2024 Ranger
Added 2024-08-20 04:15:52 +0000 UTCSupposedly this class is bad now. Looks pretty good to me.
Comments
I don't think the power level of the Ranger is poor, but I think the class has some subclass-locked features that should just be part of the base class. The Gloom Stalker bonus to initiative and the Hunter Defensive Tactics could both stand to be added to the base class. The Hunter's Lore feature should just be part of the Hunter's Mark spell as this makes it scale better because monsters tend to have more resistances and immunities as you go higher in level.
Rushbolt
2024-09-05 12:30:37 +0000 UTCI agree. The Dungeon Dudes also address this in their 2024 Ranger changes video.
Andrew Jensen
2024-08-29 19:31:16 +0000 UTC@ Andrew Much of what you mentioned is what I love about Ranger. It is why I am passionate about it and wanted to see it improved. I love Ranger. I just hate Hunter's Mark as a requirement.
Shad Gray
2024-08-29 19:29:34 +0000 UTCYou said above, it isn't about optimization, but it sounds like this is a convo about how Ranger operates in combat. I think there are many ways that a Ranger distinguishes themselves as a class. They are far better at really important skills than the paladin (stealth, perception, insight). They can often get places with a climb speed or a swim speed that the paladin can't. They are faster. The base class has superior battlefield control spells. They can more easily flip between melee and ranged combat. I get the frustration at being funneled to Hunter's Mark and then feeling bad for not using it, but there is a ton going on with the Ranger class beyond Hunter's Mark. (I hope this all comes across as respectful, just thought it was an interesting convo to participate in)
Andrew Jensen
2024-08-29 19:19:26 +0000 UTCIt's the second option. Your profiency bonus is always the same (say, +3) and having profiency in a skill, save, etc just means whether the bonus applies to that roll.
Fred de Jong
2024-08-29 08:30:31 +0000 UTCI am a little confused by Primal Bond. "When it says add your proficiency bonus to any ability check or saving throw the beast makes" I am not sure that is never 0. Say my PC is level 5 and my beast has to make a wisdom saving throw, if my PC is not proficient in wisdom saving do they have a proficiency of 0 in wisdom saving throws or do they have a proficiency of 3 which is simply not applied to wisdom saving throws? Is there anywhere in the rules that makes this clearer?
Carl Meade
2024-08-28 12:53:10 +0000 UTCThanks. But Drizzt lore is little confusing. He is primarly Battlemaster fighter maybe with ranger or rogue dip(or just proficiency/expertise with stealth and survival). His companion is from strong magic item stolen to deafeted enemy. Although when i want recreate this character in DnD 5e rules isn´t fair ask DM give me magic item from start therefore i must play beatmaster ranger.
Rhaegar Targaryen
2024-08-27 17:00:22 +0000 UTCOne important consideration to the value of Vex is other potential sources of advantage. Any attack that'd have advantage through any other source would make Vex redundant. So if you know your party composition, try to judge how often you get advantage from others and let that inform your decision. Fortunately you can switch on a long rest, so you're not locked into either choice forever.
Fred de Jong
2024-08-27 12:33:53 +0000 UTCI think Hunter's Mark is better than it ever was, but if something is going to be core to how your class distinctly attacks, then I don't think it should be in the action economy as *casting* a levelled spell or as some other action/bonus action. Reckless attack, sneak attack, and 2014 divine smite are what I like. Making something like this a spell is especially tough action-economy-wise if (half) casting is a significant part of what you can do. It's not that asking for a spell slot is necessarily too much—i think that's fine for half casters—it's that it immediately makes casting and fighting at odds with each other, not just in terms of how you spend a resource, but in terms of what you can get done in combat which seldom lasts more than a few turns. That's why I hate what they did to divine smite in the new rules, and it's why I think Hunter's Mark continues to have problems, although a lot fewer than it had before. I wish they have made Hunter's Mark a class feature of Rangers and made it activate or transfer target more or less for free with an attack like 2014 divine smite. If you want to limit its uses, make it cost an L1 slot to activate and/or give Rangers a pool of marks with which to transfer targets. I don't know if that's perfectly well balanced at all levels, but it would have made play as a ranger a lot smoother and more fun.
Jason G. Rheins
2024-08-26 19:18:39 +0000 UTCWhere can i find the updated and better hail of thorns version?
Matthias Jahrbacher
2024-08-25 19:05:33 +0000 UTCI was hoping for more responses than 2. However, these 2 do illustrate the problem with making a Ranger players will like. Everyone seems to have their own vision of what a Ranger should be like. Some want a pet class, others want an Explorer, some wants spell, others don't, etc... No matter how powerful they make the ranger, no matter what choices they make I doubt the ranger will ever universally be loved. It's never going to line up with everyone's fantasy of what the ranger is.
Thomas LeBoeuf
2024-08-25 18:16:58 +0000 UTCI don't think the issue with the Ranger has anything to do with damage output, I think it has to do with identity. People want a million different things from it, but I think at the core of the experience, they want to: 1. /have/ something to explore (which is always a challenge for the GM) 2. be better at exploring than anyone else Given that the game doesn't give the GM any significant tools to generate playgrounds for the ranger quickly, the second objective is doomed to fail. But even when GMs put the work in to give rangers something to play with, D&D's solution to #2 is to just… obviate the entire exploration process. But that isn't what anyone wants! "Success" in the context of exploration is "more to explore", not "less". The ranger won't be "fixed" until there's a better exploration pillar, and I doubt we'll ever get it.
Joshua Tant
2024-08-25 00:57:31 +0000 UTCThanks Chris for speaking some sense on this. I've been playing a Ranger for the last 3 years in a campaign, its a great character and really looking forward to updating it with the improvements, especially dual wielding scimitars.
Jace
2024-08-25 00:11:21 +0000 UTCI understand that is the intent, but from my understanding the skill section describing what skills do and are used for was trimmed, not expanded. Additionally, that expertise means that they are still less reliable than 2014 ranger and 2024 rogue when it comes to exploration and travel, whereas before they could never get lost naturally and difficult terrain didn't affect travel. Now even if a skill roll is explicitly capable of preventing those things, if you are an unlucky roller now you can be Larry the Lost Ranger with expertise in survival and very few features to enhance your chance to succeed the exploration or travel based skill rolls.
Brock Sokevitz
2024-08-24 13:29:58 +0000 UTCI observe that MANY classes have access to features which incentivize being in dim light or darkness, and that dark-vision and blindsight are significantly more common- to the extent that as a player I would advocate for adventuring primarily during the night, and as a GM I will be looking for ways that enemies can create zones of light as much or more than I previously would seek zones of darkness. In that context, Gloom Stalker is MUCH BETTER than in 2014. ....also I think Ranger is unambiguously buffed, particularly at very early levels and very late levels, but it does feel a bit bad to be pigeonholed into Hunters Mark in the mid levels, and they are VERY Bonus Action hungry, which can be a QoL issue. I'm still excited to try out the Ranger in future games in ways I wasn't previously.
4RoryVT
2024-08-24 11:59:10 +0000 UTC"I'm also worried that there's no hardcoded replacement for natural explorer." That's what Expertise is for. Rogue demonstrates that Expertise on its own does a lot in the Exploration pillar. Add in class features based around Dex and Wis as well as all its mobility and the Ranger is naturally going to be one of the best characters in the exploration pillar. Making it expertise also means that the Ranger can more easily tailor themselves to the adventure.
RuhroRubbinz
2024-08-24 08:27:11 +0000 UTCI'm less worried about the numbers and more worried about a core feature competing for my bonus action forever, and this is my same issue with paladin's smite. For example, if i take the dual wielder feat and get a bonus action attack, it will be in my best interest to do the math to figure out when it is worth reapplying hunter's mark. If i have magic weapons that might make the decision more nebulous. It might turn into a math problem of how many rounds do i need the enemy to live in order for hunter's mark to be worth reapplying, or maybe I'm thinking about it wrong and dual wielder just isn't meant for rangers and is meant for fighters who have less constant competition for their bonus action. I just feel like this level of math just for a bonus action doesn't happen as often the other classes, and for me at least that's a negative. I'm also worried that there's no hardcoded replacement for natural explorer. Those listed features didn't come up often but it felt very cool when they did come up as a ranger. I guess rangers are just less reliable travelers and explorers now? I definitely don't think it's the worst class in combat, but it has done nothing to make me as excited as the monk does. It feels like 9 times out of 10 I would want to be multiclassing rather than taking this version of ranger to 20. Maybe mix it with druid to grab an op spell like conjure minor elementals and make use of primal strikes or i might mix it with a fighter to get better martial options with the low level gloomstalker benefits.
Brock Sokevitz
2024-08-23 14:35:44 +0000 UTCDid you read what I said? Cause I never said to do that. I said it needs to be replaced with a new feature. I did not specify a level in my post, but for the home game I wrote the feature for I made it a level 2 feature which can come with an opportunity cost. The feature is also limited by a stat which is a second point of opportunity cost. The entire point of that section of my comment was that the ability needs to scale cause otherwise it is just people freaking out about dipping 1 level for damage. Which you literally did, because your reply was freaking out on damage of hunter's mark which isn't even what the feature would be anymore. Also 1d6 damage (1d4 for the version I suggested) per hit isn't worth more than most martial capstones so it really depends on what level you are playing to.
Bryn
2024-08-23 02:45:32 +0000 UTCThe moment you make Hunter's Mark lvl 1, concentrationless, every martial is gonna build to dip it or multiclass it.
Donimic Leff
2024-08-23 00:13:03 +0000 UTCHey Chris, when you hit 100k subscribers, what are you doing to celebrate? Maybe another one shot with you and Colby and the Dungeon Dudes using 2024 characters? Anyway, congrats in advance!!
Kevin NCR
2024-08-22 16:23:16 +0000 UTCThe ranger identity in my opinion should be around wilderness skill and an animal companion
Ethan Sausville
2024-08-22 12:47:02 +0000 UTCJeremy Crawford literally said it was bad to tie class features to a single spell when talking about the warlock and tying all of those invocations exclusively to eldritch blast. So in 2024 they changed that. Then he turns around and ties multiple features to Hunter's Mark. There's some cognitive dissonance there. The class has nothing to represent their mastery over their terrain or their adaptability to their environment. Hunter's Mark is a sad excuse at attempting to classify a ranger knowing how to hit their foe just right, having learned the weak spot of their chosen prey. The tracking part is thematic, but as someone who has played rangers for years, it misses the mark. The tracking has come up 4 times in the 10 years I've been playing rangers. They've missed the class fantasy of the ranger. They got rid of Land's stride. If ever there was a ranger class fantasy feature, that was it. Being adaptable and moving through terrain without difficulty. Roving is a close second, but the two together left a feeling of mastery. Mathematically this class is strong. However, if you have feels bad moments casting any spell that isn't hunter's mark in combat to adapt or interact with your environment then you have sacrificed the strength of the ranger. When about half your spells compete for concentration you shouldn't have features that say "use this one concentration spell cause it's how we factored in your dps to keep up." A huge problem when they try things like taking away the concentration of spells like hunter's mark is people freak out. Stop it from being a spell, make it a limited resource, and make it scale. Example: Hunter's instincts. As a bonus action, you begin a wild hunt magically honing your skills as a hunter. This hunt lasts for 10 minutes. While in your wild hunt, your weapon attacks deal an extra 1d4 damage. Additionally, during this hunt you can take the Search action as a bonus action. You can use this feature a number of times equal to your Wisdom modifier. You regain one use on a short rest and all uses when you finish a long rest. This feature's extra damage increases when you reach certain levels in this class; to 1d6 at 6th level and to 1d8 at 14th level. Another example of a way they could have maintained the class fantasy: Level 8: Put Land's Stride back in. (Ideally at level 5 when other martial classes are also getting a feature. Like the paladin find steed thing.) Level 13: While you are concentrating on a ranger spell, you have advantage to maintain concentration. (Flat out inability to lose concentration on all ranger spells might be too strong.) Level 17: You have Advantage on attack rolls against creatures affected by one of your ranger spells. (So if someone is in your plant growth or your spike growth, you have advantage against them.) Level 20: At 20th level, you have mastered the ability to cut through your enemies defenses. Once on each of your turns, when you hit a creature with an attack roll you can remove a resistance from the target if they have resistance in acid, cold, fire, lightning, poison, or thunder. You gain the resistance removed for yourself until the end of your next turn. (This might be really strong, but 1 it's a capstone it should be strong and 2 it nails the class fantasy.) Alternatively, for level 20, make the capstone based on the subclass. That also highlights the class fantasy of adaptability.
Bryn
2024-08-22 09:59:11 +0000 UTCHunter better than GS, hot take!
Treantmonk's Temple
2024-08-22 07:52:21 +0000 UTCI took the poisoner feat. I applied poison pre-combat and again after round 1 and focused on the BBG of each combat.
Treantmonk's Temple
2024-08-22 07:51:43 +0000 UTCI agree that Swift Quiver is still unappealing
Treantmonk's Temple
2024-08-22 07:50:39 +0000 UTCQuite a difference in duration between HM and DF
Treantmonk's Temple
2024-08-22 07:50:09 +0000 UTCCheck the duration of divine favor though
Treantmonk's Temple
2024-08-22 07:49:19 +0000 UTCIt definitely did not get the amount of love the monk got, no argument.
Treantmonk's Temple
2024-08-22 07:47:58 +0000 UTCWhile I agree with what you are trying to say, I do feel you have it a bit backwards. Rather than it being "generic flavor", it is IMO not generic enough. Crawford pretty clearly described how the spell is supposed to be thematically. a very mono e mono type of "hunter and prey". The problem that we now have is because a) not everyone WANTS to be that sort of ranger and it conflicts with the ranger they want to play. And b) the mechanics of Hunter's Mark itself do NOT support that fantasy. According to that "fantasy" you are supposed to be such a skilled and highly trained individual, but despite it, you NEED to target every single creature you intend to hit. Imagine 20 goblins.... but you are dealing half-ass damage unless you concentrate real real hard on each and every one before you make your attack. That "fantasy" that Crawford spoke of might work great when you are fighting some new big monster for the first time. It really looses something when your damage falls off if you haven't specified Goblin #12 as if he is your new greatest mortal enemy (that will be forgotten the next round of combat). You have a limited ability to flow with the combat and adapt to changes. Even the barbarian can adjust their strategy on the fly, but not the ranger with the one-track mind in combat. Is Hunter's Mark a completely bad spell? No... But is it the spell you want to spend 20 levels as the definition of your character? Nope.... not in the least. I honestly feel like this spell would be fine if it wasn't baked into the class. The idea of marking your target can be cool. It's a bit like a baseball player pointing his bat towards left field before hitting the ball into the grandstands behind it, when the bases are loaded. But if they did it every time they stepped up to the plate, it would just be obnoxious and lose the cool factor. It feels like Hunters Mark is no longer a spell that deals extra damage. Its now a requirement to do you "normal" amount of damage. And that really sucks the fun out of it. To answer Chris's question, it DOES take away the class fantasy by doing both of the things I described above.
Shad Gray
2024-08-22 01:42:26 +0000 UTCWell said
Ethan Sausville
2024-08-21 23:01:03 +0000 UTCNo, not really, but the 3.5 Ranger did for the most part. Personally, I'd be happy if the current Ranger was another class, and instead I had a Ranger class more like what I had in 3.5. I think at my table I'll rename the current class to the Warden or something and make a homebrew Ranger.
Ethan Sausville
2024-08-21 22:56:48 +0000 UTCI’ve always appreciated the way you think independently, even going against popular opinion at times. And you’re usually right. 👍🏻
Sean Plunkett
2024-08-21 22:50:13 +0000 UTCAll they need is a little light to counter gloom stalker. I still prefer Hunter it’s much more reliable. Imo
Jamien Ousey
2024-08-21 22:22:57 +0000 UTCAlso Ty again for the video
Jamien Ousey
2024-08-21 22:04:26 +0000 UTCThank you. Now with the new Great Weapon Fighting style Feat only applies to Melee.
Greg Smith
2024-08-21 21:51:24 +0000 UTCI'm honestly jealous of your experience with the spell then. I ran a ranger from lev 1-20 and between having a Barbarian AND Paladin (it was a full party of 6) killing minions left and right, I was OFTEN in the situation of not being able to move my Hunter's mark. Perhaps my experience was the odd one. That said, most other revised classes got the "we don't want to lock you into a playstyle" treatment, with options that let you decide if you are more magic focused or more melee... pick the ability that best suits the type you want to play. Ranger didnt get that. They said "here is your spell. now use it every combat, every target... mark something or do nothing (or at the least, do far less).
Shad Gray
2024-08-21 21:09:13 +0000 UTC"You must hate the Paladin too, such a terrible class with a repetitive gameplay loop. Spend slots to cast smite, over and over and over and over and over and over and over again." I get that you are trying to be sarcastic, but if you can't tell the difference in playstyles between a Ranger and a Barbarian, then my initial comment is probably above your level of understanding. By your logic, based on "Action/Bonus Action/ Movement/Reaction", EVERY class does the same things over and over. That hardly contributes the the discussion or offers any true rebuttal. A Barbarian rages ONCE at the start of combat (and will probably maintain it throughout). After the initial bonus action, they get to just go have fun and hit things and deal lots of damage. They don't care if it is a minion or the BBEG. In fact, they often have fun plowing through minions ("Cleave", anyone?). They can move and flow with the tide of battle, surging through opponents and changing course (as can the Paladin) based on what is learned, who is still standing, what is the greatest threat... Meanwhile, The Ranger "marks a target". The fantasy (that Jeremy Crawford liked to pedle in the playtest vids) of the Ranger being like "I've selected my prey, I can sense it's weaknesses and deal extra damage to it and it's like some cool edgy mano e mano thing" is a load of crap. None of that translates or is supported by the mechanics when you have to "mark" your 6th goblin in a combat, because apparently the ranger is too big of an idiot to deal that extra d6 of damage without a careful inspection of every single peon they encounter. So you mark, and mark and mark again. And yes.... I played the [Tasha's] Ranger using Hunter's Mark for a full campaign (something not even Chris seems to have done). I am FULLY aware of how many times in a single combat you end up moving a Hunter's Mark around, let alone an entire 1-20 campaign. I know exactly how limiting it is. As for your pathetic comparison to Paladin and their use of smite, the paladin only smites when they hit, and they fully choose when. No decent Paladin player is burning smites on every creature or even in every combat encounter. [Not to mention, they are radiating an aura for all sorts of other fun effects, most of which they don't have to think about]. In addition, when they do choose to use them, their smite options now offer even greater tactical use, unlike Hunter's Mark which just gives you nothing but a small amount of damage; (the ability to help you track a creature you have marked is about as worthless as it gets and I really don't consider it, as it is highly situational and requires a certain amount of DM discretion - and I hate "DM, May I?" features like this). Trying to draw some comparison to Hunter's Mark and a Paladin's smite is a ridiculous straw man argument. So... if you have any other questions about how classes are different, please feel free to respond and I'll try to educate you some more. (/sarcasm).
Shad Gray
2024-08-21 21:00:57 +0000 UTCAlternatively, that's on you to pick better targets and optimize your action order better.
Dan Rosenthal
2024-08-21 20:35:16 +0000 UTCSounds like a problem of not coordinating well with your teammates. If you want them to be aware of, and play in a way that supports, your Hunters Mark recast, then be proactive about it and discuss it with them. It's the same with any other multi-person cooperative optimization, e.g. discussing forced movement into Spirit Guardians/Spike Growth/etc.
Dan Rosenthal
2024-08-21 20:33:28 +0000 UTCBarbarian as well. All you do is rage and hit things. There’s nothing else creative you get to do with that class. Rogue too, just hide and sneak attack. Every class has repetitive and familiar gameplay loops. Some of that was changed by removing concentration on other spells just like giving Barb and Rogues more interesting ways to adjust their gameplay loops.
Keegan MBG
2024-08-21 20:18:01 +0000 UTCYou must hate the Paladin too, such a terrible class with a repetitive gameplay loop. Spend slots to cast smite, over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Keegan MBG
2024-08-21 20:16:32 +0000 UTCI personally like the idea of them all being Planeswalkers and connected to different planes. They sort of touch on that theme here and I think they should double down on that. That they’re all touched by different climates and terrain. That you naturally choose part of that as a base class feature instead of just a subclass kind of like favored terrain but much better and more flavorful. I also like the idea of them potentially being the pet class, even though I know that isn’t everyone’s fantasy.
Keegan MBG
2024-08-21 20:11:36 +0000 UTCReally well said.
Keegan MBG
2024-08-21 20:09:36 +0000 UTCYou can do both HM and Divine Favor, I was actually just thinking about this earlier because that’s better than getting 1d10 on your HM.
Keegan MBG
2024-08-21 20:08:37 +0000 UTCFor me, Hunter's Mark is a perfectly good spell for the Hunter subclass (especially with the changes to spells, which aren't obvious at this stage), and a decent option for other subclasses. I just think that there are other things I might like to spend design budget on for other ranger concepts than the upgrades provided. Consider what they did with barbarian, Reckless Attack, and Brutal Strike vs Brutal Critical. Brutal Critical is the bland nothingburger, and feels sort of like what they did with the upgrades to Hunter's Mark — don't need concentration, buff damage die to a d10. People really didn't like it even if technically they are improvements. Then they ripped Brutal Critical out and replaced it with Brutal Strike. Brutal Strike sacrifices advantage from Reckless Attack to give you some thematic sparklies. Bam! Knock that guy 15 feet away, then charge after him! What's the DPR value? Uhh.. dunno. But it _feels_ good. Hunter's Mark's upgrades are the Brutal Critical of the ranger class. Technical improvements with no flavor. Removing concentration on Hunter's Mark sounds like a feature that Hunter subclass might have. Perfectly reasonable there. But for the Beastmaster or Fey Wanderer? It just clashes and feels like a waste. Another example might be how they played with Wild Shape in the druid class and subclasses.
Moxx
2024-08-21 18:13:27 +0000 UTCShortbow will do more damage than longbow unless you have something like Great Weapon Master boosting the longbow, as long as your base accuracy is below 75%. At 75% it's basically tied, and above that the longbow wins. Base accuracy includes things like the Archery fighting style, so if you have that you're more likely to lean towards the longbow.
Moxx
2024-08-21 18:08:55 +0000 UTCBut all the flavor powers sucked! Do you miss the old "favored enemy"? Do you want favored terrains with benefits interacting with rules that most tables gloss over?
Josh L
2024-08-21 17:18:59 +0000 UTCA extra attack maybe two if action surge with a d8 extra damage is great But it’s not just advantage on attacks it’s disadvantage to be attacked and if a caster relies on Darkvision they can’t target you with spells like Dominant Person there’s a lot of spells that require you to see the target And on top of all that probably a +2 or +3 on initiative Gloomstalker was by far the strongest in 2014
Robert Lavallee
2024-08-21 17:14:48 +0000 UTCSwift quiver is nice if you want your action to do other things, like casting big spells.
Manuel Kopp
2024-08-21 16:28:08 +0000 UTCHunter I would play and maybe fey wanderer and beast master
Jamien Ousey
2024-08-21 15:05:51 +0000 UTCI personally wouldn’t play this current version of it. Unless I was making a support scout.gloom stalker that is
Jamien Ousey
2024-08-21 15:04:51 +0000 UTCI think you are overselling gloomstalker a bit . It was good the first round I’m not saying it was bad but at higher levels that power evens out and advantage is no longer hard to come by . in 2014 a lot of dms wouldn’t grant surprise. I’ve always found Hunter to be stronger unless we are only playing lower levels
Jamien Ousey
2024-08-21 15:02:21 +0000 UTCFor Gloomstalker's perma-broken-invisibleness, what I've done is that I moved their invisibility thing with Shadowy Dodge, stating that whenever they use their Nature's Veil while in darkness or dim light, they don't expend a use of this feature.
The Fantastic Emporium
2024-08-21 13:59:00 +0000 UTCi'm wondering what talent did you take with your level4 ASI on your hunter? dual wielder seems very nice, but the bonus action attack may conflict with hunter's mark, while defensive duelist would be a nice reaction defense for a class that doesn't have a lot of durability. I'm rebuilding my ranger for 5.24 (level 8) and i can't decide if it would be better to take both feats, or one feat and a +2 dex, and even mage slayer is tempting
Riccardo Dossena
2024-08-21 12:46:21 +0000 UTCHow is that annoying? I've played plenty of rangers who used hunters mark and you just take the extra d6 damage on 1-2 enemies. I've never felt bad because I have to use a bonus action to move it around. Divine favor does a d4 damage instead of a d6 for that reason, because its better at multi target. In practice though Im just using one bonus action per turn. And Im happy for whatever extra damage I can get out of that bonus action. I never really felt constricted by hunters mark. It only felt like it was helping me. Rare are the times you need to keep moving it around multiple times a round and when that happens you just accept that its a first level spell with some limitations.
Crunkers
2024-08-21 05:21:45 +0000 UTCI really really love this ranger actually. It might be my first class I play since I loved rangers before and this fixed most of my complaints. I always felt like it was so painful to take hunters mark with one of the few spell choices. I love having free castings of it. Every other change I am completely on board with. I really really like it I am a huge fan as someone who has played multiple types of rangers.
Crunkers
2024-08-21 05:07:56 +0000 UTCHonestly, I think the only one that really bothers me is probably at a level I will very seldom end up playing at. I would really like to be able to use both swift quiver and hunter's mark at the same time...and the fact is they are both probably pretty close to each other in effectiveness (hunter's mark having advantage and the +1d6/10, swift quiver having the extra attacks) means swift quiver isn't all that useful in the first place. I like the idea of the ranger as the premier longbow user (for us bow lovers) and would just like these two spells to work together to create that high level fantasy. That just won't be possible here. And I think what bothers me about it is I don' t think the combo of the two would be overpowered. Even in the ideal situation (where you have hunter's mark on a target already and get to use swift quiver arrows multiple rounds in a row) it still probably doesn't compare to what full casters can do at that level...but it would feel really good for the ranged ranger. In most cases you would end up bouncing between bonus actions for the two spells, limiting it's effectiveness anyways. As it stands, one of the highest level spells of the ranger just becomes mostly a dead spell, not worth the spell slot. This isn't to say I won't have other options, but I just wanted a chance to really dig into that fantasy a bit more. I like distance weapons as a fantasy, and they're honestly just looking less effective with the new PHB. Still viable, but just weaker than the other possible options.
Sean Printz
2024-08-21 04:57:43 +0000 UTCPower increase doesnt mather as much when they absolutely striped all the flavor the class had post tashas and justified it with they got spells..... also Divine favor exists a 1d4 instead of 1d6 but its concentration free....
Arturs
2024-08-21 03:22:03 +0000 UTCLove the video. I see what you're saying about the concentration spells but the fact that divine favor got concentration taken away while hunter's mark has to keep it just feels awful. Even if it's "technically balanced" it doesn't feel balanced. I just want people to stop making fun of ranger, it's all anyone talks about with it
Terra Miller
2024-08-21 03:10:52 +0000 UTCThis is actually a great idea! It would definitely turn a blandish feeling spell into a much more iconic unique spell for the ranger.
ForemostGnat353
2024-08-21 02:42:47 +0000 UTCI actually feel like the dagger is better for maxing. Spells you can combine hail of thorns and lighting arrow with a thrown weapons where you can't with a scimitar. Then you can combine short sword and dagger with the piercer feat. To even out the lost dpr using a d4 instead of a d6.
Adam Gillis
2024-08-21 00:26:38 +0000 UTCScimitar with Nick and offhand Short Sword with Vex setting up your next attack if you hit seems the right combo for maxing?
Greg Smith
2024-08-21 00:17:15 +0000 UTCWouldn't ADV from potential Vex hits end up leading to more future hits and therefore more damage than a Slow with Longbow?
Greg Smith
2024-08-21 00:11:41 +0000 UTCIt definitely helps. 2014 martial meta required you to weaponize your BA to deal good damage most of the time. The changes made to weapons, feats, etc may actually make Hunter's Mark less painful with 2024 rules.
Teo
2024-08-20 22:35:36 +0000 UTCExactly. Mechanically it’s a perfectly good spell, it’s just not very interesting to use. I don’t think I’d say it “detracts” from the fantasy, since “marking your quarry” feels very appropriate for the ranger archetype, but it’s not implemented in a very exciting way.
TundraBoy
2024-08-20 20:39:58 +0000 UTCSo by generic do you mean that HM is fine, it just doesn't add anything interesting? I've been hearing that HM "takes away the class fantasy"
Treantmonk's Temple
2024-08-20 20:23:23 +0000 UTCYou are training specific weapons.
Treantmonk's Temple
2024-08-20 20:20:22 +0000 UTCI don't think so. Giving up the BA/Attack tells the beast what action to take on its turn, it doesn't magically gift the beast actions.
Treantmonk's Temple
2024-08-20 20:18:49 +0000 UTCSure. Your comparison treats the weapons as identical other than the weapon mastery. The Longbow has better damage and range. Of course, I'm not telling you not to use a shortbow if you prefer vex.
Treantmonk's Temple
2024-08-20 20:17:35 +0000 UTCWhat about the old Ranger allowed you to live out a class fantasy that was taken away?
Treantmonk's Temple
2024-08-20 20:15:33 +0000 UTCWouldn't making fewer Ranger spells use concentration and fewer Ranger activities requiring bonus actions be addressing those things?
Treantmonk's Temple
2024-08-20 20:13:43 +0000 UTCIn order to make Hunter's Mark feel a little better/thematic, I would have liked Hunter's Lore to have an additional bullet point that said "When you cast Hunter's Mark, you can choose acid, cold, fire etc as the damage type of the extra damage it deals". That would, in my opinion, enhance the flavor of the ranger as one that adapts to its prey in order to take it down. Also, this wouldn't make Hunter's Mark more powerful, except in the cases where it allowed you to target a vulnerability, but that seems fitting.
Simon Andreassen
2024-08-20 19:20:29 +0000 UTCThe reason people feel like hunter’s mark is not thematically appropriate for Rangers is because it’s very generic. An extra d6 per attack would be fantastic on any martial class, and the “tracking” flavor of hunter’s mark rarely comes up in gameplay. Compared to iconic abilities like smite and sneak attack, hunter’s mark just isn’t very exciting, and the extra features for it just mean players will be encouraged to use an unexciting spell.
TundraBoy
2024-08-20 18:47:27 +0000 UTCBased on the wording of each feature, I see nothing that prevents this.
Braden Young
2024-08-20 17:37:23 +0000 UTCYes, you choose the weapons. So you’re just unlocking the Weapon Mastery properties for the weapons you choose.
Braden Young
2024-08-20 17:34:17 +0000 UTCSo I caught this wording trying to turn a 5.0 Ranger character I've played into 5.24, but the wording is similar wherever a class gets a Weapon Mastery. Are you gaining the mastery of a specific WEAPON (Longbow-Slow) OR s specific MASTERY (Slow - applies whether you're using Longbow or Whip, for example)?? ============ Ranger Weapon Mastery Class feature: Your training with weapons allows you to use the mastery properties of two **kinds of weapons** of your choice with which you have proficiency, such as Longbows and Shortswords. Whenever you finish a Long Rest, you can change the **kinds of weapons** you chose..." ============ Weapons Definitions, Mastery Properties - Each weapon has a **mastery property,** which is usable only by a character who has a feature, such as Weapon Mastery, that **unlocks the property for the character.** The properties are defined below. ============ I know there probably isn't a ton of overlap in terms of weapons with the same property wanting to be used by the same character, but based on how I'd heard it discussed, I had been assuming that if you took the Slow property, you could use it with any Slow weapon with which you were proficient. RAW, it's looking like it may be locked to the specific weapon.
Holleyanne McDaniel
2024-08-20 17:14:17 +0000 UTCMark Rosewater, one of the lead designers of Magic: the Gathering, talks a lot about a design philosophy that essentially boils down to: it's better to have a feature that some players think is a 10/10 and some players think is a 2/10, than it is to have a feature that is universally a 7/10. In my opinion this is the problem with rangers. They're pretty decent at spells, pretty decent at weapons and damage, and pretty decent at skills. But there's no juice in there to make anybody go "wow!! I love that feature, 10/10"
Kenneth Finn
2024-08-20 14:36:07 +0000 UTCI hear a lot of people saying that they don't like the rangers identity being Hunters Mark. I haven't heard anyone say what they'd like the identity to be. Just curious? Any suggestions?
Thomas LeBoeuf
2024-08-20 14:30:19 +0000 UTCAs to why Hunter's Mark isn't thematic to the Ranger, Bob the Worldbuilder put a great video together on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfgYxnnKmRs
Ethan Sausville
2024-08-20 14:24:40 +0000 UTCI know that. But gain one every round because of the Nick mastery. Now this is only for melee gloomstalker, the ranged gloomstalker does lose out completely.
Adam Gillis
2024-08-20 14:23:05 +0000 UTCThey lost the extra attack in round 1 of combat.
Thomas LeBoeuf
2024-08-20 14:20:40 +0000 UTCCan you use beast strike four times at lvl 11 if you replace one of your attacks AND a bonus action?
CF
2024-08-20 14:04:27 +0000 UTCSo I have the new PH and have begun rebuilding my first 2014 Characters. Wood elf guide Ranger gives a conundrum- short bow with vex or long bow with slow. Vex gives ADV on next attack. I’ve leaned on gaining ADV throughout most 5e play. More damage is nice with Longbow, range as well, but pop a Longstrider onto my Wood elf and I’m not worried about going in and out of range, and the ADV with a shortbow and Hunter’s Mark seems like it can be an exponential effect (I’ve run tables of all cleric parties use Guiding Bolt in a chain like effect). Plus drop a Hail of Thorns nonconcentration once or twice as needed. TMonk, debunk the math on shortbow vs Longbow for this wood elf guide ranger 1st level?
Greg Smith
2024-08-20 13:58:54 +0000 UTCThe thing with the Ranger for me is that yes it may be better from a damage perspective, but the flavor is all off. Hunter's Mark being the core feature just feels bad thematically, though it may be good from a DPS perspective. But that's what is great about D&D, it isn't about DPS only, its also about RP, and the current Ranger just doesn't allow me or my players to live out their class fantasy.
Ethan Sausville
2024-08-20 13:19:47 +0000 UTCI will say this about the gloomstalker. Did it actually lose the additional attack. Or is that attack now just on every turn. Possibly 2 extra attacks on ever turn. Through nick and dual welder. Yes every other ranger gain this as well. But if you think about it that still have it is just on every turn now.
Adam Gillis
2024-08-20 10:04:04 +0000 UTCI have no doubts the class will be effective. I just don't like how they have tied so many (sub)class features to a clunky spell without addressing what makes the spell annoying, i.e. concentration and BAs
Teo
2024-08-20 09:13:25 +0000 UTCI think 1 level of monk is going to become really popular on rangers. It's a lot synergy without the usual downfall of overlapping features. Or a druid dip would also be super thematic and comes with the option to grab Shillelagh. Overall, the class seems to be in a great place, we just have to get over Hunter's Mark
EdibleFriend
2024-08-20 08:39:42 +0000 UTCI’ll take 2nd level spells over Tactical Shift or Fast Movement any day, but yeah it is a little weird Paladins got something.
Krakenbreath
2024-08-20 07:10:00 +0000 UTCMy biggest gripe is that Rangers are now the only class to not get a feature coinciding with Extra Attack at 5th level. Paladins also get something there
KillerKam211
2024-08-20 06:02:31 +0000 UTCTo answer your question about why we don't like Hunter's Mark. Imagine you spend the start of your turn to cast it. You attack. You get your boost from it. Turn ends. Then the barbarian comes along and smacks the creature and finishes it off. So now, it's your turn again. Bonus action spent to recast/move your mark. You hit the creature and maybe even get lucky and crit. It goes down. Now it's time for your second attack and you have no way to recast or move your mark again. You have to wait for your next turn and if you are dealing with a bunch of minions, you are constantly trying to move your mark around the entire combat as creatures fall. It's repetitive, annoying, and extremely feel-bad. Meanwhile everyone else is just doing stuff. They are mowing through hordes and you are picking targets over and over trying to "keep up".
Shad Gray
2024-08-20 05:30:49 +0000 UTCRogue is definitely worse than ranger.
Nathan Flynn
2024-08-20 05:21:15 +0000 UTCIt's way less restrictive now that it has ritual casting and the ability to swap a spell at long rests. It's better at adapting to new places and exploring than ever.
Nathan Flynn
2024-08-20 05:06:57 +0000 UTCIt DOES suck. It might deal more damage from an optimizer perspective, but it is restrictive and forces repetitive gameplay. It doesn't even give you the ability to choose the type of ranger you want to be and subjects you to casting a crap spell over and over and over and over and over and over and over and.... and if you don't, you are subpar. Now the worst class in the 2024 updates. Is it improved from 2014? Yes. Is it improved from Tasha's? Maybe. Is it enough? No. Not even close. You see what monk got. You see what druid and fighters and rogues got. And ranger just didn't improve enough to catch up. It took 2 steps forward and everyone else took 10.
Shad Gray
2024-08-20 05:05:13 +0000 UTC
