My firs thoughts about hunters mark was wow it is nearly like hex but rangers often fight hand to hand combats and a horizon walker uses bonus actions all the time and I know the problem of the cleric/druid without enough healing as I am a cleric and instead of solving combats with a upcast guiding bolt I need to heal our ranger from being deafend from mandess
but about the hunters mark mayby with tasha coming out it will be more useful with ranger features but without it as you are lvl 4 so next level I would change it to pass without trace as it is a spell that solves combat without the combat starting so I would not keep the hunters mark
I just have to say this... please use punctuation. It is very hard to read a continuous text like that.
From what i think to understand from your sentence, you say hunter's mark is getting stronger in tasha's but it is not worth it after level 4? I don't really follow your logic on that. One of the features that came out in there to directly competes with hunter's mark so hunter's definitly won't become more useful (except maybe for the tracking part). Also, you suggest using hunter's mark up until level 4 and then removing it? The main difference in damage between the new favored foe feature and hunter's mark is that favored foe only triggers once per turn while hunter's mark can trigger multiple times. So i would rather argue that before level 4, hunter's mark has become less strong while starting at level 5, when you get extra attack, hunter's mark starts to severely outdamage favored foe. (All of this is assuming you are not two weapon fighting or using crossbow expert. If you are in fact doing that, the comparisson becomes much more complex)
and I ment that without tasha the hunters mark isn't as great as some other spells you get at 5th level but maby with tasha the spell is beter with the right combo but so far It seems not as powerful with the basic ranger class or at least im my opinion.
Hunter's mark is nice to have, but not having it up is not the end of the world.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
and I ment that without tasha the hunters mark isn't as great as some other spells you get at 5th level but maby with tasha the spell is beter with the right combo but so far It seems not as powerful with the basic ranger class or at least im my opinion.
Tasha's definitely didn't make Hunter's mark stronger. Quite the contrary actually. Hunter's mark is seen as a very strong, very important spell for rangers because it offers a very substantial, very consistent damage boost that lasts over quite a long duration at the cost of only one spellslot (oh god i use "very" a lot). Even if you target dies, you can just reapply it to someone else without having to spend a spellslot. Furthermore, rangers don't actually get a lot of spells focussed around damage so if you want damage, the choice is immediately very limited.
Let's compare how many attacks with hunter's mark (+1d6) you need to compare to other abilities that improve/deal single target damage. All of the following abilities also use concentration and cost your bonus action. -Searing smite (lv1): 1d6/2d6 => 1/2 attacks -Zephyr strike (lv1): 1d8 => 2 attacks -Hail of thorns (lv1): 1d10 => 2 attacks -Flame arrow (lv3): 1d6 per attack so... exactly the same damage increase -Lightning arrow (lv3): 3d8 => 4 attacks
It is only with 4th level spells (Guardian of Nature) and 5th level spells (Swift quiver) that other damage improving spells completely overtake Hunter's mark, the first level spell.
Now taken all of that into consideration, why the hell would you not take hunter's mark? Well, there are a few reasons as well -Takes up concentration so you can't use utility spells or other strong damage spells (but see comparisson) -Hunter spellslots are very limited so you have to pick well -Placing it and moving it to another creature takes a bonus action which, depending on your subclass and you weaponchoice, you have a lot of contenders for. Horizon walker, new beastmaster and monster slayer could very well opt out of Hunter's mark due to this. -The favorered foe feature performs very similar to hunter's mark and doesn't cost a bonus action.
tl;dr: Hunter's mark is definitly a very strong spell you can't really go wrong with but you can still opt to just ignore it. Especially with Tasha's, the choice of going for something else became less punishing
Let's compare how many attacks with hunter's mark (+1d6) you need to compare to other abilities that improve/deal single target damage. All of the following abilities also use concentration and cost your bonus action. -Searing smite (lv1): 1d6/2d6 => 1/2 attacks -Zephyr strike (lv1): 1d8 => 2 attacks -Hail of thorns (lv1): 1d10 => 2 attacks -Flame arrow (lv3): 1d6 per attack so... exactly the same damage increase -Lightning arrow (lv3): 3d8 => 4 attacks
Lightning Arrow for example can do 6d8 additional damage to the initial target alone, which is at around three attacks equivalent so maybe accounts for your 4 here? But the best time to use it isn't when you just want to hit a single regular target; remember the 2d8 lightning damage is in a 10 foot radius, so you can easily get a half dozen enemies under there if the opportunity presents itself. Either that or you use it on a single target if you know they're vulnerable to lightning (double damage). So you're potentially looking at an extra 6d8 * 2 for a single vulnerable target, or 6d8 + 2d8 * 3+ for a very conservative group shot, so roughly equivalent to 12d8? It's a very good spell, and one of my top contenders for dropping Hunter's Mark.
Of course there's also the less recommended (but more frequent) usage of "I just wanted to"; because sometimes an NPC just pissed you off enough to warrant a lightning arrow. 😈
Let's compare how many attacks with hunter's mark (+1d6) you need to compare to other abilities that improve/deal single target damage. All of the following abilities also use concentration and cost your bonus action. -Searing smite (lv1): 1d6/2d6 => 1/2 attacks -Zephyr strike (lv1): 1d8 => 2 attacks -Hail of thorns (lv1): 1d10 => 2 attacks -Flame arrow (lv3): 1d6 per attack so... exactly the same damage increase -Lightning arrow (lv3): 3d8 => 4 attacks
Lightning Arrow for example can do 6d8 additional damage to the initial target alone, which is at around three attacks equivalent so maybe accounts for your 4 here? But the best time to use it isn't when you just want to hit a single regular target; remember the 2d8 lightning damage is in a 10 foot radius, so you can easily get a half dozen enemies under there if the opportunity presents itself. Either that or you use it on a single target if you know they're vulnerable to lightning (double damage). So you're potentially looking at an extra 6d8 * 2 for a single vulnerable target, or 6d8 + 2d8 * 3+ for a very conservative group shot, so roughly equivalent to 12d8? It's a very good spell, and one of my top contenders for dropping Hunter's Mark.
Of course there's also the less recommended (but more frequent) usage of "I just wanted to"; because sometimes an NPC just pissed you off enough to warrant a lightning arrow. 😈
With that part, i mainly wanted to show how many attacks buffed by hunters mark you needed to get equal damage to the other ability, supposing they did regular attacks without hunters mark. I do agree that some of these comparissons are a bit dicey, it is just that rangers have very few single target damage options so i looked at each option that did actually boost your singel target damage.
For lightning arrow i have to correct you. The game designers really dropped the ball on how they worded it but when compounding information from designer tweets and other spells it seems like it does the following: You replace the standard damage die you weapon would do with 4d8 lighting damage. That means that you still get to add your ability modifier, sharpshooter, Foe slayer or any other feature to the attack. This is why i said this attack deals 3d8 more damage than a regular attack. The splash damage doesnt effect the main target of the spell though, so you will never get to roll the 6d8 lighting damage on your primary target.
The next time you make a ranged weapon attack during the spell’s duration, the weapon’s ammunition, or the weapon itself if it’s a thrown weapon, transforms into a bolt of lightning. Make the attack roll as normal, The target takes 4d8 lightning damage on a hit, or half as much damage on a miss, instead of the weapon’s normal damage.
Whether you hit or miss, each creature within 10 feet of the target must make a Dexterity saving throw. Each of these creatures takes 2d8 lightning damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
As you can see, the spell states each creature within 10 feet of the target but doesn't mention the target itself.
Now compare to hail of thorns
The next time you hit a creature with a ranged weapon attack before the spell ends, this spell creates a rain of thorns that sprouts from your ranged weapon or ammunition. In addition to the normal effect of the attack, the target of the attack and each creature within 5 feet of it must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 1d10 piercing damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
In this one, it does explicitly state that the target itself does in fact take the aoe damage.
Ice knife is another similar effect
You create a shard of ice and fling it at one creature within range. Make a ranged spell attack against the target. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 piercing damage. Hit or miss, the shard then explodes. The target and each creature within 5 feet of it must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 2d6 cold damage.
To round this comparisson off, i also looked at all smite spells, as they and lightning arrow share a lot of traits. In general, the smites add 1d6-1d10 damage to an attack per spell level the smite has. On top of this, they add a special effect like burning, banishing, blinding... Lighting arrow adding 3d8 extra damage and damaging everyone around the target perfectly fits into this pattern, as does hail of thorns btw.
As you can see, the spell states each creature within 10 feet of the target but doesn't mention the target itself.
Whoops! You're right about the weapon damage, but I'm not so sure that the target is excluded from the AoE damage; the target is by definition within 10 feet of itself, the wording would need to explicitly exclude it, rather than explicitly include it, e.g- say "every other creature" or in brackets "(excluding the initial target)" or similar. In the definition of spell areas of effect, the sphere definition specifically states:
A sphere's point of origin is included in the sphere's area of effect.
Definitely something they could have errata'd by now to make that clear; all there is otherwise is a tweet by Jeremy Crawford but they're not always considered official rulings, especially as he doesn't justify it. Differences in wording of other spells isn't always useful either, as neither Hail of Thorns or Ice Knife to needs to include the initial target (it feels like an over-clarification, which lightning arrow could have done with either way).
If you compare with Fireball (I know, I know, I've said not to in the past, but that's for concentration comparisons) which does 8d6 fire damage in a 20 foot sphere, then 6d8 to a single target and 2d8 to everything else within 10 feet does not seem excessive, despite lightning being a less commonly resisted damage type.
Even so, 4d8 + 2d8 * 3+ for a target with three others nearby would still be a solid use of the spell in terms of when you interrupt Hunter's Mark.
Hunter’s mark uses a level 1 spell slot. Hard stop. At higher levels of play it is great as a damage to resource cost equation. Consider warlocks are burning a level 3, 4, or 5 spell slot at later levels to cast hex and a level 1 smite from a paladin is doing only 2d8 (hunter’s mark only needs to hit 3 times to exceed the smite’s damage output). Hunter’s mark is a great use of a spell slot when you are hitting a single target most of the time over time. It’s cheap and effective. The other ranger damage spells are very much designed as martial AoE attacks, so they will be “weak” when used against a single target, similar to how a fireball that hits one target is a poor use of a resource. Because of the effect (if it sticks) of ensnaring strike it might be the only other attack spell the ranger has (in the PHB) worth casting with a level 1 slot. Hail of thorns needs 2+ targets to be a superior choice and lightning arrow needs 3+ targets to be a superior choice, but when they are the superior choice they wreak havoc to the enemies.
A level 10 baseline ranger with a bow and hunter’s mark will do 78 damage over 3 rounds. The same ranger using hail of thorns with a level 3 spell slot (hitting two targets assuming a 50% successful saving throw) on 1 round and hunter’s mark on 2 rounds will do 95.75 damage over 3 rounds. A difference of 17.75, which means the hail of thorns adds close to the same damage (with room for more if there are more targets) for the ranger as a paladin using a level 1 and level 3 spell slot to smite (27 damage).
This is assuming a ranger’s spell slot and concentration is best helping the party if used for damage, which might not be the case. Fog cloud, spike growth, or conjure animals are all battle changing spells useful for strategy and tactics. Goodberry and cure wounds are as well.
As you can see, the spell states each creature within 10 feet of the target but doesn't mention the target itself.
Whoops! You're right about the weapon damage, but I'm not so sure that the target is excluded from the AoE damage; the target is by definition within 10 feet of itself, the wording would need to explicitly exclude it, rather than explicitly include it, e.g- say "every other creature" or in brackets "(excluding the initial target)" or similar. In the definition of spell areas of effect, the sphere definition specifically states:
A sphere's point of origin is included in the sphere's area of effect.
Definitely something they could have errata'd by now to make that clear; all there is otherwise is a tweet by Jeremy Crawford but they're not always considered official rulings, especially as he doesn't justify it very well. Differences in wording of other spells isn't always useful either, as neither Hail of Thorns or Ice Knife to really needs to include the initial target.
Even so, 4d8 + 2d8 * 3+ for a target with three others nearby would still be a solid use of the spell.
I wholeheartedly agree that the wording on this spell should be erratad but still, i'm pretty sure that i have arrived at the correct intent of the spell. I tried looking up other spells that combine an initial spell attack followed by an aoe effect but after scrolling through the entire spellist, it seems like ice knife, hail of thorns and lightning arrow are the only ones so no good luck there. I did find arms of hadar though, which has an area of effect centered on self and doesn't explicitly exclude the caster, even though the spell has a sphere range and from reading the rest of the spell, you can clearly see that you shouldn't be damage yourself.
Range: Self (10-foot radius) You invoke the power of Hadar, the Dark Hunger. Tendrils of dark energy erupt from you and batter all creatures within 10 feet of you. Each creature in that area must make a Strength saving throw. On a failed save, a target takes 2d6 necrotic damage and can’t take reactions until its next turn. On a successful save, the creature takes half damage, but suffers no other effect.
The paladin spell destructive wave let's you choose which creatures within the range you target so that one is no help in this discussion. The earth tremor spell however is a bit weird.
RANGE/AREA10 ft
You cause a tremor in the ground within range. Each creature other than you in that area must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, a creature takes 1d6 bludgeoning damage and is knocked prone. If the ground in that area is loose earth or stone, it becomes difficult terrain until cleared, with each 5-foot-diameter portion requiring at least 1 minute to clear by hand.
Note how the range here is 10 ft, not self. In general the spell is an odd one out when it comes to targetting. JC explained that the intend is for it to target the ground around you and then the effect goes from there onto the creatures (earth tremor SA). Still, you could try to take this as an example for explicitly stating the exclusion
Upon looking even further, i noticed that you analogy with the sphere AOE doesn't completely hold true. The phb states that types of AOE such as sphere (or cone/cube/cyliner/line) are specified as such in the spell description. Neither lightning arrow, nor hail of thorns nor ice knife states that it is a sphere effect. Rather, it states that it simply target each creature in that range (and the target itself in 2/3 cases).
Now to finally actually answer to your statements, while it is true that JC tweets are not official rulings, they do certainly give us an idea of the intend behind the ability. My argument about ice knife and hail of thorns again doesn't provide any concrete ruling but rather solidifies my belief that, since in 2/3 spells it is stated explicitly and in the last one it isn't, the intent is that it the aoe shouldn't effect the initial target. All of that coupled with the damage perfectly fitting into the general pattern of similar spells, if you were to exclude the initial target from the aoe effect, leads me to believe my interpretation is how the spell was intended.
I do agree with you that I absolutely love the spell and that in aoe situations it is absolutely a blast (otherwise i would never have spent so much time trying to figure out how the damn thing is supposed to work).
I believe you're coming to some faulty conclusions about how to use that rules text.
A sphere's point of origin is included in the sphere's area of effect.
This does not add a target to your spells. It is simply reminder text that if your spell effects a spherical area that the origin point is a part of that. If your spell's text specifically says that it effects everyone in a radius, this is here to make sure you don't miss someone.
Here's Lightning Arrow again:
Whether you hit or miss, each creature within 10 feet of the target must make a Dexterity saving throw. Each of these creatures takes 2d8 lightning damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
Compared to the classic Fireball:
Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
5e is is actually impressively consistent with the use of their language. Sure, there are some things that slip through the cracks, but for the most part, their language can be taken at face value and used to come to conclusions on rules you may be iffy about through comparison and analysis. If they wanted the initial target to be a part of the secondary damage they would have used text that refers to each creature taking damage in a radial sphere OR they would have used text like in Hail of Thorns that explicitly adds the target of the initial damage.
Hail of Thorns:
In addition to the normal effect of the attack, the target of the attack and each creature within 5 feet of it must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 1d10 piercing damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
AND
Lightning Arrow is not a sphere
Every spell considered a sphere in the game has a sphere icon in the range/area description. Lightning Arrow, Hail of Thorns and Ice Knife are actually all very different spells despite them being the only spells that share similar language.
Ice Knife: A classic blasting conjuration spell with a small twist. This is considered a sphere with a range/area, and you will find the sphere icon in its description. Its delivery method is unique in that instead of placing a sphere of effect on the map within a range, you are literally throwing your point of origin to where you want it to be placed as part of an attack.
Hail of Thorns: Also a conjuration spell, but this is a concentration spell with a duration of 1 minute and a range of self. It is not considered a sphere, but they wanted the triggered ability to work like a sphere and so worded the spell to act as such. What's confusing here when these comparisons are drawn is the same language is used between Ice Knife and Hail of Thorns but only one is a true sphere. I believe they used the wording on Ice Knife as such because the syntax is much cleaner than creating a new line of text referring to a secondary radial sphere, but that's just a theory.
Lightning Arrow: This is a concentration spell with a duration of 1 minute and a range of self. It is not considered a sphere, but it could have worked like one if the designers wanted it to. Hail of Thorns is the evidence. Lightning Arrow is designed to act like chain lightning. The initial lightning damage hits your target and then arcs to anyone unfortunate enough to be close by.
This is a little off what you asked but it might solve part of the problem. Swap healing spell for good berry (assuming dm says you can feed it to others). 1hp is all you need to get back up (assuming the enemies cant outright kill you at 1hp) and its 10 berries per cast. but if you have any left over spell slots you can use them before your long rest and start the next day with berries. My last game I started the day with 30 berries because I had not used 3 slots the previous day. In the long run it may save your spell slots making you worry less about losing concentration.
Good berry is a really great option for healing. Just remember that the berries all expire after one day, but eating the left overs before a short/long rest is a great idea just in case you get jumped.
Good berry is a really great option for healing. Just remember that the berries all expire after one day, but eating the left overs before a short/long rest is a great idea just in case you get jumped.
1 hp isn't that great. It can revive someone who's unconscious, but the real benefit is filling your belly for the day. You don't have to forage for food.
If you are also a life cleric the hp for each berry increases to 4 hp each so a ranger (or druid)/ life cleric with a first level spellslot can heal 40 hp
Many paladins use just 1 point of lay on hands to bring someone back to consciousness. Goodberry does the same thing plus the ability can be shared with your other party members.
Goodberry is awesome even if you don't go down the life cleric route. Although I am really fond of ranger 5/life cleric 15.
Frank's got it. They can be passed around. Not the most efficient healing, but the action economy is great. What other classes give other people in the party the ability to heal? Giving a couple to everyone in the party means that whoever is best able to revive a downed ally at the time can go and save them.
Ranger pretty much needs a damage boost option to keep up with fighter/barbarian/paladin in terms of damage as they all have ways of boosting damage (Action Surge, Rage, Smite).
They have decent amount of spells to do this but Hunters Mark is the easiest to use for most. They fall fairly hard damage wise at level 11 unless you use Conjure Animals and your DM allows you to use 8 wolves all the time.
They basicallly rely on that spell or similar spells for damage at that level as fighter/barbarian/paladin get more boosts (Extra Attack, Extra Rage Damage, Higher Level Smites/Improved Divine Smite)
by level 11 you pretty much need to keep up a good concentration spell like Conjure to keep up damage wise.
I find the ranger subclasses to be on par with rogues, barbarians, and paladins in the damage department at levels 11+. Fighters pull ahead of everyone.
I find the ranger subclasses to be on par with rogues, barbarians, and paladins in the damage department at levels 11+. Fighters pull ahead of everyone.
Barbs pull ahead as well due to Rage Damage and Brutal Critical as the math with Reckless and big crits along with static damage. GWM helps a lot as well.
Rogue I would agree with as they are actually pretty low on the scale of DPR but not terrible. Ranger paces above rogue for a long time.
Paladin get higher level smites and Improved Divine Smite so they easily outpace ranger at his point.
Ranger does not get a class option that increases damage outside of spell selection which means you can pick for versatility and then lack in damage. They are much more reliant on choice than the others.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I just have to say this... please use punctuation. It is very hard to read a continuous text like that.
From what i think to understand from your sentence, you say hunter's mark is getting stronger in tasha's but it is not worth it after level 4? I don't really follow your logic on that. One of the features that came out in there to directly competes with hunter's mark so hunter's definitly won't become more useful (except maybe for the tracking part). Also, you suggest using hunter's mark up until level 4 and then removing it? The main difference in damage between the new favored foe feature and hunter's mark is that favored foe only triggers once per turn while hunter's mark can trigger multiple times. So i would rather argue that before level 4, hunter's mark has become less strong while starting at level 5, when you get extra attack, hunter's mark starts to severely outdamage favored foe. (All of this is assuming you are not two weapon fighting or using crossbow expert. If you are in fact doing that, the comparisson becomes much more complex)
sorry that I write without punctation
and I ment that without tasha the hunters mark isn't as great as some other spells you get at 5th level but maby with tasha the spell is beter with the right combo but so far It seems not as powerful with the basic ranger class or at least im my opinion.
Hunter's mark is nice to have, but not having it up is not the end of the world.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Tasha's definitely didn't make Hunter's mark stronger. Quite the contrary actually.
Hunter's mark is seen as a very strong, very important spell for rangers because it offers a very substantial, very consistent damage boost that lasts over quite a long duration at the cost of only one spellslot (oh god i use "very" a lot). Even if you target dies, you can just reapply it to someone else without having to spend a spellslot. Furthermore, rangers don't actually get a lot of spells focussed around damage so if you want damage, the choice is immediately very limited.
Let's compare how many attacks with hunter's mark (+1d6) you need to compare to other abilities that improve/deal single target damage. All of the following abilities also use concentration and cost your bonus action.
-Searing smite (lv1): 1d6/2d6 => 1/2 attacks
-Zephyr strike (lv1): 1d8 => 2 attacks
-Hail of thorns (lv1): 1d10 => 2 attacks
-Flame arrow (lv3): 1d6 per attack so... exactly the same damage increase
-Lightning arrow (lv3): 3d8 => 4 attacks
It is only with 4th level spells (Guardian of Nature) and 5th level spells (Swift quiver) that other damage improving spells completely overtake Hunter's mark, the first level spell.
Now taken all of that into consideration, why the hell would you not take hunter's mark? Well, there are a few reasons as well
-Takes up concentration so you can't use utility spells or other strong damage spells (but see comparisson)
-Hunter spellslots are very limited so you have to pick well
-Placing it and moving it to another creature takes a bonus action which, depending on your subclass and you weaponchoice, you have a lot of contenders for. Horizon walker, new beastmaster and monster slayer could very well opt out of Hunter's mark due to this.
-The favorered foe feature performs very similar to hunter's mark and doesn't cost a bonus action.
tl;dr: Hunter's mark is definitly a very strong spell you can't really go wrong with but you can still opt to just ignore it. Especially with Tasha's, the choice of going for something else became less punishing
Great summary btw, though I'm a little confused about your working in this section:
Lightning Arrow for example can do 6d8 additional damage to the initial target alone, which is at around three attacks equivalent so maybe accounts for your 4 here? But the best time to use it isn't when you just want to hit a single regular target; remember the 2d8 lightning damage is in a 10 foot radius, so you can easily get a half dozen enemies under there if the opportunity presents itself. Either that or you use it on a single target if you know they're vulnerable to lightning (double damage). So you're potentially looking at an extra 6d8 * 2 for a single vulnerable target, or 6d8 + 2d8 * 3+ for a very conservative group shot, so roughly equivalent to 12d8? It's a very good spell, and one of my top contenders for dropping Hunter's Mark.
Of course there's also the less recommended (but more frequent) usage of "I just wanted to"; because sometimes an NPC just pissed you off enough to warrant a lightning arrow. 😈
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
With that part, i mainly wanted to show how many attacks buffed by hunters mark you needed to get equal damage to the other ability, supposing they did regular attacks without hunters mark.
I do agree that some of these comparissons are a bit dicey, it is just that rangers have very few single target damage options so i looked at each option that did actually boost your singel target damage.
For lightning arrow i have to correct you. The game designers really dropped the ball on how they worded it but when compounding information from designer tweets and other spells it seems like it does the following:
You replace the standard damage die you weapon would do with 4d8 lighting damage. That means that you still get to add your ability modifier, sharpshooter, Foe slayer or any other feature to the attack. This is why i said this attack deals 3d8 more damage than a regular attack.
The splash damage doesnt effect the main target of the spell though, so you will never get to roll the 6d8 lighting damage on your primary target.
As you can see, the spell states each creature within 10 feet of the target but doesn't mention the target itself.
Now compare to hail of thorns
In this one, it does explicitly state that the target itself does in fact take the aoe damage.
Ice knife is another similar effect
To round this comparisson off, i also looked at all smite spells, as they and lightning arrow share a lot of traits. In general, the smites add 1d6-1d10 damage to an attack per spell level the smite has. On top of this, they add a special effect like burning, banishing, blinding... Lighting arrow adding 3d8 extra damage and damaging everyone around the target perfectly fits into this pattern, as does hail of thorns btw.
Whoops! You're right about the weapon damage, but I'm not so sure that the target is excluded from the AoE damage; the target is by definition within 10 feet of itself, the wording would need to explicitly exclude it, rather than explicitly include it, e.g- say "every other creature" or in brackets "(excluding the initial target)" or similar. In the definition of spell areas of effect, the sphere definition specifically states:
Definitely something they could have errata'd by now to make that clear; all there is otherwise is a tweet by Jeremy Crawford but they're not always considered official rulings, especially as he doesn't justify it. Differences in wording of other spells isn't always useful either, as neither Hail of Thorns or Ice Knife to needs to include the initial target (it feels like an over-clarification, which lightning arrow could have done with either way).
If you compare with Fireball (I know, I know, I've said not to in the past, but that's for concentration comparisons) which does 8d6 fire damage in a 20 foot sphere, then 6d8 to a single target and 2d8 to everything else within 10 feet does not seem excessive, despite lightning being a less commonly resisted damage type.
Even so, 4d8 + 2d8 * 3+ for a target with three others nearby would still be a solid use of the spell in terms of when you interrupt Hunter's Mark.
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
Hunter’s mark uses a level 1 spell slot. Hard stop. At higher levels of play it is great as a damage to resource cost equation. Consider warlocks are burning a level 3, 4, or 5 spell slot at later levels to cast hex and a level 1 smite from a paladin is doing only 2d8 (hunter’s mark only needs to hit 3 times to exceed the smite’s damage output). Hunter’s mark is a great use of a spell slot when you are hitting a single target most of the time over time. It’s cheap and effective. The other ranger damage spells are very much designed as martial AoE attacks, so they will be “weak” when used against a single target, similar to how a fireball that hits one target is a poor use of a resource. Because of the effect (if it sticks) of ensnaring strike it might be the only other attack spell the ranger has (in the PHB) worth casting with a level 1 slot. Hail of thorns needs 2+ targets to be a superior choice and lightning arrow needs 3+ targets to be a superior choice, but when they are the superior choice they wreak havoc to the enemies.
A level 10 baseline ranger with a bow and hunter’s mark will do 78 damage over 3 rounds. The same ranger using hail of thorns with a level 3 spell slot (hitting two targets assuming a 50% successful saving throw) on 1 round and hunter’s mark on 2 rounds will do 95.75 damage over 3 rounds. A difference of 17.75, which means the hail of thorns adds close to the same damage (with room for more if there are more targets) for the ranger as a paladin using a level 1 and level 3 spell slot to smite (27 damage).
This is assuming a ranger’s spell slot and concentration is best helping the party if used for damage, which might not be the case. Fog cloud, spike growth, or conjure animals are all battle changing spells useful for strategy and tactics. Goodberry and cure wounds are as well.
Haravikk, this...
“A sphere's point of origin is included in the sphere's area of effect.”
...that you just pointed out, is going to keep me up at night now. Damnit!!!
I wholeheartedly agree that the wording on this spell should be erratad but still, i'm pretty sure that i have arrived at the correct intent of the spell.
I tried looking up other spells that combine an initial spell attack followed by an aoe effect but after scrolling through the entire spellist, it seems like ice knife, hail of thorns and lightning arrow are the only ones so no good luck there. I did find arms of hadar though, which has an area of effect centered on self and doesn't explicitly exclude the caster, even though the spell has a sphere range and from reading the rest of the spell, you can clearly see that you shouldn't be damage yourself.
The paladin spell destructive wave let's you choose which creatures within the range you target so that one is no help in this discussion. The earth tremor spell however is a bit weird.
Note how the range here is 10 ft, not self. In general the spell is an odd one out when it comes to targetting. JC explained that the intend is for it to target the ground around you and then the effect goes from there onto the creatures (earth tremor SA). Still, you could try to take this as an example for explicitly stating the exclusion
Upon looking even further, i noticed that you analogy with the sphere AOE doesn't completely hold true. The phb states that types of AOE such as sphere (or cone/cube/cyliner/line) are specified as such in the spell description. Neither lightning arrow, nor hail of thorns nor ice knife states that it is a sphere effect. Rather, it states that it simply target each creature in that range (and the target itself in 2/3 cases).
Now to finally actually answer to your statements, while it is true that JC tweets are not official rulings, they do certainly give us an idea of the intend behind the ability. My argument about ice knife and hail of thorns again doesn't provide any concrete ruling but rather solidifies my belief that, since in 2/3 spells it is stated explicitly and in the last one it isn't, the intent is that it the aoe shouldn't effect the initial target.
All of that coupled with the damage perfectly fitting into the general pattern of similar spells, if you were to exclude the initial target from the aoe effect, leads me to believe my interpretation is how the spell was intended.
I do agree with you that I absolutely love the spell and that in aoe situations it is absolutely a blast (otherwise i would never have spent so much time trying to figure out how the damn thing is supposed to work).
Haravikk
I believe you're coming to some faulty conclusions about how to use that rules text.
This does not add a target to your spells. It is simply reminder text that if your spell effects a spherical area that the origin point is a part of that. If your spell's text specifically says that it effects everyone in a radius, this is here to make sure you don't miss someone.
Here's Lightning Arrow again:
Compared to the classic Fireball:
5e is is actually impressively consistent with the use of their language. Sure, there are some things that slip through the cracks, but for the most part, their language can be taken at face value and used to come to conclusions on rules you may be iffy about through comparison and analysis. If they wanted the initial target to be a part of the secondary damage they would have used text that refers to each creature taking damage in a radial sphere OR they would have used text like in Hail of Thorns that explicitly adds the target of the initial damage.
Hail of Thorns:
AND
Lightning Arrow is not a sphere
Every spell considered a sphere in the game has a sphere icon in the range/area description. Lightning Arrow, Hail of Thorns and Ice Knife are actually all very different spells despite them being the only spells that share similar language.
Ice Knife: A classic blasting conjuration spell with a small twist. This is considered a sphere with a range/area, and you will find the sphere icon in its description. Its delivery method is unique in that instead of placing a sphere of effect on the map within a range, you are literally throwing your point of origin to where you want it to be placed as part of an attack.
Hail of Thorns: Also a conjuration spell, but this is a concentration spell with a duration of 1 minute and a range of self. It is not considered a sphere, but they wanted the triggered ability to work like a sphere and so worded the spell to act as such. What's confusing here when these comparisons are drawn is the same language is used between Ice Knife and Hail of Thorns but only one is a true sphere. I believe they used the wording on Ice Knife as such because the syntax is much cleaner than creating a new line of text referring to a secondary radial sphere, but that's just a theory.
Lightning Arrow: This is a concentration spell with a duration of 1 minute and a range of self. It is not considered a sphere, but it could have worked like one if the designers wanted it to. Hail of Thorns is the evidence. Lightning Arrow is designed to act like chain lightning. The initial lightning damage hits your target and then arcs to anyone unfortunate enough to be close by.
This is a little off what you asked but it might solve part of the problem. Swap healing spell for good berry (assuming dm says you can feed it to others). 1hp is all you need to get back up (assuming the enemies cant outright kill you at 1hp) and its 10 berries per cast. but if you have any left over spell slots you can use them before your long rest and start the next day with berries. My last game I started the day with 30 berries because I had not used 3 slots the previous day. In the long run it may save your spell slots making you worry less about losing concentration.
Good berry is a really great option for healing. Just remember that the berries all expire after one day, but eating the left overs before a short/long rest is a great idea just in case you get jumped.
1 hp isn't that great. It can revive someone who's unconscious, but the real benefit is filling your belly for the day. You don't have to forage for food.
If you are also a life cleric the hp for each berry increases to 4 hp each so a ranger (or druid)/ life cleric with a first level spellslot can heal 40 hp
Many paladins use just 1 point of lay on hands to bring someone back to consciousness. Goodberry does the same thing plus the ability can be shared with your other party members.
Goodberry is awesome even if you don't go down the life cleric route. Although I am really fond of ranger 5/life cleric 15.
Frank's got it. They can be passed around. Not the most efficient healing, but the action economy is great. What other classes give other people in the party the ability to heal? Giving a couple to everyone in the party means that whoever is best able to revive a downed ally at the time can go and save them.
Ranger pretty much needs a damage boost option to keep up with fighter/barbarian/paladin in terms of damage as they all have ways of boosting damage (Action Surge, Rage, Smite).
They have decent amount of spells to do this but Hunters Mark is the easiest to use for most. They fall fairly hard damage wise at level 11 unless you use Conjure Animals and your DM allows you to use 8 wolves all the time.
They basicallly rely on that spell or similar spells for damage at that level as fighter/barbarian/paladin get more boosts (Extra Attack, Extra Rage Damage, Higher Level Smites/Improved Divine Smite)
by level 11 you pretty much need to keep up a good concentration spell like Conjure to keep up damage wise.
I find the ranger subclasses to be on par with rogues, barbarians, and paladins in the damage department at levels 11+. Fighters pull ahead of everyone.
Barbs pull ahead as well due to Rage Damage and Brutal Critical as the math with Reckless and big crits along with static damage. GWM helps a lot as well.
Rogue I would agree with as they are actually pretty low on the scale of DPR but not terrible. Ranger paces above rogue for a long time.
Paladin get higher level smites and Improved Divine Smite so they easily outpace ranger at his point.
Ranger does not get a class option that increases damage outside of spell selection which means you can pick for versatility and then lack in damage. They are much more reliant on choice than the others.