Fun Fact: In the D&D Next playtest, the ranger spell hail of thorns did not require concentration and functioned like divine smite in that you activate the spell on a hit.
I prefer the BG3 implementation as a pure AoE spell that has to target a creature.
Btw, I would not rule 7 damage for 1 spell slot, concentration and a bonus action as "solid" when the other half-caster get 9 for only the spell slot. Being at range only helps with concentration, when it is an option.
Of course you wouldn't, because you seem to be obsessed with the idea that concentration is impossible to maintain and will always immediately be interrupted; if you obsess over only the worst case scenario then of course you'll never consider the more common case of getting at least several turns out of it.
It's also not the only way for Rangers to boost damage; you've already named several alternatives, so why contradict yourself? Rangers have other spells, some that also require concentration (so are alternatives to Hunter's Mark) and some that don't. And many Ranger sub-classes boost a Ranger's damage output already.
Also, Divine Favor let's the pala do alright ranged damage. So does Bless, while also boosting allies.
Divine Favor does less damage, has a maximum duration of a minute, and both it and Bless require concentration which you seem determined means that they're both completely, unrelentingly, unfailingly terrible no matter what in every possible scenario because they're the wasted the moment there's a stiff breeze or someone farts in your general direction.
(to be clear, I love both spells, have both on a War Domain Cleric, but you're just straight up contradicting you own arguments here 😝)
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
When comparing paladins to rangers (if we must) we also have to take into account the damage product gained from a spell slot investment spent over an adventuring day. A paladin can unload huge amounts of damage in a couple of rounds using a lot of spell slot investment. A ranger can put out a lot of damage, equal over time (meaning how much damage is done by each class when seen over 3, 5, or more rounds of combat, several times a day), or exceeding that, of a paladin, as smite are not a very efficient use of spell slots for damage.
Of course that is more difficult and less sexy to calculate, theorize, and talk about, so it doesn't come up much. If you are the type of person that crunches your own numbers, try doing so over even 3 rounds of combat. Do so and you will see the paladin fall behind a little bit from the others, even the "pathetic" ranger.
Btw, I would not rule 7 damage for 1 spell slot, concentration and a bonus action as "solid" when the other half-caster get 9 for only the spell slot. Being at range only helps with concentration, when it is an option.
Of course you wouldn't, because you seem to be obsessed with the idea that concentration is impossible to maintain and will always immediately be interrupted; if you obsess over only the worst case scenario then of course you'll never consider the more common case of getting at least several turns out of it.
It's also not the only way for Rangers to boost damage; you've already named several alternatives, so why contradict yourself? Rangers have other spells, some that also require concentration (so are alternatives to Hunter's Mark) and some that don't. And many Ranger sub-classes boost a Ranger's damage output already.
Also, Divine Favor let's the pala do alright ranged damage. So does Bless, while also boosting allies.
Divine Favor does less damage, has a maximum duration of a minute, and both it and Bless require concentration which you seem determined means that they're both completely, unrelentingly, unfailingly terrible no matter what in every possible scenario because they're the wasted the moment there's a stiff breeze or someone farts in your general direction.
(to be clear, I love both spells, have both on a War Domain Cleric, but you're just straight up contradicting you own arguments here 😝)
How am I being obsessed by pointing out that requiring concentration and several additional attack rolls just to break even on top of a bonus action makes an ability less reliable an therefor just looking at avg dmg isn't a good indicator of how they compare in practical sitiations? I could just as easily say you're assuming the concentration won't be broken and count an unreasonably high avg accuracy because you seem to brush aside these sides of the Ranger spells completely.
It's not just that you can lose concentration, though not having con save proficiency baseline certainly doesn't help the Ranger, that affects this, but also that you have to keep rolling accuracy and that every miss postpones the moment you break even.
Concentration spells aren't inherently terrible, but they are going to be less reliable than the ones without it. Smite is great precisely because it is reliable. Bless is great because it buffs several people. And Divine Favor is alright. It's lower damage is compensated for by not requiring to be reapplied for every new target. Again, reliability.
What combat spells do rangers have that do not require concentration? I can think of three: Conjure Barrage (3rd lvl or lvl 9 Ranger), Conjure Volley and Steel Wind Strike (both 5th lvl or lvl 17 Ranger). Barrage* seems underwhelming at best and Volley* comes in too late. Steel Wind Strike seems alright. Both Barrage and Volley seem to do pretty underwhelming damage for their respective levels, but they might be alright.
*Btw am I the only one who get the impression these spells might be intended to do non-magical damage? Seems like a weird thing to specify non-magical weapons or ammunition and following it with the spell doing the dmg type of the item used.
When comparing paladins to rangers (if we must) we also have to take into account the damage product gained from a spell slot investment spent over an adventuring day. A paladin can unload huge amounts of damage in a couple of rounds using a lot of spell slot investment. A ranger can put out a lot of damage, equal over time (meaning how much damage is done by each class when seen over 3, 5, or more rounds of combat, several times a day), or exceeding that, of a paladin, as smite are not a very efficient use of spell slots for damage.
Of course that is more difficult and less sexy to calculate, theorize, and talk about, so it doesn't come up much. If you are the type of person that crunches your own numbers, try doing so over even 3 rounds of combat. Do so and you will see the paladin fall behind a little bit from the others, even the "pathetic" ranger.
I'm well aware of how dmg can run out over several rounds. However, when we're talking about abilities that have different degrees of reliability, simply comparing dmg isn't going to give a good picture.
It also doesn't account for situations where you don't have a need to hold back resources.
Most nominal rangers in media don't really evoke the stereotypical D&D ranger class. And that goes both for D&D characters and characters from other sources.
I know some people here really hate hearing this, but.... Japanese Isekai fantasy stories often have elven archers with spirit magic, which is pretty much a wood elf ranger with their druidic magic*.
Animism in general is far more accepted in East Asia than the USA (western culture tends to focus on pantheons or monotheism), which I suspect has a very strong influence on the appearance of druid and ranger characters in western media versus east Asian media. Like, take Japan again - even atheists there are familiar with the traditions and general beliefs of Shintoism, the native animism religion, which shares similarities D&D's druidic practices. The idea of spirit magic is just rooted in Japanese culture there in a way that American culture doesn't share.
So... yeah.
* Yes, druids can worship nature gods like nature clerics do too. But for the purpose of this discussion, I kind of want to focus on the druids that rely on animism, the land spirits, instead of pantheistic deities.
Of course you wouldn't, because you seem to be obsessed with the idea that concentration is impossible to maintain and will always immediately be interrupted; if you obsess over only the worst case scenario then of course you'll never consider the more common case of getting at least several turns out of it.
Okay, real talk for a moment. What's people's actual experience with Hunter's Mark - or Hex given the similarities - and how long it lasts until it drops? With both ranged and with melee? Now, the only time I tried playing a melee Ranger was when the game first came out, and I went Beastmaster with two weapons just to see how well it worked. So, I ended up not using Hunter's Mark, since the damage wasn't shared between beast and ranger.
As a ranged unit, I've found that we can usually avoid taking damage and provoking Concentration checks. Not only thanks to my personal ability, but just because, as a group, we tended to focus on eliminating enemy ranged units asap, since they tended to be deadly. That means that the group casters fell back to AoEs and the like. And the group front liners keep the melee units away from the ranged members of the party. Every once in a while, something gets through, but that's usually an AoE spell, which is a regular Dex save followed by a better-than-50% Concentration check.
But I don't have much experience as a melee unit trying to keep a hold of their Concentration spell. How does that work out? Is it actually a problem?
How am I being obsessed by pointing out that requiring concentration and several additional attack rolls just to break even on top of a bonus action makes an ability less reliable an therefor just looking at avg dmg isn't a good indicator of how they compare in practical sitiations? I could just as easily say you're assuming the concentration won't be broken and count an unreasonably high avg accuracy because you seem to brush aside these sides of the Ranger spells completely.
Because you don't seem interested in considering it beyond a single round, so you're breaking your own argument on "don't just compare average damage", because on average Hunter's Mark won't end before you use it or after only a single round, especially if you're doing everything you can to avoid taking damage. And again, this is on top of the bonus damage that most Ranger sub-classes already get.
You're obsessing over the notion of reliability while ignoring value; yes you can declare Divine Smite after you hit, but it's one and done, it has a maximum damage output of 3d8 at 1st level and that's it without using it again. You might declare Hunter's Mark in advance, but you can potentially benefit from it every single round for an hour. On that basis Hunter's Mark can potentially do an insane amount of damage (2-18 damage every round for 600 rounds) all for a single 1st level spell slot, but that's no more useful to consider than "cast it and lose concentration immediately", as both are extremes.
More realistically your average combat doesn't last even 10 rounds (many will only last five or six), depending how they're structured (obviously if more enemies come in waves a combat can last a long time, but that then favours Hunter's Mark). You can and should expect to get at least two or three rounds out of Hunter's Mark on average, as you usually will, which will outperform a single casting of Divine Smite at 1st level. Almost everything in D&D is semi-unreliable, and concentration is often the trade off for something that will do more total damage over time; sure you could roll nothing but 1's and the enemy could roll 20's, but in that same situation a Paladin doesn't get to use their Divine Smite at all; saving a slot isn't much consolation if you need to get those hits in now.
Ultimately the simple fact is that Paladins are not Rangers and vice versa; raining down sustained damage from afar or skirmishing in and out of combat is not the same as standing and nova bombing the toughest thing in the room, and they shouldn't be.
And Rangers have plenty of combat spells without concentration, the mistake is always assuming they must deal damage to be useful; Cure Wounds is rarely a bad choice, even if you're not the party's main healer, likewise Lesser Restoration. I'm a big fan of Snare for the scouting and setting traps niche, as restraining an enemy is far stronger than a bit of extra damage as it either eliminates them from the combat for a few rounds, or lets you rain attacks with advantage down on them. Cordon of Arrows is also an amusing one since it only takes an action to setup (so can potentially do so if there's a lull in a combat or an ideal opportunity), and you can set it up multiple times to fill a corridor with chip damage before an enemy even gets to you. Setting traps and ambushes is absolutely how you're intended to play a Ranger wherever possible, as the best attack is the one where an enemy can't hit you back at all (or even know you're there). Similarly Alarm is a good spell to have for preventing surprise, though the lack of ritual casting on Ranger is a WTF for this.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
In melee, against one opponent where their attacks might be split you can keep it up a couple of rounds, but against a multiple opponent its hard to keep up more than 2 rounds. Lets take a 5th level Ranger with a 14 Con and without resilient/warcaster. Con save is +2. The most normal concentration check is DC 10 so you need to roll an 8 or better to make it. Its really tough to make more than 3 rolls of 8 and better in a row. So lets say you make the first two. You likely have an AC of 18.
If you are fighting 3 opponents (and they refresh when you drop one for the first 3 rounds) you will get hit on roll of 14 or better. With 1 attack per round per creature you will get hit on average just under once per round. So it would last 2 rounds. If those creatures get advantage through pack tactics or similar ability HM might not last the first round. Its Ok if you are getting hit multiple times a round by enemies with pack tactics, then you will be close to dying in three rounds anyway at 5th level.
Warcaster at 4th level will help much more than Resilient. You probably can get a round or two extra that way.
Now if instead of melee you go with ranged, then you can keep it up for a while until the enemy closes. Unfortunately Ranged Ranger works much better than Melee for Hunter's Mark (and maybe in general). If the Ranger had an ability to strike and disengage like a rogue this would be different, and thematically that seems to be a missing piece in the early level Ranger.
Most classes can answer the question “What does your character do?” with a few answers. “I sneak attack and use skills.” “I smite and heal.” “I tank and do damage.” The ranger touches on all of these things. If you think the ranger’s abilities are situational, it’s not the class for you. That is what makes the ranger what it is and why it’s great.
Ranger's answer to the question "What does your character do?"
"I hunt monsters and explore the wild."
I don't disagree with you. However, I would emphasize that this is much more a thematic description than a good definition of how the Ranger is useful to the party.
Overall, I have mixed feelings about the variant Ranger in Tasha's. Not ecstatic about Favored Enemy, but I can see where it's useful for dual-wielders and Horizon Walkers. My biggest concern is the lack of any attempt to address concentration saves for melee Rangers. I would have preferred an option at 10th level: +5 to concentration saves OR the ability to go invisible for 1 round.
“Btw am I the only one who get the impression these spells might be intended to do non-magical damage? Seems like a weird thing to specify non-magical weapons or ammunition and following it with the spell doing the dmg type of the item used.”
JC has stated that damage from spells is magical. I believe the intent is to not get into the nitty gritty of add +1 damage, or something like it, to each creature in the AoE like conjure barrage.
How am I being obsessed by pointing out that requiring concentration and several additional attack rolls just to break even on top of a bonus action makes an ability less reliable an therefor just looking at avg dmg isn't a good indicator of how they compare in practical sitiations? I could just as easily say you're assuming the concentration won't be broken and count an unreasonably high avg accuracy because you seem to brush aside these sides of the Ranger spells completely.
Because you don't seem interested in considering it beyond a single round, so you're breaking your own argument on "don't just compare average damage", because on average Hunter's Mark won't end before you use it or after only a single round, especially if you're doing everything you can to avoid taking damage. And again, this is on top of the bonus damage that most Ranger sub-classes already get.
You're obsessing over the notion of reliability while ignoring value; yes you can declare Divine Smite after you hit, but it's one and done, it has a maximum damage output of 3d8 at 1st level and that's it without using it again. You might declare Hunter's Mark in advance, but you can potentially benefit from it every single round for an hour. On that basis Hunter's Mark can potentially do an insane amount of damage (2-18 damage every round for 600 rounds) all for a single 1st level spell slot, but that's no more useful to consider than "cast it and lose concentration immediately", as both are extremes.
More realistically your average combat doesn't last even 10 rounds (many will only last five or six), depending how they're structured (obviously if more enemies come in waves a combat can last a long time, but that then favours Hunter's Mark). You can and should expect to get at least two or three rounds out of Hunter's Mark on average, as you usually will, which will outperform a single casting of Divine Smite at 1st level. Almost everything in D&D is semi-unreliable, and concentration is often the trade off for something that will do more total damage over time; sure you could roll nothing but 1's and the enemy could roll 20's, but in that same situation a Paladin doesn't get to use their Divine Smite at all; saving a slot isn't much consolation if you need to get those hits in now.
Ultimately the simple fact is that Paladins are not Rangers and vice versa; raining down sustained damage from afar or skirmishing in and out of combat is not the same as standing and nova bombing the toughest thing in the room, and they shouldn't be.
And Rangers have plenty of combat spells without concentration, the mistake is always assuming they must deal damage to be useful; Cure Wounds is rarely a bad choice, even if you're not the party's main healer, likewise Lesser Restoration. I'm a big fan of Snare for the scouting and setting traps niche, as restraining an enemy is far stronger than a bit of extra damage as it either eliminates them from the combat for a few rounds, or lets you rain attacks with advantage down on them. Cordon of Arrows is also an amusing one since it only takes an action to setup (so can potentially do so if there's a lull in a combat or an ideal opportunity), and you can set it up multiple times to fill a corridor with chip damage before an enemy even gets to you. Setting traps and ambushes is absolutely how you're intended to play a Ranger wherever possible, as the best attack is the one where an enemy can't hit you back at all (or even know you're there). Similarly Alarm is a good spell to have for preventing surprise, though the lack of ritual casting on Ranger is a WTF for this.
Actually, "cast and lose it immediately" is a significantly more likely outcome than 600 rounds. Seeing as even 1 point of damage has a ~1/3 chance of knocking it down with 16 constitution, I wouldn't even call it extreme, because that's actually something you're going to see in your fights from time to time. And the harder the enemies, the more likely you are to lose it early.
I'm sorry if I've come across as hostile, I'm just trying to make a point about reliability and variance and how it relates to calculating average damage. I'm not attacking anyone in particular :)
The reason you shouldn't compare the average damage directly without looking at concentration, having to make follow up attacks and the bonus action cost of applying and reapplying it is because these are random elements that affect the average damage. You have to calculate the average number of turns you can expect something like Hunter's Mark to be up. the average chance of applying its effect each round, the average amount of attacks lost to reapplying it etc.
Furthermore, there is absolutely value in saving those spellslots if you can't land a hit, because Paladins have other spells to cast than just Smite. Like you point out, not everything must deal damage to be useful. Bless, Command and Shield of Faith stand out as useful options in that situation. On top of Lay on Hands and Auras, of course.
So let's do some simple variable checking prior to the math, which I am sure someone could improve upon with more specific examples. The game seems to be balanced around 60-70% attack accuracy and the likelyhood of concentration being knocked off under threshold seems to be about the same. Each trigger of HM gives ~3.5 damage on average, which will be rounded down by accuracy. It seems likely that HM will need to be reapplied at least 1 time during three turns from the enemy dying or fleeing.
T1: HM + 2 Attacks. Give or take 7x0.65 or ~4.5 damage. T2: 3 Attacks (if dual wielding). So 10.5x0.65 or ~6.9 damage. T3: Reapplying HM + 2 Attacks. Give or take 7x0.65 or ~4.5 damage again. Total: 15.9
A pretty decent outcome for spending a single 1st level spellslot, but we haven't calculated the rate at which concentration is broken, which will play into the damage. And this is where the math gets difficult, because how often someone takes damage in a fight is going to depend on a lot of factors, including how good the DM is (or allows the enemies to be) at responding to someone beginning to put out damage via concentration. Other factors include how difficult the enemy is and if they roll over threshold or not.
So how do we solve this? Once possibility would be to assume that, since we're not guaranteed to take damage every turn , but we're also somewhat likely to take damage above threshold from time to time (particularly in more difficult fights where the sustained damage would be more important), the the straight 7 or higher on the dice for threshold is roughly applicable. This would knock the average damage for a 1st spell slot on HM to ~11.3 or 2.3 damage above a single neutral Divine Smite.
This is a fair value and I don't remember contesting the damage of the Ranger as a flat value. But what I do know is this: The Ranger has to roll his dice to get this result many more times than the Paladin, making it much more subject to all the ~1/3 chances of things going wrong and also making the frontloaded cost of so many of its good abilities feel like a right kick in the face.
We also have to consider the upscaling part of Smite, because in a lot of fights, spending resources is just a given. Lay on Hands makes the situations where going all out more forgiving for Paladins than Rangers, seeing as their Healing Pool is a separate resource. A lot of Ranger spells just don't scale too well or at all. Zephyr Strike is awesome for a 1st level spell, but you're stuck with the 1st level variant, which can be somewhat underwhelming in some harder fights. This problem is emphazised by the Ranger not being a prepared caster, meaning that to upscale their spell damage, they must cut down on potential utility for damage spells to keep up, whereas Smite is a convenient catch-all if the Paladin is caught without relevant prepared spells.
I think a lot of player dissatisfaction comes from, and mine certainly does, these sort of interactions. That and the DM dependent nature of some of its abilities, which, again, was mostly fixed with Tasha's. Making the Ranger a prepared caster (like it used to be in earlier editions) would help. But, more than anything, I think giving the baseline Ranger class (at low levels) something to inflict damage where they can skip this constant dependancy your upcoming dice rolls would improve a lot of people's experience with the class.
I'll repost my "quick fix" so people can see it in this context. Also updated it a little bit.
Optional feature: Nature Strike (lvl 2)
When you hit an enemy with a weapon attack, you can spend one 1st level spellslot to deal 2d6 piercing damage and ensnare the target (str save against spell DC). Ensnared targets are restrained and take 1d6 damage at the beginning of their turn. Creatures can use their action to try to break free on their turn or cut the vines with a slashing weapon.
Creatures that are Large or larger have advantage on the saving throw.
Higher levels: Using higher level spell slots increases the ensnare damage by 1d6 per spell level. (Not initial damage)
Tracking and perception bonuses. Stealth bonuses. Abilities for surviving and moving in the wilderness, as well as with Nature checks to identify stuff. Unique bow spells that no one else gets (bards don't count). Every subclass also gets a damage boost of some kind as well, iirc, so that's worth noting.
So, hunting and exploring are not just thematic. They are hard baked into the class mechanics. Every ability that the core Ranger class gets is somehow tied to Natural Explorer (stealth + nature awareness), Favored Enemy (tracking + fighting) or druid-like spellcasting.
Ranger mechanics are directly tied to their theme. Granted, those mechanics were kinda crappy, but they very much exist.
"Monster hunter" can apply to almost any class, though. While "Explorer" is sort of backed up by mechanics, it's not specific as to the Ranger's utility when Druids, Bards, and Rogues can do a lot of "exploring" almost as well if they are built to those ends.
You're confusing monster killer with hunter. Hunting includes the search and pursuit (ie tracking, perception) as well as slaying. The Ranger gets numerous bonuses to the former as well as the latter. The only similar class would be the rogue.
Edit - don't forget that Ranger is a skill monkey like the Rogue and Bard. It's just that the Ranger has a nature focus on the skills.
Of course you wouldn't, because you seem to be obsessed with the idea that concentration is impossible to maintain and will always immediately be interrupted; if you obsess over only the worst case scenario then of course you'll never consider the more common case of getting at least several turns out of it.
Okay, real talk for a moment. What's people's actual experience with Hunter's Mark - or Hex given the similarities - and how long it lasts until it drops? With both ranged and with melee? Now, the only time I tried playing a melee Ranger was when the game first came out, and I went Beastmaster with two weapons just to see how well it worked. So, I ended up not using Hunter's Mark, since the damage wasn't shared between beast and ranger.
As a ranged unit, I've found that we can usually avoid taking damage and provoking Concentration checks. Not only thanks to my personal ability, but just because, as a group, we tended to focus on eliminating enemy ranged units asap, since they tended to be deadly. That means that the group casters fell back to AoEs and the like. And the group front liners keep the melee units away from the ranged members of the party. Every once in a while, something gets through, but that's usually an AoE spell, which is a regular Dex save followed by a better-than-50% Concentration check.
But I don't have much experience as a melee unit trying to keep a hold of their Concentration spell. How does that work out? Is it actually a problem?
Ok, read this link about MY experience with Hunter's Mark. The answer is "no, it isn't that easy on my table as yours".
There is the time it only last two round; there is the time it lasts until the combat end; and there is time where I don't even cast it because I most likely lose the connection within one round.
You're confusing monster killer with hunter. Hunting includes the search and pursuit (ie tracking, perception) as well as slaying. The Ranger gets numerous bonuses to the former as well as the latter. The only similar class would be the rogue.
Okay, that's fair. Tracking is certainly something the Ranger is more specifically suited for.
I think the identity crisis of the class is in part because of these themes, or rather, the ways that the developers chose to define them and how they should work in-game. Monster hunting and exploration don't require spell-casting. Spell casting may be useful, but not especially so unless your quarry are themselves capable of casting spells. However, none of the Ranger spells have anything specifically to do with fighting spellcasters. (No Counterspell or strong divination options, for instance.) And there isn't enough pop cultural precedent for Rangers as capable magic users since so many of the game references are inspired by Tolkien, whose Rangers used very little overt magic outside of magic items.
Warcaster at 4th level will help much more than Resilient. You probably can get a round or two extra that way.
Math time. Assume we have an even Con stat, so +1 Con doesn't change anything.
If we need to roll 16 or higher to maintain concentration or a 25% chance of success, having advantage (Warcaster) turns that into a 43.75% chance of success or roughly needing to roll 12 or higher. That means a proficiency bonus of +4 is just as good, so from 9th level on Resilient is as good or better. If we need to roll 11 or higher to maintain concentration or a 50% chance of success, having advantage (Warcaster) turns that into a 75% chance of success or needing to roll 6 or higher. That means a proficiency bonus of +5 is just as good, so from 13th level on Resilient is as good or better. If we need to roll 6 or higher to maintain concentration or a 75% chance of success, having advantage (Warcaster) turns that into a 93.75% chance of success or roughly needing to roll 2 or higher. That means a proficiency bonus of +4 is just as good, so from 9th level on Resilient is as good or better.
Now if our Con stat is uneven we only need a proficiency bonus one lower than the ones above to break even if we take Resilient, turning those levels into 5th/9th/5th, and we get a bunch more HP to deal with the damage that's causing these concentration checks in the first place.
So, at 4th level Warcaster will help more than Resilient in terms of concentration but I wouldn't necessarily say "much" more, and if you gain levels that eventually turns around. If you can increase your Con bonus with Resilient, that arguably makes it a much better proposition for a character that doesn't want to use spells for opportunity attacks.
Ok, read this link about MY experience with Hunter's Mark. The answer is "no, it isn't that easy on my table as yours".
There is the time it only last two round; there is the time it lasts until the combat end; and there is time where I don't even cast it because I most likely lose the connection within one round.
You're confusing monster killer with hunter. Hunting includes the search and pursuit (ie tracking, perception) as well as slaying. The Ranger gets numerous bonuses to the former as well as the latter. The only similar class would be the rogue.
Okay, that's fair. Tracking is certainly something the Ranger is more specifically suited for.
I think the identity crisis of the class is in part because of these themes, or rather, the ways that the developers chose to define them and how they should work in-game. Monster hunting and exploration don't require spell-casting. Spell casting may be useful, but not especially so unless your quarry are themselves capable of casting spells. However, none of the Ranger spells have anything specifically to do with fighting spellcasters. (No Counterspell or strong divination options, for instance.) And there isn't enough pop cultural precedent for Rangers as capable magic users since so many of the game references are inspired by Tolkien, whose Rangers used very little overt magic outside of magic items.
Hmmmm.....
Well, I generally understand where you're coming from, but I have different experiences. I think that Rangers simply cannot identify as rangers without magic in D&D. They tried it in 4e, and met with massive backlash. They had a survey with 5e playtest, and support for magic was strong. So, I feel like the part-druid is important part of the Ranger*
Based in the media I've seen with rangers (video games, web/amazon KU novels, anime) there seems to be an underlying magic-archer theme, along with wind-based fast movement and detection magic. So, i do think there's pop culture for it, but it's not exactly traditional inspiration material for many.
* I feel we kind of have "sword" and "sorcerer" pairings with the 12 classes. Cleric/pally is obvious, as is ranger/druid. I feel like fighter and wizard pair off, given the popularity of bladesinger/arcane archer/bladesinger that rely on each other's themes. Monk and sorcerer are two ways of looking at using innate and elementally aligned magics (dragon monk anyone?). Rogue and Bard both are trickster types, charming and illusion themes. That leaves barb and 'lock, which is kinda weak, though there is a biff of a link. Personal theory, ymmv.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I prefer the BG3 implementation as a pure AoE spell that has to target a creature.
Of course you wouldn't, because you seem to be obsessed with the idea that concentration is impossible to maintain and will always immediately be interrupted; if you obsess over only the worst case scenario then of course you'll never consider the more common case of getting at least several turns out of it.
It's also not the only way for Rangers to boost damage; you've already named several alternatives, so why contradict yourself? Rangers have other spells, some that also require concentration (so are alternatives to Hunter's Mark) and some that don't. And many Ranger sub-classes boost a Ranger's damage output already.
Divine Favor does less damage, has a maximum duration of a minute, and both it and Bless require concentration which you seem determined means that they're both completely, unrelentingly, unfailingly terrible no matter what in every possible scenario because they're the wasted the moment there's a stiff breeze or someone farts in your general direction.
(to be clear, I love both spells, have both on a War Domain Cleric, but you're just straight up contradicting you own arguments here 😝)
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
When comparing paladins to rangers (if we must) we also have to take into account the damage product gained from a spell slot investment spent over an adventuring day. A paladin can unload huge amounts of damage in a couple of rounds using a lot of spell slot investment. A ranger can put out a lot of damage, equal over time (meaning how much damage is done by each class when seen over 3, 5, or more rounds of combat, several times a day), or exceeding that, of a paladin, as smite are not a very efficient use of spell slots for damage.
Of course that is more difficult and less sexy to calculate, theorize, and talk about, so it doesn't come up much. If you are the type of person that crunches your own numbers, try doing so over even 3 rounds of combat. Do so and you will see the paladin fall behind a little bit from the others, even the "pathetic" ranger.
How am I being obsessed by pointing out that requiring concentration and several additional attack rolls just to break even on top of a bonus action makes an ability less reliable an therefor just looking at avg dmg isn't a good indicator of how they compare in practical sitiations? I could just as easily say you're assuming the concentration won't be broken and count an unreasonably high avg accuracy because you seem to brush aside these sides of the Ranger spells completely.
It's not just that you can lose concentration, though not having con save proficiency baseline certainly doesn't help the Ranger, that affects this, but also that you have to keep rolling accuracy and that every miss postpones the moment you break even.
Concentration spells aren't inherently terrible, but they are going to be less reliable than the ones without it. Smite is great precisely because it is reliable. Bless is great because it buffs several people. And Divine Favor is alright. It's lower damage is compensated for by not requiring to be reapplied for every new target. Again, reliability.
What combat spells do rangers have that do not require concentration? I can think of three: Conjure Barrage (3rd lvl or lvl 9 Ranger), Conjure Volley and Steel Wind Strike (both 5th lvl or lvl 17 Ranger). Barrage* seems underwhelming at best and Volley* comes in too late. Steel Wind Strike seems alright. Both Barrage and Volley seem to do pretty underwhelming damage for their respective levels, but they might be alright.
*Btw am I the only one who get the impression these spells might be intended to do non-magical damage? Seems like a weird thing to specify non-magical weapons or ammunition and following it with the spell doing the dmg type of the item used.
I'm well aware of how dmg can run out over several rounds. However, when we're talking about abilities that have different degrees of reliability, simply comparing dmg isn't going to give a good picture.
It also doesn't account for situations where you don't have a need to hold back resources.
I know some people here really hate hearing this, but.... Japanese Isekai fantasy stories often have elven archers with spirit magic, which is pretty much a wood elf ranger with their druidic magic*.
Animism in general is far more accepted in East Asia than the USA (western culture tends to focus on pantheons or monotheism), which I suspect has a very strong influence on the appearance of druid and ranger characters in western media versus east Asian media. Like, take Japan again - even atheists there are familiar with the traditions and general beliefs of Shintoism, the native animism religion, which shares similarities D&D's druidic practices. The idea of spirit magic is just rooted in Japanese culture there in a way that American culture doesn't share.
So... yeah.
* Yes, druids can worship nature gods like nature clerics do too. But for the purpose of this discussion, I kind of want to focus on the druids that rely on animism, the land spirits, instead of pantheistic deities.
Okay, real talk for a moment. What's people's actual experience with Hunter's Mark - or Hex given the similarities - and how long it lasts until it drops? With both ranged and with melee? Now, the only time I tried playing a melee Ranger was when the game first came out, and I went Beastmaster with two weapons just to see how well it worked. So, I ended up not using Hunter's Mark, since the damage wasn't shared between beast and ranger.
As a ranged unit, I've found that we can usually avoid taking damage and provoking Concentration checks. Not only thanks to my personal ability, but just because, as a group, we tended to focus on eliminating enemy ranged units asap, since they tended to be deadly. That means that the group casters fell back to AoEs and the like. And the group front liners keep the melee units away from the ranged members of the party. Every once in a while, something gets through, but that's usually an AoE spell, which is a regular Dex save followed by a better-than-50% Concentration check.
But I don't have much experience as a melee unit trying to keep a hold of their Concentration spell. How does that work out? Is it actually a problem?
Because you don't seem interested in considering it beyond a single round, so you're breaking your own argument on "don't just compare average damage", because on average Hunter's Mark won't end before you use it or after only a single round, especially if you're doing everything you can to avoid taking damage. And again, this is on top of the bonus damage that most Ranger sub-classes already get.
You're obsessing over the notion of reliability while ignoring value; yes you can declare Divine Smite after you hit, but it's one and done, it has a maximum damage output of 3d8 at 1st level and that's it without using it again. You might declare Hunter's Mark in advance, but you can potentially benefit from it every single round for an hour. On that basis Hunter's Mark can potentially do an insane amount of damage (2-18 damage every round for 600 rounds) all for a single 1st level spell slot, but that's no more useful to consider than "cast it and lose concentration immediately", as both are extremes.
More realistically your average combat doesn't last even 10 rounds (many will only last five or six), depending how they're structured (obviously if more enemies come in waves a combat can last a long time, but that then favours Hunter's Mark). You can and should expect to get at least two or three rounds out of Hunter's Mark on average, as you usually will, which will outperform a single casting of Divine Smite at 1st level. Almost everything in D&D is semi-unreliable, and concentration is often the trade off for something that will do more total damage over time; sure you could roll nothing but 1's and the enemy could roll 20's, but in that same situation a Paladin doesn't get to use their Divine Smite at all; saving a slot isn't much consolation if you need to get those hits in now.
Ultimately the simple fact is that Paladins are not Rangers and vice versa; raining down sustained damage from afar or skirmishing in and out of combat is not the same as standing and nova bombing the toughest thing in the room, and they shouldn't be.
And Rangers have plenty of combat spells without concentration, the mistake is always assuming they must deal damage to be useful; Cure Wounds is rarely a bad choice, even if you're not the party's main healer, likewise Lesser Restoration. I'm a big fan of Snare for the scouting and setting traps niche, as restraining an enemy is far stronger than a bit of extra damage as it either eliminates them from the combat for a few rounds, or lets you rain attacks with advantage down on them. Cordon of Arrows is also an amusing one since it only takes an action to setup (so can potentially do so if there's a lull in a combat or an ideal opportunity), and you can set it up multiple times to fill a corridor with chip damage before an enemy even gets to you. Setting traps and ambushes is absolutely how you're intended to play a Ranger wherever possible, as the best attack is the one where an enemy can't hit you back at all (or even know you're there). Similarly Alarm is a good spell to have for preventing surprise, though the lack of ritual casting on Ranger is a WTF for this.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
In melee, against one opponent where their attacks might be split you can keep it up a couple of rounds, but against a multiple opponent its hard to keep up more than 2 rounds. Lets take a 5th level Ranger with a 14 Con and without resilient/warcaster. Con save is +2. The most normal concentration check is DC 10 so you need to roll an 8 or better to make it. Its really tough to make more than 3 rolls of 8 and better in a row. So lets say you make the first two. You likely have an AC of 18.
If you are fighting 3 opponents (and they refresh when you drop one for the first 3 rounds) you will get hit on roll of 14 or better. With 1 attack per round per creature you will get hit on average just under once per round. So it would last 2 rounds. If those creatures get advantage through pack tactics or similar ability HM might not last the first round. Its Ok if you are getting hit multiple times a round by enemies with pack tactics, then you will be close to dying in three rounds anyway at 5th level.
Warcaster at 4th level will help much more than Resilient. You probably can get a round or two extra that way.
Now if instead of melee you go with ranged, then you can keep it up for a while until the enemy closes. Unfortunately Ranged Ranger works much better than Melee for Hunter's Mark (and maybe in general). If the Ranger had an ability to strike and disengage like a rogue this would be different, and thematically that seems to be a missing piece in the early level Ranger.
I don't disagree with you. However, I would emphasize that this is much more a thematic description than a good definition of how the Ranger is useful to the party.
Overall, I have mixed feelings about the variant Ranger in Tasha's. Not ecstatic about Favored Enemy, but I can see where it's useful for dual-wielders and Horizon Walkers. My biggest concern is the lack of any attempt to address concentration saves for melee Rangers. I would have preferred an option at 10th level: +5 to concentration saves OR the ability to go invisible for 1 round.
“Btw am I the only one who get the impression these spells might be intended to do non-magical damage? Seems like a weird thing to specify non-magical weapons or ammunition and following it with the spell doing the dmg type of the item used.”
JC has stated that damage from spells is magical. I believe the intent is to not get into the nitty gritty of add +1 damage, or something like it, to each creature in the AoE like conjure barrage.
A longbow/hunter’s mark ranger does 24 (1d8 + 1d6 + 4)*2 at level 5.
A two weapon fighting/colossus slayer hunter ranger does 27 ((1d6 + 4)*3 + 1d8) at level 5.
Actually, "cast and lose it immediately" is a significantly more likely outcome than 600 rounds. Seeing as even 1 point of damage has a ~1/3 chance of knocking it down with 16 constitution, I wouldn't even call it extreme, because that's actually something you're going to see in your fights from time to time. And the harder the enemies, the more likely you are to lose it early.
I'm sorry if I've come across as hostile, I'm just trying to make a point about reliability and variance and how it relates to calculating average damage. I'm not attacking anyone in particular :)
The reason you shouldn't compare the average damage directly without looking at concentration, having to make follow up attacks and the bonus action cost of applying and reapplying it is because these are random elements that affect the average damage. You have to calculate the average number of turns you can expect something like Hunter's Mark to be up. the average chance of applying its effect each round, the average amount of attacks lost to reapplying it etc.
Furthermore, there is absolutely value in saving those spellslots if you can't land a hit, because Paladins have other spells to cast than just Smite. Like you point out, not everything must deal damage to be useful. Bless, Command and Shield of Faith stand out as useful options in that situation. On top of Lay on Hands and Auras, of course.
So let's do some simple variable checking prior to the math, which I am sure someone could improve upon with more specific examples. The game seems to be balanced around 60-70% attack accuracy and the likelyhood of concentration being knocked off under threshold seems to be about the same. Each trigger of HM gives ~3.5 damage on average, which will be rounded down by accuracy. It seems likely that HM will need to be reapplied at least 1 time during three turns from the enemy dying or fleeing.
T1: HM + 2 Attacks.
Give or take 7x0.65 or ~4.5 damage.
T2: 3 Attacks (if dual wielding).
So 10.5x0.65 or ~6.9 damage.
T3: Reapplying HM + 2 Attacks.
Give or take 7x0.65 or ~4.5 damage again.
Total: 15.9
A pretty decent outcome for spending a single 1st level spellslot, but we haven't calculated the rate at which concentration is broken, which will play into the damage. And this is where the math gets difficult, because how often someone takes damage in a fight is going to depend on a lot of factors, including how good the DM is (or allows the enemies to be) at responding to someone beginning to put out damage via concentration. Other factors include how difficult the enemy is and if they roll over threshold or not.
So how do we solve this? Once possibility would be to assume that, since we're not guaranteed to take damage every turn , but we're also somewhat likely to take damage above threshold from time to time (particularly in more difficult fights where the sustained damage would be more important), the the straight 7 or higher on the dice for threshold is roughly applicable. This would knock the average damage for a 1st spell slot on HM to ~11.3 or 2.3 damage above a single neutral Divine Smite.
This is a fair value and I don't remember contesting the damage of the Ranger as a flat value. But what I do know is this: The Ranger has to roll his dice to get this result many more times than the Paladin, making it much more subject to all the ~1/3 chances of things going wrong and also making the frontloaded cost of so many of its good abilities feel like a right kick in the face.
We also have to consider the upscaling part of Smite, because in a lot of fights, spending resources is just a given. Lay on Hands makes the situations where going all out more forgiving for Paladins than Rangers, seeing as their Healing Pool is a separate resource. A lot of Ranger spells just don't scale too well or at all. Zephyr Strike is awesome for a 1st level spell, but you're stuck with the 1st level variant, which can be somewhat underwhelming in some harder fights. This problem is emphazised by the Ranger not being a prepared caster, meaning that to upscale their spell damage, they must cut down on potential utility for damage spells to keep up, whereas Smite is a convenient catch-all if the Paladin is caught without relevant prepared spells.
I think a lot of player dissatisfaction comes from, and mine certainly does, these sort of interactions. That and the DM dependent nature of some of its abilities, which, again, was mostly fixed with Tasha's. Making the Ranger a prepared caster (like it used to be in earlier editions) would help. But, more than anything, I think giving the baseline Ranger class (at low levels) something to inflict damage where they can skip this constant dependancy your upcoming dice rolls would improve a lot of people's experience with the class.
I'll repost my "quick fix" so people can see it in this context. Also updated it a little bit.
Optional feature: Nature Strike (lvl 2)
When you hit an enemy with a weapon attack, you can spend one 1st level spellslot to deal 2d6 piercing damage and ensnare the target (str save against spell DC). Ensnared targets are restrained and take 1d6 damage at the beginning of their turn. Creatures can use their action to try to break free on their turn or cut the vines with a slashing weapon.
Creatures that are Large or larger have advantage on the saving throw.
Higher levels: Using higher level spell slots increases the ensnare damage by 1d6 per spell level. (Not initial damage)
Tracking and perception bonuses. Stealth bonuses. Abilities for surviving and moving in the wilderness, as well as with Nature checks to identify stuff. Unique bow spells that no one else gets (bards don't count). Every subclass also gets a damage boost of some kind as well, iirc, so that's worth noting.
So, hunting and exploring are not just thematic. They are hard baked into the class mechanics. Every ability that the core Ranger class gets is somehow tied to Natural Explorer (stealth + nature awareness), Favored Enemy (tracking + fighting) or druid-like spellcasting.
Ranger mechanics are directly tied to their theme. Granted, those mechanics were kinda crappy, but they very much exist.
"Monster hunter" can apply to almost any class, though. While "Explorer" is sort of backed up by mechanics, it's not specific as to the Ranger's utility when Druids, Bards, and Rogues can do a lot of "exploring" almost as well if they are built to those ends.
You're confusing monster killer with hunter. Hunting includes the search and pursuit (ie tracking, perception) as well as slaying. The Ranger gets numerous bonuses to the former as well as the latter. The only similar class would be the rogue.
Edit - don't forget that Ranger is a skill monkey like the Rogue and Bard. It's just that the Ranger has a nature focus on the skills.
Ok, read this link about MY experience with Hunter's Mark. The answer is "no, it isn't that easy on my table as yours".
There is the time it only last two round; there is the time it lasts until the combat end; and there is time where I don't even cast it because I most likely lose the connection within one round.
Okay, that's fair. Tracking is certainly something the Ranger is more specifically suited for.
I think the identity crisis of the class is in part because of these themes, or rather, the ways that the developers chose to define them and how they should work in-game. Monster hunting and exploration don't require spell-casting. Spell casting may be useful, but not especially so unless your quarry are themselves capable of casting spells. However, none of the Ranger spells have anything specifically to do with fighting spellcasters. (No Counterspell or strong divination options, for instance.) And there isn't enough pop cultural precedent for Rangers as capable magic users since so many of the game references are inspired by Tolkien, whose Rangers used very little overt magic outside of magic items.
Math time. Assume we have an even Con stat, so +1 Con doesn't change anything.
If we need to roll 16 or higher to maintain concentration or a 25% chance of success, having advantage (Warcaster) turns that into a 43.75% chance of success or roughly needing to roll 12 or higher. That means a proficiency bonus of +4 is just as good, so from 9th level on Resilient is as good or better.
If we need to roll 11 or higher to maintain concentration or a 50% chance of success, having advantage (Warcaster) turns that into a 75% chance of success or needing to roll 6 or higher. That means a proficiency bonus of +5 is just as good, so from 13th level on Resilient is as good or better.
If we need to roll 6 or higher to maintain concentration or a 75% chance of success, having advantage (Warcaster) turns that into a 93.75% chance of success or roughly needing to roll 2 or higher. That means a proficiency bonus of +4 is just as good, so from 9th level on Resilient is as good or better.
Now if our Con stat is uneven we only need a proficiency bonus one lower than the ones above to break even if we take Resilient, turning those levels into 5th/9th/5th, and we get a bunch more HP to deal with the damage that's causing these concentration checks in the first place.
So, at 4th level Warcaster will help more than Resilient in terms of concentration but I wouldn't necessarily say "much" more, and if you gain levels that eventually turns around. If you can increase your Con bonus with Resilient, that arguably makes it a much better proposition for a character that doesn't want to use spells for opportunity attacks.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Cool. TY for link.
Hmmmm.....
Well, I generally understand where you're coming from, but I have different experiences. I think that Rangers simply cannot identify as rangers without magic in D&D. They tried it in 4e, and met with massive backlash. They had a survey with 5e playtest, and support for magic was strong. So, I feel like the part-druid is important part of the Ranger*
Based in the media I've seen with rangers (video games, web/amazon KU novels, anime) there seems to be an underlying magic-archer theme, along with wind-based fast movement and detection magic. So, i do think there's pop culture for it, but it's not exactly traditional inspiration material for many.
* I feel we kind of have "sword" and "sorcerer" pairings with the 12 classes. Cleric/pally is obvious, as is ranger/druid. I feel like fighter and wizard pair off, given the popularity of bladesinger/arcane archer/bladesinger that rely on each other's themes. Monk and sorcerer are two ways of looking at using innate and elementally aligned magics (dragon monk anyone?). Rogue and Bard both are trickster types, charming and illusion themes. That leaves barb and 'lock, which is kinda weak, though there is a biff of a link. Personal theory, ymmv.