Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
What if there were a new Ranger class feature that came online around level 5 that allowed you to move Hunter's Mark to a new target without using a Bonus action? Let's say something like this:
Rapid Targeting. If the target of your Hunter's Mark drops to 0 hit points before the spell ends, you can move the mark to a new creature without using a Bonus action. You can still only move the mark once per turn.
The intent would be to get the Hunter's Mark bonus action out of the way of things like the Dual Wielder bonus action or the bonus action required by a Beastmaster Ranger to control their companion. Both of these things can already be used with Hunter's Mark, but the combo takes some time to set up, and the setup can be undone in an instant if the target suddenly dies. The new feature would come online at about the time the Ranger starts to struggle compared to other martial classes, and also around the time when there is more competition for the bonus action from feats and subclass features.
Can't that just be a feature of the spell? Would solve 1 out of 9 problems with it.
Hunter's Mark, used in conjunction with even a small amount of cheese, can allow you to do anywhere from six to eight additional d6's of damage per turn for an hour. That the spell is allowing you to functionally re-cast it for free is actually crazy, so the "limitation" that you need to functionally re-cast it is a small price to pay in exchange for functionally re-casting it.
Personally, I think Hunter's Mark is already bordering on too powerful. If I had my way, it would not be movable to additional targets - but alas, I am not one of the Devs. As such, I would not support such a change.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (original Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
Most people seem to say its underpowered!
Or maybe the problem is actually scaling. Because my own experience is that its very good at lower levels, but once you're into tier 2 or higher an extra 2d6 damage per turn at the cost of your concentration is really not a great pay-off when there are so many better concentration spells out there.
Hunter's Mark is a pretty decent spell when you first get it, but it fails to scale well as you increase in levels. Once you get to 2nd 3rd, or 4th level spells, its effectiveness compared to other options drops considerably. Even if I could move the spell for no action, I double I would use it very often when there are better options available such as Summon Fey or Conjure Woodland Beings. Mostly it would just get used as it already is by a lot of players - as a low-cost option for extra damage in easy fights or during the cleanup phase of a big fight.
From levels 1-8 in T1 and 2 I think many agree that Hunters Mark is Decent. Most people complain about it in Tier 3/4.
The thing is people think they have to move hunters mark around a lot. The thing is they don't. This is why they were specifically designed with and given the best blast spells in the game in conjure barrage and conjure volley.
If your in a fight where there are multiple foes and you would need to move hunters mark a lot, you should be using your AOE blast spells as they will be much more effective than moving target to target with hunters mark. Hunters mark comes in when the fodder gets cleared.
Played this way, ranger is still competitive in T3/4
I'm in the school that says its underpowered. I liked the old one. I am trying to come up with a campaigns and I am using a ranger as one of the characters to do the first draft.
The D6 Force damage is nice on paper, but does not add alot on. I have to use a bonus action to activate it, so if I want to use a second weapon attack or an animal companion to attack, or a different spell that uses a bonus action I used that. If I kill the target, I need a bonus action to move to another target. I don't get advantage on attacks, the force damage does not increase.
And its concentration so anything that breaks it can make me loose it.
I can see having advantage on checks for Perception or Survival as this is what the Ranger is a skill monkey for, but the old ranger favored enemy abilities that allowed you do do this without casting a spell works better.
So yeah, I agree with OP that it might have been better if it auto transferred, even if it was on the same kind of target (like you are fighting goblins and it moves from one gobo to another.)
Now that I have some game experience a key part of the argument no longer makes sense.
If you are 2 weapon fighting, your ac is lower then a board & sword PC as you don't have the shield bonus.
Because you are getting hit more, you make more rolls to maintain concentration. Unless you have a high constitution bonus, you are failing more. If you have a high CON save, is your dex ability sacrificed, so you are now getting hit every turn? Resulting in more dice rolling CON saves.
If you are making so many con saves, you end failing a roll in every battle so it doesn't impede you BA.
It appears that on the table, claiming the BA is a problem is not true. The problem stems only on paper, and is not a practical impediment.
Hunter's Mark is a very well balanced first level spell.
It is, however, underpowered for something that a lot of a class is built around.