (the healing spells being 2x buffed as an obvious example), and that is exactly what I put forth as the alternative option. Either make a Feature unique to Rangers that adds damage to a single target until it's down that can stack with Hunter's Mark to make it viable, or fix the Hunter's Mark spell to be competitive and deserving of costing a spell slot while keeping the name so that it's "backwards compatible." I've been keeping that restriction in mind the entire time.

@halozoo2436

15 күн бұрын

@@EitherProductions But stacking with Hunter’s Mark is actually a problem, they don't want too many lingering Spell effects going around, and stacking 2 different target selection Spells is definitely going to be a bit clunky and not something they'd ever want anyway since it would push Damage consistency way too high on Ranger with all those bonus dice. Giving Ranger Hunter’s Mark for free is the best solution to the problem until a new edition comes, as it frees up your Spell Slots and Spells Known to give you the target focus Feature that should've been there from the start. Plus, with the implied changes to Hail of Thorns and Lightning Arrow, it looks like Hunter’s Mark is going to be more viable than ever before as they'll no longer require Concentration and actually be usable, especially early on.

Favored Enemy should be that only a Ranger can concentrate on Hunter's Mark and one more concentration spell but you stiil have to make con save for both spell when being hitted.

My main issues is how they could _AT LEAST_ mesh using _Hunter's Mark_ with the Beast Master commanding its Beast. You either use your Bonus Action to command the beast to attack or you just cast Hunter's Mark. Say you cast _Hunter's Mark,_ what's the beast doing in the meantime? It's not even doing the Help Action autonomously! I don't understand why it isn't combined. Casting _Hunter's Mark_ on a creature should be the same as saying "Sic 'em, boy!" to your beast! Like, even if they have to be careful about the damage, it could start out just giving the Help action and then grow into attacks. It wouldn't be ideal, but it's not nothing and the beast isn't just sitting there chewing on its own butt while everybody else fights for their lives.

@orandor6249

14 күн бұрын

The beast should be able to act freely imo. It makes no sense that a killing machine will have to sit and wait for you to tell them what to do every single turn. It’s not a pet or a familiar. It should reflect the synergy between both the ranger and the beast. Even spore druids get to command their zombies once on a BA but that same action carries away on subsequent turns freely, until you want them to do something else. A beast should be smarter than a zombie…

@clarkside4493

14 күн бұрын

@orandor6249 you're right, and I agree with you! The problem is that Wizards doesn't see it that way. It SHOULD be autonomous, but it still counts towards your damage output. So they're over there wondering why people don't like a beast that can get up to an impressive 4 attacks with scaling damage, when we'd gladly settle for it to only ever have 2 that don't get damage scaling and that we don't have to actually pay for (which doesn't look impressive on paper). I only suggested the _Hunter's Mark_ "Sic 'em" combo to meet them halfway on the design they're set on so you don't have to choose between the two actions.

My biggest issue is that their design goal was to give other features at 5th level to martials besides Extra Attack. And then just forgot the Rangers?? Like they weren't shafted in 2014 and just forgot about them for the 2024 book?

Our only hope is that, like the Paladin, many of the Ranger's spells no longer require Concentration. Maybe we'll find out on Monday?

@16:00 ... and the church said A-Men... I hate it when I have to remind people that you are paying for a finished product. When you get a Kickstarter and there is a page with a bad layout or a high level of spelling errors or a thing like some crazy grammar that leads to bad rules interpretations that will last for the next 10 years!!! And not to mention this should have been done last year. Ultimately, we have had 5 years to get THESE NEW BOOKS RIGHT!

Gotta say, I really like that you are reviewing these properly, looking at the improvements and also... some of the problems. A lot of youtubers are in the 'new toy' phase atm, where it's all new interesting etc, but not actually thinking about how these things player in reality.

Here’s hoping they remove concentration from certain spells such as The Smite Spells and Ensnaring Strike. I played Gloomstalker for a long time and those are the spells HM got in the way of most often.

Am I the only one who never saw much of an issue with the exploration aspect of a ranger? Yes some features were situational, but those could've been solved by talking to the dm In every party I've been the ranger never felt useless and we never had to carter to their needs. Exploration is one of the three pilars of dnd and I really enjoy it, haveing a ranger that can't get lost makes things better I can't understand why they got rid of the exploration stuff. They should've just made hunters' mark a class feature instead of a spell (the pathfinder ranger does that and its amazing), one of the issues the ranger had was that they never got access to any of their many concentration spells bc they always used it with hunter's mark, this would've solved it. Besides that they could've just given us the bg3 ranger (but with better choices)

There was a line of dialogue from the video WOTC release where in Crawford says that “the Rangers spell list has more utility than outright damage”. This makes me think that they are planning to have the Ranger designed with very few damage dealing spells, And the rest of their kit will be spells that enable exploration or infiltration. To that end hunters Mark may be the only/most powerful DPS option for the Ranger in 2024, and that it won’t be such a stretch to assume that at level 20 a ranger would rely heavily on it in combat. Lets also not forget that other classes were reduced in DPS to bring them in line with other classes such as the paladin smites, which the new design implies that it will also require concentration and they will not be able to concentrate on smite and something else.

So i have this in my notepad to copy and paste into any video i find dealing with the 2024 Ranger and/or hunter’s mark. If you compare the math on a full turn’s damage between a ranger and a fighter, the math comes out as follows: If we assume the ranger uses a greatsword with hunters mark and a fighter uses a greatsword w/o action surge, average damage per turn at lvl 20 is R: 2(2(3.5)+5.5+5)=35 F: 4(2(3.5)+5)=48 If you were to take a beast ranger and a battle master fighter to the equation R: 2(2(3.5)+5.5+5)+2(4.5+5.5+5)=65 F: 4(2(3.5)+6.5+5)=74 If you dont consider that the fighter uses action surge and the ranger gets around +6.5 to hit with ranged attacks vs melee the damage from hunters mark is strong enough not to make the fighter less effective in dealing single target melee damage, as well as trivializing enemies. Factoring in ranged (longbow) and action surge against an opponent with 18 ac the math is as follows: R: 4(4.5+5.5+5)x.8225=49.35 F: 2(4(2(3.5)+6.5+5))x.70=103.6 Keep in mind im not sure if the advantage from the lvl 17 hunters mark is applied to the pet. After 2 turns of surging and maneuvering the damage of the fighter drops to around 33.6 while the ranger is still doing 49.35. Adding subjective variables like range from danger and reach, the rangers damage is still respectable. Addendum: we still don’t know what hunters mark does in 2024 and all math performed here assumes it’s the 2014 version and not the UA6 version or some amalgamation of the two.

@InsightCheck

11 сағат бұрын

Sure, this is all fine but I should point out that none of my discussion was about the relative power of the Ranger. It was pretty much entirely focused around the design of the class and the impacts of focusing so many class features on one spell that requires concentration. The damage is probably fine, I said it was probably better than 2014, but that was very much not the focus of the discussion.

@teknyte-1

10 сағат бұрын

@@InsightCheck fair, like i said i copy/paste that on every video (positive or negative) dealing with the 2024 ranger. I generally see negative criticism of the dependance on it as a spell so this is usually the first of two msgs . The other comment i posted is more related to what u said

New Hunter's Mark: Like Vow of Enmity, it gives you advantage against a single enemy for 1 minute, concentration free (& you can move it to another creature upon the death of the first one). No Bonus Action- it is just part of the attack action to initiate. No damage increase. Just advantage. It is no longer a spell, just a class feature, that can be used Wisdom modifier times per long rest. Then, at lvl 11- you get a bonus attack per turn against your marked creature. So a melee Ranger with 2 weapon fighting could get a fourth attack per turn, for example, while a longbow attacker could get up to 3 attacks per turn. Then at level 20, for your capstone, we pile on the damage. Add 3d6 to each damage roll, for up to 9d6 extra damage per turn with traditional attack routines, or up to 12d6 per turn with 2wf. Because its a CAPSTONE. In the meantime, at lower levels, if the player wants to add damage to their attacks, they could concentrate on a spell, like flame arrows (or hopefully some new equivalent for melee Rangers.) If we want to make Rangers "range" with movement increases, then they should probably get a second 10ft increase. I'd move the first increase to level 6 or so. Then add the second increase to level 13, so they'll have a 50ft walk, swim, & climb speed at lvl 13. I'd reduce their Expertises from 3, to 2. One given at 2nd level. The second given around 7th or 9th level. And I'd return Primeval Awareness, but as a class ability, useable Wis mod times per long rest- no spell slots. And it would work like a radar "ping"- the Ranger would be able to sense creatures, their type & quantity & general direction & distance, out to say... 500 ft? I'd get rid of the lvl 14 Invisiblilty. Instead, I'd give them permanent Advantage on Stealth & Perception & Survival checks, at lvl 14 (Aragorn: "I can remain unseen, if i wish. But to disappear entirely? That is a rare gift.") This is just something i came up with in the early morning hours, off the top of my head. I did not playtest it, revise it, or even give it a second thought. But surely it CANNOT be worse than the insulting pile of garbage that WotC is giving us?

I like how there was a weapon mastery that increased the damage die of a versatile weapon when one handing it, and people made it known that they didn't like it. Even though the designers thought it was the strongest option, it just wasn't interesting compared to the other options. So what do they do with a first level feature? Double it and make it a 20th level feature. Brilliant. Also for beast masters, to my knowledge there is no synergy with hunters mark. You have to spend a bonus action casting hunters mark and not interacting with your beast, and when the target dies you once again have to ignore your beast. It could be an east fix with allowing you to cast hunters mark with the same bonus action you command your beast, or if thats too strong, you can just apply it to a new target when you command your beast, limiting the downtime of your beast to just the first turn of combat though even that is still a significant proportion, or your beast doesn't get the spells damage for that attack, though that seems a little convoluted to keep track of. Maybe after your beast makes an attack against a target you can apply the spell to them.

The fact that I’ve seen dozens of simple, hombrew solutions, since the Ranger vid dropped, makes me question Crawford and team’s competence. He keeps using the terms ‘brand new’ and ‘satisfied’… Hunters Mark has always had issues, and they didn’t address any of those issues. Isn’t this the perfect opportunity to look at those problem points; like Hunters Mark and Hex stacking… **and get creative**?!?! Instead they just doubled down. WTF?

@vortigern7021

15 күн бұрын

I don't know how he came to his conclusions, most of the features people are complaining about were not even in the playtests.

@orandor6249

14 күн бұрын

At this point their videos really feel more like a blatant advertisement than a genuine talk about new and improved features.

@Cloud_Seeker

12 күн бұрын

Remember that WotC think they are so good at making D&D now that there will be no more editions.

I get the point with hunters mark, and it is definitely valid. Its a comparable problem with wildshape, where its a feature that negates other features of a base or subclass, effectively always limiting the things you can do to a subset of all your features. Though, when playing a ranger, I always felt that casting spells mostly had its niche, peak moments, as half caster spell progression otherwise couldnt keep up with solving encounters with damage. In many encounters, I would rather solely attack. With weapon masteries, incentives are given to use weapons that do not enable an attack with your bonus action. In those many cases of just focussing on damage, hunters mark actually doesn't compete with any other concentration spells and is mostly fine. The way its implemented in 2024, you still do either or with a ranger, but at least do not spend your casting resources on the "solving through attacking" strategy that much. I think when playing, it isn't that big of a deal to have features locked behind hunters mark gameplay

You can 2014 Metamagic: Twinned Spell with 2024 Hunter's Mark.

@PhalisoBringerOfDoom

15 күн бұрын

Sorcerer vid that will inevitably drop this week: metamagic now only works with Sorcerer spells

My fix: HM deals increased damage when you reach certain levels OF THIS CLASS, then detail standard cantrip scaling. 2dx at 5th, 3dx at 11th and 4dx at 17th. This makes it so you aren't needing to choose between HM and other con spells, it gives a STRONG reason to stay with Ranger, and the capstone hits a lot harder when it's 4 die upscaling, though I would have it scale up to d12s. All or nothing. Though I personally think that 'Hunters Mark' should be it's own feature, not a spell.

I think there’s 1 reason they refuse to remove concentration: Hex. After the first Ranger playtest came out, there was at least 1 video pointing out that a level 1 Ranger with Magic Initiate from their background could have both Hex and Hunter’s Mark up at the same time. Which is arguably OP for a level 1 character. The simplest fix is to build lack of concentration into the upcasting. Say, when cast at 2nd level or higher it no longer requires concentration, similar to Bestow Curse.

As a love of using rangers, Hunter's Mark was my main spell and the only time I didnt use it was if I needed to thin a group. Plus Hunter's Mark allows 1d6 per attack. Say you are a Hunter(Horde Breaker) lv5 ranger, with just 1 war domain cleric. If you are fighting a group and they didnt tweak horde breaker too much, that is 4d6 extra damage you could do on your second turn. 3d6 on turn 1 after casting hunter's mark. if you just use 2 weapon fighting as well, it still adds up in damage. might remake my first dnd character to see what insane damage I can put out.

Back in my day, Rangers didn't get spell casting until the 8th level. And we hated it!

One most the main features of a D&D class is it's specialty. The thing it does that you can't get from another class. Sneak attack, metamagic, rage, etc. These are specialties for some of the various classes. You can't stop them. You can't interrupt them. They don't require concentration. There's a reason that no class should have a specialty that's a concentration spell.

I agree with your overall assessment, but I’m trying to temper my feelings with two unknowns: 1) As you mentioned, we don’t know how many of the Ranger spells will still be concentration. I think the Conjure/Summon spells will reasonably still use concentration, but hopefully stuff like Ensnaring Strike and Zephyr Strike will not interrupt HM. 2) We don’t know if they changed the rules for Concentration in the new version. I think it’s unlikely that they will have a method for concentrating on multiple spells at once, but we don’t know yet, unless I’ve missed something. So we’ll see if these decisions are as dumb as they seem.

I feel like it is worth pointing out the positives here: - Spellcasting moved to Level 1 so its easier to multiclass now and you get spells faster! - You can switch out a spell known every day! - Weapon Mastery! - 2 more Expertise - total of 3 now! - Faster move speeds + climbing and swimming! - Reduce exhaustion during short rests! - Vanish - Invisibility as Bonus Action! - Blindsight - 30 feet! It also seemed like every single subclass got buffed in some ways. Hunter's Mark may not be the most exciting feature - but you now get free castings of it, easy concentration, and later on... permanent advantage on attacks, and scaling damage. Oh and Hunter's Mark now does Force damage to help you bypass damage resistances... starting at Level 1. I feel like everyone is missing out on these very nice buffs across the board just because people think the capstone is disappointing. I wonder how many people will ever get to even experience the capstone vs. the rest of these features anyway? We also still don't have the full text of the class or even updated language regarding the Hunter's Mark spell... so I feel like maybe folks shouldn't jump to conclusions yet and just give the Ranger a playtest when it comes out?

@TrixyTrixter

Күн бұрын

Ok... And what If I do not wish to be concentrating on a forst level spell for 1d6 damage? Should I just be locked out of 4-5 of my features? They in this same book completely unbound warlock from eldrich blast so why do this to hunter and force them into a playstyle that not everyone wants.

My issue is that the beast master ranger has 3 scores you want to be 'good,' con for keeping concentration, wisdom for spell attack bonus, and strength or dex for your own attacks or defense. You could get items to up a specific stat to 19, no difficult they are currently uncommon, but also add in NEEDING 1 OR 2 weapons to keep up with other melee characters damage output. Oh and to use your ranger abilities and skill set you'll need to get a DM who doesn't mind letting you explore your surroundings

I think the design teams idea was for the Ranger and Paladin both to really lean into their bonus action spells. Smites for the Paladin and Hunter's Mark for Rangers. I get why people are kinda having issues with the Ranger's reliance to Hunters Mark, But it really was one of the only things that gave Rangers any identity of their own. Otherwise, they just become half-Fighters and half-Druids. Personally I don't recall what concentration spells the Ranger relies on other than Hunter's Mark, but I really don't see any difference between Ranger's reliance on Hunter's Mark and Paladin's reliance on Divine Smite. There is a reason why Paladin's spell slots are jokingly referred to as "Smite Slots." In fact, I would argue that Rangers have it a lot better than Paladins do now since Rangers get so many free castings of Hunter's Mark as opposed to Paladins one free Smite per day. The Divine spells are my favorite spells in the game, but If I'm being honest those spell slots are simply better used on Divine Smite when in the hands of a Paladin. Rangers still have access to their spells, So the spells are still there and readily available and even with the additions to Hunter's Mark, that doesn't invalidate the rest of the Ranger's spell list. All that's changed is now the Ranger has a baseline signature ability like the Paladin's Divine Smite, the Warlocks Eldritch Blast, and the Bard's legendary thirst. Hunter's Mark won't be the answer to every problem but it will be the standard operating procedure Rangers use unless they run up against something that requires something different.

@brettmajeske3525

15 күн бұрын

About half of Ranger spells require concentration. Half. None of which can be cast while concentrating on Hunter's Mark.

@andakin117

15 күн бұрын

@brettmajeske3525 well obviously you can't concentrate on multiple spells at once. I've never played a Ranger, but I have played games where two other players played Rangers, and they almost never casted spells. They mostly relied on class features.

@brettmajeske3525

15 күн бұрын

@@andakin117 That makes no sense, the only reason to play Ranger over Fighter or Rogue is spells.

@andakin117

15 күн бұрын

@@brettmajeske3525 Well that's what I was exposed to when it comes to Rangers. Now to be fair, at my table I play with very conservative players who over think whether or not they should cast a spell or use a short rest ability. Like for real I played with two sperate Bard players who made frequent use of the hide and dodge actions in combat rather than just staying back with either a light cross bow or casting any spells. We might have seen the occasional Vicious Mockery every now and then, but It was a hard stretch to say it was every combat encounter. I was constantly being told I was burning to many resources as a Paladin when using Smite against some of the more powerful foes we were facing. examples included a young green dragon against a level 4 party of 5, a fire giant, a hydra, both of which were a 1v5 against a 5th level party, two Beholder Zombies, also against a level 5 party, and lastly a pair of Night Hags which finally brought us up to level 6. by this point in the campaign I had come to realize our DM wasn't interested in preparing a dungeon so we would get one fight every few sessions even if it was tipped one way or the other. In the other game where I played a Divine Soul Sorcerer I was also criticized for actually casting spells and not relying on cantrips alone. catching 3 or 4 enemy creatures in a single fireball is a good trade off for a 3rd level spell, but again, I would receive criticism for overusing my resources by the party I was playing with. luckily the DM for that game actually enjoyed crafting dungeons and took my side one night and pointed out that even though every single enemy survived my fireball and failed the save on top of it, it's still a good use of a spell slot since dealing damage is always better then trying to prevent or undo damage once it's been taken.

@brettmajeske3525

14 күн бұрын

@@andakin117 I started playing D&D in 1978 when I was 12 years old, and have never been at a table like that. I don't think your experience is that typical, it seems like they would better off all playing Champion fighters.

I feel the same way with Hex though they are less built around it. Sub class stuff, maybe a high level ability not mentioned, and some invocations. But I don't care reduce its effect a little bit just find a way that the feature or spell that is that thematically appropriate isn't concentration.

I'm a big believer in classes or providing options, not dictating a specific play style... Tying a spellcaster up on specific concentration spell like this is very disappointing. If they wanted this kind of mechanic, shy not make a feature that doesn't interfere with spell casting choices

Wait a minute, aren't barbarians still getting +4 str +4 con as a capstone? +4 strength is the same damage boost as the rangers capstone, only it doesnt require a spell a spell and is only half the feature

@InsightCheck

15 күн бұрын

lol yup. And it aids in to hit modifier, athletics checks and anything else in strength. And then constitution for added health as well and saving throws haha It’s not even close!

@MaMastoast

15 күн бұрын

That's mad

@biodude15

15 күн бұрын

Its the same if you look at the maximum damage. On average the ranger capstone is only a +2 damage increase.

@matthewparker9276

15 күн бұрын

​@@biodude15that +4 strength will translate to a +2 strength modifier so only +2 damage. But also a +2 accuracy, or an extra 10% chance to hit which is significantly more damage on average.

I could see really liking hunter's mark, but the capstone and stuff around it isn't quite there yet. If I got free casts, it eventually let me bonus action attack the marked creature, and eventually didn't require concentration then I'm down. Basically, if it was designed to make you a single target monster of a damage dealer then I'm down.

As a DM I would probably just give a ranger concentration free hunters mark at level 11, right around when the fighter gets a 3rd attack. It does not seem too powerful at 11th level, even if you stack hex or something similar. At 20th level I would make the 1d10 of hunters mark automatically target any weaknesses a creature has, it feels thematic and it would actually be pretty cool

Same for rogue, I hope you LOVE sneak attack. Kind of the same thing. But yeah, the concentration thing

I think there’s an expectation that Ranger base should cover all these different terrain masteries, but really those are being baked into subclasses.

I’d be interested in seeing a direct comparison for hunters mark vs Summon Beast avg dmg. I think even if the beast comes up a little short, the viability of the beast would still be higher as it presents “preventative healing” by presenting another pool of HP for enemies to wear down. But the fact a don’t have class feature options that can impact Summon Beast, it would feel bad (though a couple free casts if of HM if the beast does mid battle feels alright).

If they had just made it so that at x ranger level (with x being a single digit, preferably a lower single digit) Hunter’s Mark no longer requires concentration, that would have been a great feature while still keeping dupers in line. As it is, not loosing concentration due to damage comes online far too late and still keeps you from using a lot of Ranger spells. Also, you only get to swap out one prepares spell per long rest? I guess that is a slight improvement. Hopefully, Rangers will not have so many concentration spells and this might mitigate some of these issues.

Hunters mark is fine at low level and gets worse as you (and your enemies) level up. The class features make it better though. So maybe it will be worth casting at higher levels now. BUT that doesn't forgive that terrible capstone or the fact that you effectively can't cast any other concentration spells. Concentration free HM is exploitable at low levels with multiclassing, but I'd say at level 10 give them the ability to cast HM with a 1 min duration that doesn't use concentration. Then move Tireless to level 13.

I have played since AD&D. Started again, by playing 5e. First 5e character was a half elf Level 5 Gloomstalker/Level 4 Samurai. I wanted to be a machine gun with a sniper scope. (elven accuracy/ sharpshooter) As a sort-a noob I started with a lot of Hunter's mark. Then I watched the Drakkenheim game. I started to use a lot more Zepher Strike. My damage/mobility/FUN went way up. If they don't take away concentration on so many other Ranger spells this sucks.

Fully agree with your takes on hunters mark. Ive played some version of ranger in every campaign ive played and ive taken hunters mark exactly 0 times. I just want to do other concentration things and dont have the spell slots hunters mark, then zephyr strike, then hunters mark again every combat. Really wish they stuck to their guns removing concentration, even if they left the nerfed hunters mark with damage once per turn i wouldve been ok with that.

Just got to make hunters mark a class feature that isnt a spell without concentration and scales with class lvl

The largest issue with ranger is their reliance on concentration bonus action spells. The class and many subclasses also had issues with their features being niche to useless. They have fixed the issues of useless feature, they have fixed hunters mark not scaling. However, the issue of bonus action concentration spells is at leasy as big an issue now. You now will want to use just hunters mark at all levels rather than 5he first 5 ish levels. We will see but i hope their spell lists were adapted with this in mind.

Another issue is the fact that Hunter's Mark is a bonus action to cast, which competes with a lot of the Ranger abilities or play styles, from two weapon fighting to commanding your beast/drake companion.

Although this class is stronger than the 2014 version, lets not forget what they actually did to this class. They just took all of Tasha's features made it baseline, added a few Hunter's Mark required features and called it completely new. Beast Master got the worst of it, Jeremey Crawford described it as "a whole new subclass with only the name and theme kept the same" he then talked about and confirmed it with D&D beyond post how it's the exact same subclass as it was before (if you included TCOE).

I'm with you on this. This is a better ranger, but still basically the '14 monk. I was really hoping that they'd do more, and this weird push on HM especially when your capstone essentially makes it con free... HM should either be a cantrip, or the damage needs to scale with level. Because I doubt theyll make more ranger spells that don't require concentration. Or hell, if they can cast other concentration ranger spells while concentrating on HM that'd be an improvement.

I think both Hex and Hunter's Mark could stop requiring concentration after level 11 at Ranger and 11 at Warlock... This way a character would be prevented to cast both and also concentrate on something else

I’m an old school Ranger player. I like that they adopted Tasha’s rules for the most part. I’m not a huge fan on the reliance of Hunter’s mark because of how they did it. First and foremost HM is a tracking spell…. No issues with that…. (In some campaigns it’s a great spell, but other spells like fairy fire are much nicer). Traditionally the spell scaling is the duration of how long you can track your prey (You know where it is up to a maximum of 24 hrs.) it gives an additional D6 damage if you hit the target (if…. Little word, big meaning). So if you up cast and fore go short and long rests…. You can track your target for up to 24 hours. Mechanically it’s clunky and removes half of tiredless’s feature to maintain concentration while everyone else regains HP and spell slots during a rest.😂😂😂 That is just bad design for a class feature, folks. If you want to make it a class feature, you expand on it like in the hunter sub class. TBH, that’s where they dropped the ball with HM. It’s features should escalate, like advantage earlier, changing damage types…. Simple things to improve it and make it worth while to spend the concentration on it. Hail of thorns is a better use of concentration as well as zephyr strike as a lvl 1 spell, both use concentration and do additional damage (hail of thorns scales with spell slots, zephyr strike doesn’t). New ranger players will see HM as the hallmark of the class and it is not nor never has been the hallmark of the class. The AOE control spells like entangle and snare have been the hallmarks of the class and they use what? Concentration😂😂😂😂

gonna be fun playing a beastmaster and having to choose between either having a class and having a subclass every couple turns

This focus around Hunter's Mark reminds me of how PF2 treats their version of it called Hunt Prey, where a relativly large number of other abilities only function agsinst a hunted target. However, over there the feature doesn't cost a resource beyond the action to use it, and isn't a spell to concentrate on, and is widly considered a fun and balanced class. Rangers are my favorite class in any system, and its always sad to see it get botched.

The problem i see is the bonus action economy. beastmaster command beast two weapon fighting turn invisible(one of the raners later level abilities) thats alot you to do with the same action. having to have hunter mark be a bonus action that requires concentraion on top of that is stupid . they just gave us earlier spell casting so why are they saying that all our feature prevent us from using it

@micheltavares4955

15 күн бұрын

There is now a weapon mastery proprety that allows you to make the TWF attack as part of the attack action. So at least TWF is not in this list anymore. It was so annoying.

@ne0w01f3

15 күн бұрын

As of now thats just the dagger and scimitar right? hopefully other weapons are on that list. The part that's a real slap in the face is that yes we get our spell casting earlier however we are discouraged, by class design, from using what I assume is 50% of the spell list since hunters mark requires our concentration and if we dont use it we are making alot of our class features pointless. Especially the hunter. hunters mark should have just been a feature that you got uses equal to your wis mod +1 and it doesn't require concentration . or something of the like

Here's an easy solution to fix this problem. Keep everything they have just add these. Hunter's Mark damage scales like the monk strike damage. At level 6 ,11, 17 Add to Level 10 - Augment mark - Once per short or long rest spend all your free uses of Hunter's mark to not concentrate on the spell. The spell duration only last one minute. Can use this ability if you spend a 2rd level spell slot. Replace with this - At level 13 you have advantage on Con save for mataning concentration on spells. Level 17 Primary evil awareness Once per short or long rest spend all your free uses of Hunter's mark to mark a number of creatures equal to you wisdom modifier. The spell duration last for one minute. Can use this ability if you spend a 3rd level spell slot. Replace - Level 20 Supreme foe slayer You critical in a 19 or 20. You can add your wisdom modifier to attack and damage to creatures affected by your Hunter's mark spell. Affected creatures all take an extra die of damage every turn they are not healed while Affected by Hunter's mark.

People think warlocks rely too much on eldritch blast. Warlock only buffs eldritch blast when some optional eldritch invocations are selected. Now ranger pushes a spell onto you, many rangers will feel they need to choose between the repetitive, strong option or what is made out to be the worse option of anything other than Hunter's Mark

Regardless of Hunter's Mark, I've seen no one mention that Primal Awarness, Land's Stride, and Vanish have been removed, and Nature's Viel moved from level 10 to 14

I don't think the entire class resolves around hunters mark. The way I see it, Its just 2 class features on levels when half casters usually don't get anything. In 5e and all the playtest the rangers and the paladins get nothing except spell scaling at level 13 and 17 (actually, i guess in one of the playtest the ranger gets conjure volley automatically prepared, but thats basically nothing). So it was a minor upgrade to hunters mark, or nothing. Ill take it over nothing. Its just 2 ribbons. I don't think 2 ribbons affects things that much. The capstone is terrible tho.

@cooperton4949

14 күн бұрын

Problem is dead levels are unfun and bad design

@gloryrod86

14 күн бұрын

@cooperton4949 they tried to fill 2 dead levels and everyone is crying. I don't get it.

@TrixyTrixter

Күн бұрын

​@@gloryrod86 Filling a dead level with something that limits your options is honestly worse than it just being a dead level.

@gloryrod86

Күн бұрын

@@TrixyTrixter no its not. It doesn't force you to do cast the spell and its a nice buff when you do. It literally doesn't limit your options, it empowers an option that you already had. If you don't think its worth it, don't cast it, but it's nice for whatever you want to preserve spell slots.

currently playing a ranger and i also dropped hunters mark as it conflicts to the optional feature favored foe which requires concentration.

will probably let player have advantage on con save for hunters mark till level 13 and instead of unbrekable concentration just remove the need for concentration and (if someone ever play a level 20 ranger) just add the d10 and the d6

The features tied to HM make the player choose between single-target DPS or utility, control, etc. Not a big deal, it has free casts now. Also as much as everyone wants to complain about HM, they forget Ranger is the only martial with (now significantly buffed) AoE.

This is exactly why I like GURPS. I never have to worry that MY vision of MY character is not influenced of the devs vision of what a ranger or rogue is supposed to be or do. I can build exactly what I want, only limited by my GM for balance.

I don’t know if I completely agree with the argument that the new ranger forcing you to use hunters mark is a bad thing. WOTC have made a point that hunters mark is rangers central feature, the class is supposed to use it all the time. It’s like saying that the barbarian forces you to use rage, or rouges force you to use sneak attack. I guess it’s tricky because WOTC is essentially creating a new class from the fantasy of an old class, rather than a brand new class. In regards to concentration, honestly I thought that they’d get rid of it, it’s the main problem with the spell, but it’s also impossible to say how it conflicts with the rest of the spell until we see the updated spell list. Maybe WOTC solved this issue by removing concentration off of other spells or giving more versatile options? I dunno, maybe I just like it cause I like the fantasy of hunters mark.

I also want to be positive and recognize the good changes, but what were they thinking? Did they just ignore everyone (myself included) who asked for another pass on the Ranger for the UA? Did they just give up because they ran out of time? In terms of Hunter's Mark if the concentration requirement is still being kept, would an extra d6 of damage per spell level (applicable to every attack that hits) be too much to ask for? (i.e. level 2 =2d6, level 3 =3d6, level 4=4d6, etc.) (This would be able to be cast at the highest level without expending a spell slot equal to one's Wisdom modifier every long rest. )

I also don't understand why they didn't improve on conjure barrage and conjure volley as a core aoe feature of the ranger. Having them prepared and known for free was a good start. They should've given you a free use for each of them or two, since the aoe spells of the ranger are somewhat gimped compared to aoe options of fulll casters.

A really important fact that people keep missing in this discussion is that the levels at which you get a hunter's mark upgrade are also the levels at which you get 4th and 5th level spells. In other words, the hunters mark upgrade isn't supposed to represent a big proportion of their powerbudget at all. It is mainly there to make sure that an iconic level 1 spell can still have some uses at these higher levels. The only one that completely sucks is the capstone ability since that one does not come as a freebie with something that has real power.

@TrixyTrixter

Күн бұрын

How lucky I am to have all these concentration spells available that I won't be able to cast. While the wizard is literally altering reality on a day to day basis.

@Wannybooi

Күн бұрын

@@TrixyTrixter why won't you be able to cast them?

As usual, good points well made. Think I’ll probably follow suit and remove concentration from HM to free up more of the Ranger for players at our tables.

Great video! You weren't hateful and didn't whine or gripe. You provided healthy criticism!

@InsightCheck

14 күн бұрын

Thanks so much :)

I don't have a problem with Ranger features be focus around Hunter's Mark, but i don't get why they don't turn the spell into feature. That would easely solve the concentration problem, even if nerfs where made to acomodate that.

Beast master should not need to use a bonus action every turn to get the beast to do something. Even the spore Druids can command their zombies to act once on a bonus action (all of them) and carry that same action freely on subsequent turns. A warrior beast should be smarter than a zombie. Another thing that is not clear to me regarding the beast master is how to make sure you do not lose the beast, because if it dies during combat it effectively makes the beast master much less effective with damage outputs and other things compared to other classes and other subclasses.

I have given this exact feedback in the survey. You either lose access to your most interesting spells or a dozen of your features. Dead features continue to be the bane of the ranger. I don't even homebrew Hunter's mark in 2014, because you just learn different spells. 2024 continues to create problems for the DM to deal with. Designing a TTRPG is hard, especially with monumental tasks like backwards compatibility, I get it. But man, every time something like this pops up I can't help but think "Really? Again?"

Completely agree. I will houserule Hunter's Mark as non-concentration and come up with something else cool for 13th and 20th levels.

Hey you’re almost at 8K! Congrats! 🎉

@InsightCheck

14 күн бұрын

Thanks! Yeah looks like I should hit it pretty soon!!

Hunter's Mark is the epitome of class features from earlier editions that were ruined when 5e made them spells. In my games, I let rangers keep all the features in Tasha's, but Hunter's Mark, favored enemy, and favored terrain are removed. In their place, I have rangers pick a favored mana color at levels 1, 6, 14, 20, and their subclass let's them pick one of two. White Blue Black Red Green Colorless Every creature type, class, background, terrain, and faction is tied to one or more colors of mana. Each time they pick a mana color, they get their Int mod in languages known. All Dex, Int, and Wis ability checks made in relation to anything tied to your man's colors are made with advantage. All weapon attacks made against creatures tied to your mana colors have advantage and deal an additional damage die of the weapon's normal type. Overland travel is also faster if the party is in a terrain tied to the ranger's mana colors. Combat encounter rolls happen less, discovery and non combat rolls happen more, and if we're using a hex map hexes dominated by terrain that falls under a favored mana color get the same double move speed bonus that hexes with roads get.

I play as a ranger I barely use hunters mark hell I don’t even use most of the spells I rather play a ranger that focuses on survival being the tracker, hunter as well marksman that deals damage. I am a Gloom stalker I do use the dread ambusher when I can on my initiatives again I think I use hunters mark once and that was it.

Even if damage is comparable to other classes. building the class around Hunter's Mark is just bad design. It feels like you're being punished by wanting to concentrate on another spell and rangers have some really good spells.

Beast Masters should get Find Familiar as part of their bonus spell list.

I never understood why most level 20 perks are so.. lackluster. Like, you reached the highest level, give me a cool ultimate attack or badass feature.

You don't need to equivocate so much. You have a good take and make valid points, speak with confidence!

I'm hoping they change hunter's mark and made it a non concentration spell, as they change spiritual weapon as a con-spell as well...

Would it really break the game to have free spells be cast at their highest level? It seems to me that that would fix most of the problems.

@TrixyTrixter

Күн бұрын

Upcast only increases how long you can concentrate. It fixes nothing.

@ronin504

Күн бұрын

@@TrixyTrixter Oh I thought they were going with the UA version that scaled the damage.

I think them not showing us the spell hunter’s mark or if it scales or if we are keeping it as the 2014 model was the issue. To me, it would make sense that hunters mark scales, if did, 2d6 at the 3rd level, it would be a slightly better single target option then spirit shroud, sure it wouldn’t be limited by the range, but it doesn’t have the added benefit it causes to a creature, the inability to heal. 3d6 at the 5th level, but at the 20th it would be 3d10, potentially going from an average of 10.5 dmg per round if it scales to 16.5 dmg per round. I think that would be a good bump, but given we’re left In the dark, and how hunters mark was played with in the play test, I think myself and a lot of others fear it’s reverted to its 2014 verson, if that’s the case, it’s a damn shame.

My swarmkeeper ranger doesn't have or use hunter's mark. I've liked a lot of the other classes, but the new Ranger... I just can't believe it.

Beastmasters needs their bonus actions every turn. Hunters mark also eats up bonus actions (unless that was changed). It seems like other than the hunter subclass there is a lot of counter synergy with the route they took which honestly looks like surprisingly bad design. I agree with everything else they did in these reworks, this seems baffling. It seems like there is no way to play the Ranger without feeling like doing something wrong and missing out on features either because of concentration or bonus action competition.

How would you guys feel if Favored Enemy worked like sneak attack except you get 1D8 every 3 levels. Non magical as well because you can't dispel SA so you shouldn't be able to dispel FE.

I'm of the opinion that Hunter's Mark shouldnt even be a spell at all. I think making it a just a class feature akin to the slayers prey from the Monster Slayer would be the best choice.

Hunter's Mark feels like it should be a mix between Sneak Attack and Smite. I'd have made it a bonus action spell that triggers off an attack like Smite but works like Sneak Attack and Cunning Strike that allows you to trade some damage dies for debuffs on the enemy. To keep it separate from Sneak Attack I'd have it only trigger on an enemy you've already damaged since the start of your last turn.

Thanks for the breakdown. Overall, I much prefer the new version of the Ranger. I have seen a lot of things that I am liking in the new edition.

I think Chris Perkins was lowkey warning us when he said that if it was up to him, he would have folden the ranger (and other classes) into a subclass of the fighter or another class. Personally, the magical ranger archetype is not one that I enjoy, so forcing me to be that is just a huge downer for me.

Should of just made hunters mark a class feature instead of a spell and have its damage scale at the same rate as the monks unarmed strikes