- Goodberry is one of the most effective rest-cast spells thanks to their 24h duration and can nearly turn healing potions obsolete if used in the right way. Huge potential if your party has easy access to minion actions like Familiars, Unseen Servants, Tiny Servants and etc.
Sorry for later reaction...
But please, by this you meant using a familiar or a servant to carry a goodberry and potentially stabilize a downed ally? Cuz the way I understand RAW this should not be possible.
- Goodberry is one of the most effective rest-cast spells thanks to their 24h duration and can nearly turn healing potions obsolete if used in the right way. Huge potential if your party has easy access to minion actions like Familiars, Unseen Servants, Tiny Servants and etc.
Sorry for later reaction...
But please, by this you meant using a familiar or a servant to carry a goodberry and potentially stabilize a downed ally? Cuz the way I understand RAW this should not be possible.
RAI, like 99% of people roll with you can give an unconscious creature a goodberry to heal them. Technically by RAW, the spell says something like you can use an action to eat a goodberry, which does specifically give permission to feed to another creature. Jeremy Crawford is on record as it’s good to go feeding to another creature that is unconscious, and the alpha draft of the player’s handbook specifically said you could.
The using a familiar to do so is another thing altogether. It varies from DM to DM. For example, as a DM, I don’t allow familiars to do that, along with most other things other DMs allow. I also make them roll their own initiative, as the spell states, and use the help action mechanic correctly.
The using a familiar to do so is another thing altogether. It varies from DM to DM. For example, as a DM, I don’t allow familiars to do that, along with most other things other DMs allow. I also make them roll their own initiative, as the spell states, and use the help action mechanic correctly.
...the Find Familiar spells explicitly says they can take any action but Attack. Why wouldn't they be able to do that?
The using a familiar to do so is another thing altogether. It varies from DM to DM. For example, as a DM, I don’t allow familiars to do that, along with most other things other DMs allow. I also make them roll their own initiative, as the spell states, and use the help action mechanic correctly.
...the Find Familiar spells explicitly says they can take any action but Attack. Why wouldn't they be able to do that?
An ooze can take any action as well, but it wouldn't be able to feed someone a goodberry in my world. I could see maybe a ferret or rat. But certainly not an owl, spider, or snake.
The using a familiar to do so is another thing altogether. It varies from DM to DM. For example, as a DM, I don’t allow familiars to do that, along with most other things other DMs allow. I also make them roll their own initiative, as the spell states, and use the help action mechanic correctly.
...the Find Familiar spells explicitly says they can take any action but Attack. Why wouldn't they be able to do that?
An ooze can take any action as well, but it wouldn't be able to feed someone a goodberry in my world. I could see maybe a ferret or rat. But certainly not an owl, spider, or snake.
I think this is a bit off topic. There are other goodbery threads or you could start a new one.
The point was brought up Comparing Huntersmark to goodberry. The extra 2d6 (from just two attacks) could potentally "save more damage" than just one casting of goodberries. now, if allowed, bringing people up goodberry provides potential more than just 10 points of healing (due to over damage and funny healing mechanics) but Huntersmark also can save alot and potentially end alot of damage a few "actions" early because of its long duration and multi-combat potential. In the end, I think offence becomes the best defence in dnd combat.
The using a familiar to do so is another thing altogether. It varies from DM to DM. For example, as a DM, I don’t allow familiars to do that, along with most other things other DMs allow. I also make them roll their own initiative, as the spell states, and use the help action mechanic correctly.
...the Find Familiar spells explicitly says they can take any action but Attack. Why wouldn't they be able to do that?
An ooze can take any action as well, but it wouldn't be able to feed someone a goodberry in my world. I could see maybe a ferret or rat. But certainly not an owl, spider, or snake.
I genuinely cannot think of anything, familiar or otherwise, more suited to putting a goodberry down someone's throat than an ooze. I am so baffled right now. I'm not sure we live in the same universe.
But: @Roscoeiva point taken. I will bow out of that one.
As you say: damage done is damage saved. Kill something even one turn early and you "heal" the amount of damage they might have done.
My calculation with Mark ended up being about multi-classing. If I level 5 into Ranger, then go Rogue, I am 2-3 d6 behind in Sneak Attack. But I have 2 attacks. Hunter's mark alone brings be back 2d6. The extra attack gives me a d6+dex. Two attacks to land the Sneak make a difference. And I've got options up my sleeve if I think I want them: Pass Without Trace and Healing Spirit and yes, Goodberry are ready to go. I got +2 to hit with my shots. I personally got a free d6 per turn just from Swarmkeeper.
Hunter's Mark does work. It's part of the package, and with nothing else to help, just the second attack, it's worth about 4 levels of Rogue sneak attack (assuming you can spare the resources) with the added bonus of more options.
I genuinely cannot think of anything, familiar or otherwise, more suited to putting a goodberry down someone's throat than an ooze. I am so baffled right now. I'm not sure we live in the same universe.
My calculation with Mark ended up being about multi-classing. If I level 5 into Ranger, then go Rogue, I am 2-3 d6 behind in Sneak Attack. But I have 2 attacks. Hunter's mark alone brings be back 2d6. The extra attack gives me a d6+dex. Two attacks to land the Sneak make a difference. And I've got options up my sleeve if I think I want them: Pass Without Trace and Healing Spirit and yes, Goodberry are ready to go. I got +2 to hit with my shots. I personally got a free d6 per turn just from Swarmkeeper.
I think this is irrelevant to Hunters Mark though. The question is how would this character fair against one who used a different 1st-level bonus action spell (say ensnaring strike or wrathful smite).
Not well I think, especially when you consider cunning action.
Good thing hunter's mark is a spell choice and not a class feature so you can choose to NOT take it as a known spell when you multiclass in rogue. When you don't multiclass into rogue you can take hunter's mark and deal great single target damage on the cheap! Magic damage at that!
My calculation with Mark ended up being about multi-classing. If I level 5 into Ranger, then go Rogue, I am 2-3 d6 behind in Sneak Attack. But I have 2 attacks. Hunter's mark alone brings be back 2d6. The extra attack gives me a d6+dex. Two attacks to land the Sneak make a difference. And I've got options up my sleeve if I think I want them: Pass Without Trace and Healing Spirit and yes, Goodberry are ready to go. I got +2 to hit with my shots. I personally got a free d6 per turn just from Swarmkeeper.
I think this is irrelevant to Hunters Mark though. The question is how would this character fair against one who used a different 1st-level bonus action spell (say ensnaring strike or wrathful smite).
Not well I think, especially when you consider cunning action.
It depends on your DM, I guess? Those spells you mentioned will do a single d6 under most circumstances, and have a roughly 50% chance of something better.
Hunter's Mark lasts an hour. You get to use it attack after attack after attack. You only need to use the Bonus Action if your target died.
So if you get one fight per hour, and that one fight is really short, then sure. That's not most games I've ever played.
My calculation with Mark ended up being about multi-classing. If I level 5 into Ranger, then go Rogue, I am 2-3 d6 behind in Sneak Attack. But I have 2 attacks. Hunter's mark alone brings be back 2d6. The extra attack gives me a d6+dex. Two attacks to land the Sneak make a difference. And I've got options up my sleeve if I think I want them: Pass Without Trace and Healing Spirit and yes, Goodberry are ready to go. I got +2 to hit with my shots. I personally got a free d6 per turn just from Swarmkeeper.
I think this is irrelevant to Hunters Mark though. The question is how would this character fair against one who used a different 1st-level bonus action spell (say ensnaring strike or wrathful smite).
Not well I think, especially when you consider cunning action.
It depends on your DM, I guess? Those spells you mentioned will do a single d6 under most circumstances, and have a roughly 50% chance of something better.
Hunter's Mark lasts an hour. You get to use it attack after attack after attack. You only need to use the Bonus Action if your target died.
So if you get one fight per hour, and that one fight is really short, then sure. That's not most games I've ever played.
Ensnaring strike will usually last more than one round, and it does 1d6 every turn. You can hide and just watch and it still does damage. It gives you advantage on attacks (which makes Sneak attack easier), the creature has disadvantage and he can't move to attack you, which makes cunning action more effective. The creature needs to use an action to TRY to break free and finally it knocks most flying creatures out of the sky completely (dealing falling damage when it does).
Wratful smite only does 1d6, but it imposes frightened. This means aside from disadvantage on attacks and ability checks a creature can't advance on you. A Rogue with cunning action who lands WS on an enemy can attack him at will over and over for an entire minute, and ironically as long as the Rogue does NOT hide, the bad guy can't move any closer. The enemy needs to use an action to make a Wisdom CHECK (not save) to TRY to break free of it. Here is the kicker - since it is a check and not a save, he makes this wisdom check with DISADVANTAGE because he is frightened.
Hunters Mark lasts an hour or until you lose concentration, which on a Ranger is usually less than 1 battle. The others are concentration too, and they are 1 fight max, but they are more powerful up front and they make it less likely you will take damage.
There are times HM will work better, but I think usually either of these will be more powerful on a Rogue multiclass.
My calculation with Mark ended up being about multi-classing. If I level 5 into Ranger, then go Rogue, I am 2-3 d6 behind in Sneak Attack. But I have 2 attacks. Hunter's mark alone brings be back 2d6. The extra attack gives me a d6+dex. Two attacks to land the Sneak make a difference. And I've got options up my sleeve if I think I want them: Pass Without Trace and Healing Spirit and yes, Goodberry are ready to go. I got +2 to hit with my shots. I personally got a free d6 per turn just from Swarmkeeper.
I think this is irrelevant to Hunters Mark though. The question is how would this character fair against one who used a different 1st-level bonus action spell (say ensnaring strike or wrathful smite).
Not well I think, especially when you consider cunning action.
It depends on your DM, I guess? Those spells you mentioned will do a single d6 under most circumstances, and have a roughly 50% chance of something better.
Hunter's Mark lasts an hour. You get to use it attack after attack after attack. You only need to use the Bonus Action if your target died.
So if you get one fight per hour, and that one fight is really short, then sure. That's not most games I've ever played.
Ensnaring strike will usually last more than one round, and it does 1d6 every turn. You can hide and just watch and it still does damage. It gives you advantage on attacks (which makes Sneak attack easier), the creature has disadvantage and he can't move to attack you, which makes cunning action more effective. The creature needs to use an action to TRY to break free and finally it knocks most flying creatures out of the sky completely (dealing falling damage when it does).
Wratful smite only does 1d6, but it imposes frightened. This means aside from disadvantage on attacks and ability checks a creature can't advance on you. A Rogue with cunning action who lands WS on an enemy can attack him at will over and over for an entire minute, and ironically as long as the Rogue does NOT hide, the bad guy can't move any closer. The enemy needs to use an action to make a Wisdom CHECK (not save) to TRY to break free of it. Here is the kicker - since it is a check and not a save, he makes this wisdom check with DISADVANTAGE because he is frightened.
Hunters Mark lasts an hour or until you lose concentration, which on a Ranger is usually less than 1 battle. The others are concentration too, and they are 1 fight max, but they are more powerful up front and they make it less likely you will take damage.
There are times HM will work better, but I think usually either of these will be more powerful on a Rogue multiclass.
I don't want to over-state my case, other options are viable. Just keep in mind this is a discussion about whether Hunter's Mark is sub-par.
Ensnaring Strike is great because it bleeds off an action and might even bleed more than that - assuming they didn't make the initial save. Its the save that's the kicker for me. You say it's likely to work, and it is, but most targets worth shooting at will have maybe a 60% chance to fail the save. Call it 2 in 3 - and that's assuming it's not a large target. The chances of them failing both the first and second roll is about 1 in 3. I'll split the difference and call it an average of one turn per target.
That's 1d6 on average, and one action lost, and a turn of advantage for the party if they went between you and the target in initiative - plus whatever extra damage they managed to do in that half-round.
Over the same 2 turns, Hunter's Mark could have gotten 4d6 (minus misses). You then could have kept using it turn 3 and 4 and likely into the next fight. Casting it is, as I said, worth realistically 40 damage total. If you killed something a turn early, you saved the same round of combat Ensnaring did. It is way more reliable.
Sure, Ensnaring Strike is super cool, and the game is all about the super cool. Its a pretty terribe combat simulator. The best Ensnaring is going to be amazing, and people will cheer, and that is awesome. But in a discussion like this, I think it's fair to say Hunter's Mark is, at the very least, not sub-optimal.
Wrathful Smite is similar, but as a DM I pretty routinely send the monster out of line of sight where practical to make their second save - that's realistically what they'd do if frightened. I mean, that's part of what makes it great! It is an excellent spell when it works. But note well that it's melee-only, and I don't think a Mark caster is generally going to be looking for melee - those aren't really competing for the same slot.
(If you were thinking of Mark as a spell cast by melee rangers, then for sure, it's terrible).
In both cases, you have a fair point about concentration (though in my parties it's rare for a ranged class going out of its way to keep in cover and be a difficult target to lose concentration *most* fights, but YMMV), but surely that's easiiy matched by the 1 in 3 chance of the other spells doing exactly nothing.
One last point: if you're aiming for spells that don't force a save, you can ignore WIS and put more into DEX and CON. That's good for a lot of things, including concentration checks.
Again (again) I'm not saying they are not viable options. Only that Hunter's Mark is, too.
Again (again) I'm not saying they are not viable options. Only that Hunter's Mark is, too.
You make a good argument. I also appreciate Hunter's Mark for exactly what it is made for. No more, no less. If you want something else, just use something else.
I don't want to over-state my case, other options are viable. Just keep in mind this is a discussion about whether Hunter's Mark is sub-par.
Ensnaring Strike is great because it bleeds off an action and might even bleed more than that - assuming they didn't make the initial save. Its the save that's the kicker for me. You say it's likely to work, and it is, but most targets worth shooting at will have maybe a 60% chance to fail the save. Call it 2 in 3 - and that's assuming it's not a large target. The chances of them failing both the first and second roll is about 1 in 3. I'll split the difference and call it an average of one turn per target.
That's 1d6 on average, and one action lost, and a turn of advantage for the party if they went between you and the target in initiative - plus whatever extra damage they managed to do in that half-round.
Over the same 2 turns, Hunter's Mark could have gotten 4d6 (minus misses). You then could have kept using it turn 3 and 4 and likely into the next fight. Casting it is, as I said, worth realistically 40 damage total. If you killed something a turn early, you saved the same round of combat Ensnaring did. It is way more reliableSure, Ensnaring Strike is super cool, and the game is all about the super cool. Its a pretty terribe combat simulator. The best Ensnaring is going to be amazing, and people will cheer, and that is awesome. But in a discussion like this, I think it's fair to say Hunter's Mark is, at the very least, not sub-optimal.
The round of advantage is huge and if you are saying hunters Mark can do 4d6 in 2 turns then that means we are talking about someone with extra attack and in that case on Rogue multi-class ensnaring strike even has another edge because the restrained condition by itself will enable sneak attack on the second attack (in addition to giving advantage).
Wrathful Smite is similar, but as a DM I pretty routinely send the monster out of line of sight where practical to make their second save - that's realistically what they'd do if frightened. I mean, that's part of what makes it great! It is an excellent spell when it works. But note well that it's melee-only, and I don't think a Mark caster is generally going to be looking for melee - those aren't really competing for the same slot.
You have to move out of the fight and then move back into the fight and if you are engaged by someone else they can follow you (as can the Rogue staying at a distance out of reach). If they choose not to follow you, it is probably going to cost you 2-3 turns to leave the fight, save and return or more if you fail the save.
One last point: if you're aiming for spells that don't force a save, you can ignore WIS and put more into DEX and CON. That's good for a lot of things, including concentration checks
This is a valid point and if it is a 13 or 14 Wisdom Ranger-Rogue that would alter my logic quite a bit and make HM much more attractive.
Personally investing in Dex on such a character is strong reason to choose HM over the other two. In a point-buy game going with anything more than a 12 constitution is a waste on a Rogue or a Ranger but YMMV.
I don't want to over-state my case, other options are viable. Just keep in mind this is a discussion about whether Hunter's Mark is sub-par.
Ensnaring Strike is great because it bleeds off an action and might even bleed more than that - assuming they didn't make the initial save. Its the save that's the kicker for me. You say it's likely to work, and it is, but most targets worth shooting at will have maybe a 60% chance to fail the save. Call it 2 in 3 - and that's assuming it's not a large target. The chances of them failing both the first and second roll is about 1 in 3. I'll split the difference and call it an average of one turn per target.
That's 1d6 on average, and one action lost, and a turn of advantage for the party if they went between you and the target in initiative - plus whatever extra damage they managed to do in that half-round.
Over the same 2 turns, Hunter's Mark could have gotten 4d6 (minus misses). You then could have kept using it turn 3 and 4 and likely into the next fight. Casting it is, as I said, worth realistically 40 damage total. If you killed something a turn early, you saved the same round of combat Ensnaring did. It is way more reliableSure, Ensnaring Strike is super cool, and the game is all about the super cool. Its a pretty terribe combat simulator. The best Ensnaring is going to be amazing, and people will cheer, and that is awesome. But in a discussion like this, I think it's fair to say Hunter's Mark is, at the very least, not sub-optimal.
The round of advantage is huge and if you are saying hunters Mark can do 4d6 in 2 turns then that means we are talking about someone with extra attack and in that case on Rogue multi-class ensnaring strike even has another edge because the restrained condition by itself will enable sneak attack on the second attack (in addition to giving advantage).
Wrathful Smite is similar, but as a DM I pretty routinely send the monster out of line of sight where practical to make their second save - that's realistically what they'd do if frightened. I mean, that's part of what makes it great! It is an excellent spell when it works. But note well that it's melee-only, and I don't think a Mark caster is generally going to be looking for melee - those aren't really competing for the same slot.
You have to move out of the fight and then move back into the fight and if you are engaged by someone else they can follow you (as can the Rogue staying at a distance out of reach). If they choose not to follow you, it is probably going to cost you 2-3 turns to leave the fight, save and return or more if you fail the save.
One last point: if you're aiming for spells that don't force a save, you can ignore WIS and put more into DEX and CON. That's good for a lot of things, including concentration checks
This is a valid point and if it is a 13 or 14 Wisdom Ranger-Rogue that would alter my logic quite a bit and make HM much more attractive.
Personally investing in Dex on such a character is strong reason to choose HM over the other two. In a point-buy game going with anything more than a 12 constitution is a waste on a Rogue or a Ranger but YMMV.
Just so you know this is not a thread about rogues. the post right before yours was a reminder. this is about HM but you seem to be adding specific build choices that favor one over the other without taking into account opposite build choices.
Hunters mark under certain circumstances "may" be subpar but I would argue that is true for every core rules spell. at the same time HM excels at other situations. so it becomes average.
If this were about rogues, I would have to add all the reasons how a straight ranger is a better Rogue than rogue.
You're right RAW, but it seems something that's generally permitted. Sage Advice: https://www.sageadvice.eu/goodberry-on-dying-pc/
Why isn't it RAW? Familiars are allowed to take actions, just not attacks. Some of them would not have hands to do it, but others would.
RAI, like 99% of people roll with you can give an unconscious creature a goodberry to heal them. Technically by RAW, the spell says something like you can use an action to eat a goodberry, which does specifically give permission to feed to another creature. Jeremy Crawford is on record as it’s good to go feeding to another creature that is unconscious, and the alpha draft of the player’s handbook specifically said you could.
The using a familiar to do so is another thing altogether. It varies from DM to DM. For example, as a DM, I don’t allow familiars to do that, along with most other things other DMs allow. I also make them roll their own initiative, as the spell states, and use the help action mechanic correctly.
...the Find Familiar spells explicitly says they can take any action but Attack. Why wouldn't they be able to do that?
An ooze can take any action as well, but it wouldn't be able to feed someone a goodberry in my world. I could see maybe a ferret or rat. But certainly not an owl, spider, or snake.
I think this is a bit off topic. There are other goodbery threads or you could start a new one.
The point was brought up Comparing Huntersmark to goodberry. The extra 2d6 (from just two attacks) could potentally "save more damage" than just one casting of goodberries. now, if allowed, bringing people up goodberry provides potential more than just 10 points of healing (due to over damage and funny healing mechanics) but Huntersmark also can save alot and potentially end alot of damage a few "actions" early because of its long duration and multi-combat potential. In the end, I think offence becomes the best defence in dnd combat.
I genuinely cannot think of anything, familiar or otherwise, more suited to putting a goodberry down someone's throat than an ooze. I am so baffled right now. I'm not sure we live in the same universe.
But: @Roscoeiva point taken. I will bow out of that one.
As you say: damage done is damage saved. Kill something even one turn early and you "heal" the amount of damage they might have done.
My calculation with Mark ended up being about multi-classing. If I level 5 into Ranger, then go Rogue, I am 2-3 d6 behind in Sneak Attack. But I have 2 attacks. Hunter's mark alone brings be back 2d6. The extra attack gives me a d6+dex. Two attacks to land the Sneak make a difference. And I've got options up my sleeve if I think I want them: Pass Without Trace and Healing Spirit and yes, Goodberry are ready to go. I got +2 to hit with my shots. I personally got a free d6 per turn just from Swarmkeeper.
Hunter's Mark does work. It's part of the package, and with nothing else to help, just the second attack, it's worth about 4 levels of Rogue sneak attack (assuming you can spare the resources) with the added bonus of more options.
Unseen servant maybe :)
I think this is irrelevant to Hunters Mark though. The question is how would this character fair against one who used a different 1st-level bonus action spell (say ensnaring strike or wrathful smite).
Not well I think, especially when you consider cunning action.
Good thing hunter's mark is a spell choice and not a class feature so you can choose to NOT take it as a known spell when you multiclass in rogue. When you don't multiclass into rogue you can take hunter's mark and deal great single target damage on the cheap! Magic damage at that!
It depends on your DM, I guess? Those spells you mentioned will do a single d6 under most circumstances, and have a roughly 50% chance of something better.
Hunter's Mark lasts an hour. You get to use it attack after attack after attack. You only need to use the Bonus Action if your target died.
So if you get one fight per hour, and that one fight is really short, then sure. That's not most games I've ever played.
Ensnaring strike will usually last more than one round, and it does 1d6 every turn. You can hide and just watch and it still does damage. It gives you advantage on attacks (which makes Sneak attack easier), the creature has disadvantage and he can't move to attack you, which makes cunning action more effective. The creature needs to use an action to TRY to break free and finally it knocks most flying creatures out of the sky completely (dealing falling damage when it does).
Wratful smite only does 1d6, but it imposes frightened. This means aside from disadvantage on attacks and ability checks a creature can't advance on you. A Rogue with cunning action who lands WS on an enemy can attack him at will over and over for an entire minute, and ironically as long as the Rogue does NOT hide, the bad guy can't move any closer. The enemy needs to use an action to make a Wisdom CHECK (not save) to TRY to break free of it. Here is the kicker - since it is a check and not a save, he makes this wisdom check with DISADVANTAGE because he is frightened.
Hunters Mark lasts an hour or until you lose concentration, which on a Ranger is usually less than 1 battle. The others are concentration too, and they are 1 fight max, but they are more powerful up front and they make it less likely you will take damage.
There are times HM will work better, but I think usually either of these will be more powerful on a Rogue multiclass.
I don't want to over-state my case, other options are viable. Just keep in mind this is a discussion about whether Hunter's Mark is sub-par.
Ensnaring Strike is great because it bleeds off an action and might even bleed more than that - assuming they didn't make the initial save. Its the save that's the kicker for me. You say it's likely to work, and it is, but most targets worth shooting at will have maybe a 60% chance to fail the save. Call it 2 in 3 - and that's assuming it's not a large target. The chances of them failing both the first and second roll is about 1 in 3. I'll split the difference and call it an average of one turn per target.
That's 1d6 on average, and one action lost, and a turn of advantage for the party if they went between you and the target in initiative - plus whatever extra damage they managed to do in that half-round.
Over the same 2 turns, Hunter's Mark could have gotten 4d6 (minus misses). You then could have kept using it turn 3 and 4 and likely into the next fight. Casting it is, as I said, worth realistically 40 damage total. If you killed something a turn early, you saved the same round of combat Ensnaring did. It is way more reliable.
Sure, Ensnaring Strike is super cool, and the game is all about the super cool. Its a pretty terribe combat simulator. The best Ensnaring is going to be amazing, and people will cheer, and that is awesome. But in a discussion like this, I think it's fair to say Hunter's Mark is, at the very least, not sub-optimal.
Wrathful Smite is similar, but as a DM I pretty routinely send the monster out of line of sight where practical to make their second save - that's realistically what they'd do if frightened. I mean, that's part of what makes it great! It is an excellent spell when it works. But note well that it's melee-only, and I don't think a Mark caster is generally going to be looking for melee - those aren't really competing for the same slot.
(If you were thinking of Mark as a spell cast by melee rangers, then for sure, it's terrible).
In both cases, you have a fair point about concentration (though in my parties it's rare for a ranged class going out of its way to keep in cover and be a difficult target to lose concentration *most* fights, but YMMV), but surely that's easiiy matched by the 1 in 3 chance of the other spells doing exactly nothing.
One last point: if you're aiming for spells that don't force a save, you can ignore WIS and put more into DEX and CON. That's good for a lot of things, including concentration checks.
Again (again) I'm not saying they are not viable options. Only that Hunter's Mark is, too.
You make a good argument. I also appreciate Hunter's Mark for exactly what it is made for. No more, no less. If you want something else, just use something else.
The round of advantage is huge and if you are saying hunters Mark can do 4d6 in 2 turns then that means we are talking about someone with extra attack and in that case on Rogue multi-class ensnaring strike even has another edge because the restrained condition by itself will enable sneak attack on the second attack (in addition to giving advantage).
You have to move out of the fight and then move back into the fight and if you are engaged by someone else they can follow you (as can the Rogue staying at a distance out of reach). If they choose not to follow you, it is probably going to cost you 2-3 turns to leave the fight, save and return or more if you fail the save.
This is a valid point and if it is a 13 or 14 Wisdom Ranger-Rogue that would alter my logic quite a bit and make HM much more attractive.
Personally investing in Dex on such a character is strong reason to choose HM over the other two. In a point-buy game going with anything more than a 12 constitution is a waste on a Rogue or a Ranger but YMMV.
Just so you know this is not a thread about rogues. the post right before yours was a reminder. this is about HM but you seem to be adding specific build choices that favor one over the other without taking into account opposite build choices.
Hunters mark under certain circumstances "may" be subpar but I would argue that is true for every core rules spell. at the same time HM excels at other situations. so it becomes average.
If this were about rogues, I would have to add all the reasons how a straight ranger is a better Rogue than rogue.