What do you all think about the 2024 Ranger so far?

For me, the issue with Hunter's Mark remains concentration. My Rangers are much more fun to play if I generally ignore Hunter's Mark and instead use the other spells that require my concentration that are much more tactically interesting. So many spells on the Ranger list require concentration!

That said, being able to cast HM for free means it's something I can use after I burn through my other spell slots.

Quote from FoolishMortal18588 >>

For me, the issue with Hunter's Mark remains concentration. My Rangers are much more fun to play if I generally ignore Hunter's Mark and instead use the other spells that require my concentration that are much more tactically interesting. So many spells on the Ranger list require concentration!

That said, being able to cast HM for free means it's something I can use after I burn through my other spell slots.

Of course! And there aren't that many concentration spells you would want solely for single target weapon damage anyway, so there's actually not that much direct competition for Hunter's Mark. Elemental Weapon would be about one of the only ones.

Which again hits home that the design of the base class is the issue. The Level 13 and 17 improvements should have been baked into the Level 1 Favored Enemy much like how in Tasha's Ranger, Roving and 9th level Expertises were part of Deft Explorer at Level 2, and there should have been a more generally applicable ability for Level 13 and 17 for the class.

Quote from Kithanias >>

Which again hits home that the design of the base class is the issue. The Level 13 and 17 improvements should have been baked into the Level 1 Favored Enemy much like how in Tasha's Ranger, Roving and 9th level Expertises were part of Deft Explorer at Level 2, and there should have been a more generally applicable ability for Level 13 and 17 for the class.

I suppose? I mean that's all a big hypothetical and I can't say much about what might be. What I can say is that Ranger plays pretty great in an actual game.

A class feature is only wasted if it's not used when appropriate for the situation and Hunter's Mark is not appropriate for all situations. When you want cheap and easy single target damage enhancement for your attacks, use Hunter's Mark. In other situations, use other tools. Trying to make HM the solution to every problem is silly. I've used Hunter's Mark on my Beast Master all of twice and I don't feel bad about it at all.

It's a feature that compels you to use a specific spell as much as possible. You're forced into a choice of using the spell or not benefitting from the feature. Futhermore, Hunter's Mark is not a spell that continues to be an effective choice in higher tiers of the game. These issues all come together to present a problem.

Let's take Divine Smite as a counter example. This is a spell. It's actually provided as a class feature. However, it doesn't block the Paladin from other options (because it only consumes one bonus action and does not occupy concentration), and it scale spectacularly as the game progresses. Smites are the thematic feature of Paladins. What's the thematic feature of Rangers? Are they Druidic Paladins? Are they just fighters with weaker druid spells? Rangers have no clear theme and the contrivance of Hunter's Mark just makes it worse. It's almost as if they tried to make the Ranger's HM the analog of Divine Smite, but worse in every way.

Quote from Greevar >>

A class feature is only wasted if it's not used when appropriate for the situation and Hunter's Mark is not appropriate for all situations. When you want cheap and easy single target damage enhancement for your attacks, use Hunter's Mark. In other situations, use other tools. Trying to make HM the solution to every problem is silly. I've used Hunter's Mark on my Beast Master all of twice and I don't feel bad about it at all.

 

It's a feature that compels you to use a specific spell as much as possible.

No, it doesn't. This is a fallacy. I'm currently playing a 2024 Beast Master and I have felt no such compulsion. I have cast Hunter's Mark all of twice, and not felt like I'm missing out on anything. It's useful when it's useful, and it's not when it's not.

Quote from Greevar >>

What's the thematic feature of Rangers? Are they Druidic Paladins? Are they just fighters with weaker druid spells? Rangers have no clear theme and the contrivance of Hunter's Mark just makes it worse. It's almost as if they tried to make the Ranger's HM the analog of Divine Smite, but worse in every way.

I think rangers have a perfectly clear theme. They are the primal magic wielding martials of the Expert Class. If you understand what those terms mean, that should give you a pretty clear idea of what you get with the ranger. 

No one says that Hunter's Mark is a perfect analog to Divine Smite and I am not exactly sure why you think it should be. DS is nova damage that you pay for per use and probably only use once or twice per fight for anyone being at all judicious with their spell slots. Likely only when a crit happens (5% of the time) or when the paladin is bored and can't help themselves (an argument exists here that paladins are punished for using and not using DS, depending on your philosophical bent). HM essentially a DoT that you only pay for only once or twice in a fight.

They are wildly different kinds of spells that should be used in different ways at different times.

Quote from Erik_Soong >>

Quote from Greevar >>

What's the thematic feature of Rangers? Are they Druidic Paladins? Are they just fighters with weaker druid spells? Rangers have no clear theme and the contrivance of Hunter's Mark just makes it worse. It's almost as if they tried to make the Ranger's HM the analog of Divine Smite, but worse in every way.

I think rangers have a perfectly clear theme. They are the primal magic wielding martials of the Expert Class. If you understand what those terms mean, that should give you a pretty clear idea of what you get with the ranger. 

No one says that Hunter's Mark is a perfect analog to Divine Smite and I am not exactly sure why you think it should be. DS is nova damage that you pay for per use and probably only use once or twice per fight for anyone being at all judicious with their spell slots. Likely only when a crit happens (5% of the time) or when the paladin is bored and can't help themselves (an argument exists here that paladins are punished for using and not using DS, depending on your philosophical bent). HM essentially a DoT that you only pay for only once or twice in a fight.

They are wildly different kinds of spells that should be used in different ways at different times.

I have to disagree that you only pay for HM once or twice in a fight. It takes up your bonus action in an already bonus action heavy class. It takes up your concentration. It displaces other spells in any given moment. It's tied to a class feature that is basically dead if you don't use HM. No other class shoe-horns you into using a specific spell, not even the Paladin.

I also disagree that Rangers have a theme. You could roughly approximate an imperfect copy of the Ranger by multiclassing a Fighter and a Druid. There is nothing truly unique about the DnD Ranger (despite how much I love the idea of a Ranger). The Paladin smites and follows their oath. The Fighter is a master of weaponry and tactics. The Barbarian rages and uses brute force. The Monk is an unarmed martial artist. The Rogue is a stealth and skill expert. Sorcerers are masters of combat magic. Wizards are magic experts who study the very essence of the weave. Druids are masters of primal magics and defend the balance of nature. Clerics are divine instruments of their god's will. Warlocks are eldritch instruments of their patron's will, bound by a contract. Rangers are a jack of all trades between primal magics, weapons, tactics, and skills? No, Rangers are experts of survival and serve as the bridge between civilization and the wild. They are guides, explorers, wardens, and hunters. They are the class that lives off the land and should have the capacity to make use of nature to provide what the party needs to reduce resource expenditure.

Quote from Ophidimancer >>

Quote from Greevar >>

A class feature is only wasted if it's not used when appropriate for the situation and Hunter's Mark is not appropriate for all situations. When you want cheap and easy single target damage enhancement for your attacks, use Hunter's Mark. In other situations, use other tools. Trying to make HM the solution to every problem is silly. I've used Hunter's Mark on my Beast Master all of twice and I don't feel bad about it at all.

 

It's a feature that compels you to use a specific spell as much as possible.

No, it doesn't. This is a fallacy. I'm currently playing a 2024 Beast Master and I have felt no such compulsion. I have cast Hunter's Mark all of twice, and not felt like I'm missing out on anything. It's useful when it's useful, and it's not when it's not.

Then it doesn't need to be a class feature. Hunter's Mark doesn't need to take up a class feature. It's already a spell you can choose to use or not. The problem is that a class feature that doesn't need to exist could have been a different class feature not tied to a spell. It could have been a class feature about survival (e.g. triage, foraging, hunting, tracking, etc). It could have been a feature that gives the Ranger a tool proficiency and adds more utility to that tool. The Ranger could be the go-to class for healing potions and anti-toxins. The point is, there are numerous possible class features relevant to surviving hostile environments that could have been a part of the Ranger than some extra uses of a spell that keeps getting weaker as the game progresses.

Irrelevant to the thread but i disagree with your take on the warlock, they are not instruments of their patron. But more thread related if rangers were what you suggest it would be insanely niche and low level. resources to get by are cheap and easy to come by. I kind of get your point a paladin is sort of a cleric/fighter hybrid, but the oaths at least give them some kind of roleplaying niche past that and they have some potent unique abilities.  Rangers don't really have that, fighter/druid covers their theme pretty well. Maybe if they had blended them with barbarian giving them a variant rage where they could cast/concentrate spells with they would have a bit if a niche. Something like natures focus usable 2 times a day, while active you take 5 less damage from all sources, you have advantage to maintain spells and all ranger spells are cast at one spell level higher than the slot used. 

Combatwise, Rangers should have something that allows them to 1) improve critical chances against selected foes, and possibly at high level have a % chance of instant-kill 2) have the ability to allow their party members to exploit  weaknesses either already present in their foes or to exploit weakenesses the Ranger can create.

Quote from Greevar >>

 

I have to disagree that you only pay for HM once or twice in a fight. It takes up your bonus action in an already bonus action heavy class. It takes up your concentration. It displaces other spells in any given moment. It's tied to a class feature that is basically dead if you don't use HM. No other class shoe-horns you into using a specific spell, not even the Paladin.

I also disagree that Rangers have a theme. You could roughly approximate an imperfect copy of the Ranger by multiclassing a Fighter and a Druid. There is nothing truly unique about the DnD Ranger (despite how much I love the idea of a Ranger). The Paladin smites and follows their oath. The Fighter is a master of weaponry and tactics. The Barbarian rages and uses brute force. The Monk is an unarmed martial artist. The Rogue is a stealth and skill expert. Sorcerers are masters of combat magic. Wizards are magic experts who study the very essence of the weave. Druids are masters of primal magics and defend the balance of nature. Clerics are divine instruments of their god's will. Warlocks are eldritch instruments of their patron's will, bound by a contract. Rangers are a jack of all trades between primal magics, weapons, tactics, and skills? No, Rangers are experts of survival and serve as the bridge between civilization and the wild. They are guides, explorers, wardens, and hunters. They are the class that lives off the land and should have the capacity to make use of nature to provide what the party needs to reduce resource expenditure.

 HM costs the BA once and you can drop it if you need your concentration for something else. In terms of BA, it displaces spells exactly the same as DS does. 

HM is tied to late game class features that reward you for using them. Since when is virtually always having advantage a bad thing? They give you enough free uses of HM that you can swing between it and whatever other concentration spell when factors in combat change enough to justify it. 

Yes, I agree that paladin gives you DS and then offers no supportive features for it beyond that.

I just explained the theme. You can roughly approximate an imperfect copy of the barbarian by taking fighter monk, or fighter rogue depending on what features you want to emphasize. You can roughly approximate an imperfect copy of a paladin with a fighter dipping cleric. By that metric, there are no themes that are class exclusive. Rangers are masters of stealth and skill experts too, so I guess rogues are without a theme? 

You say rangers do not have a theme, then undermine your own position by describing all the thematic elements of a ranger that is mechanically supported in the class. Rangers are the primal magic wielding martials of the Expert Class. That is the theme just said in a different way. HM compliments that fine but the ranger is perfectly functional without it as others have already said with their own play experience. 

Quote from Greevar >>

Quote from Ophidimancer >>

Quote from Greevar >>

A class feature is only wasted if it's not used when appropriate for the situation and Hunter's Mark is not appropriate for all situations. When you want cheap and easy single target damage enhancement for your attacks, use Hunter's Mark. In other situations, use other tools. Trying to make HM the solution to every problem is silly. I've used Hunter's Mark on my Beast Master all of twice and I don't feel bad about it at all.

 

It's a feature that compels you to use a specific spell as much as possible.

No, it doesn't. This is a fallacy. I'm currently playing a 2024 Beast Master and I have felt no such compulsion. I have cast Hunter's Mark all of twice, and not felt like I'm missing out on anything. It's useful when it's useful, and it's not when it's not.

Then it doesn't need to be a class feature. Hunter's Mark doesn't need to take up a class feature.

Sure? I guess not, but those free uses are actually useful especially at early levels when Hunter's Mark is actually also useful and you don't have a lot of spell slots to go around. I think it's perfectly fine at level 1 through almost to level 9. As a class feature it works pretty well, but it's not a tool for every situation, and it's not meant to be.

Quote from Greevar >>

It's already a spell you can choose to use or not. The problem is that a class feature that doesn't need to exist could have been a different class feature not tied to a spell. It could have been a class feature about survival (e.g. triage, foraging, hunting, tracking, etc). It could have been a feature that gives the Ranger a tool proficiency and adds more utility to that tool. The Ranger could be the go-to class for healing potions and anti-toxins. The point is, there are numerous possible class features relevant to surviving hostile environments that could have been a part of the Ranger than some extra uses of a spell that keeps getting weaker as the game progresses.

Again, sure? It could have been a lot of things. But that's all hypothetical and so I can't say much about it. What I can say is that in actual play Rangers have a lot of useful tools that serve to make them expert navigators, trackers, foragers, or a host of other things they put their minds to. They do not lack Utility tools and being able to keep free castings of a simple, cheap, damage enhancer in their back pocket allows them to save their spell slots for those tools.

Quote from Kithanias >>

Combatwise, Rangers should have something that allows them to 1) improve critical chances against selected foes

Yeah! That would be great! Maybe something that gives them Advantage against one specially targeted enemy, thereby roughly doubling their critical hit chance, maybe? Something like the level 17 feature?

Quote from Kithanias >>

possibly at high level have a % chance of instant-kill

That would be a terrible idea.

Quote from Kithanias >>

2) have the ability to allow their party members to exploit  weaknesses either already present in their foes or to exploit weakenesses the Ranger can create.

Oh yeah! That would be awesome, too! Like every time I get an enemy with Entangle or Ensnaring Strike and give my allies Advantage to attack them.

You know what I think might fix some of the issues I have with class features wanting hunters mark? If instead of specifically hunters mark they just wanted you to be concentrating on a Ranger spell.