Fog cloud is great spell by itself anyway, and one I take and use even at high levels. AoO are out, sight targeted spells and effects are out, and now rangers and eldritch knights have a great battlefield control and thematic option. Plus they can function along side their darkness warlock buddies. Sure, if another spellcaster brings up fog cloud for the party it’s better, but this new fighting style (and the option to switch fighting styles) is great fun and function for the ranger and EK!
Looking at the spell list in a vacuum, yes it's nearly equal with concentration and non-concentration based spells. If you filter the list a little bit for what is actually useful for a Ranger it looks very different though and the scale tips very heavily towards concentration based spells.
This really isn't the case though.
Firstly, it's going to depend very heavily on the rest of the party whether a spell being "late" for a Ranger is a problem or not, and that doesn't really have any bearing on whether it's a good pick for the Ranger or not. Even so, if you were to axe half the non-concentration spells and only a third of the concentration spells, it doesn't change the fact you still have way more choices than you can take. Cut non-concentration by two-thirds and you can still nearly fill your entire list with them by level 20 and never have to worry about concentration if you don't want to.
And even if you want to avoid concentration conflicts in combat, you can still take two or three concentration spells in your list without problems; for example, Hunter's Mark, Detect Magic and Pass Without Trace, which very rarely are going to conflict with each other and are all extremely useful spells, swapping as necessary if your party has other sources for the latter two.
It's extremely easy to pick a spell list for a Ranger that doesn't have any issues with concentration, or which can take the hit on interruptions if you want to, and either way build a perfectly good Ranger.
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.
You really want to look at this list with 22 concentration spells and 9 non and claim that you have many alternatives just as useful? (copy/paste from Beyond isn't super clean)
I'm not really sure how you're compiling your list, the number of spells available to Rangers that require concentration and don't require concentration are nearly equal (29 vs 27 respectively); a fully levelled Ranger knows 11 spells, so you can hardly argue that there isn't enough choice to avoid concentration issues, especially when you can still take a small number of concentration spells depending upon what you need them for, e.g- Hunter's Mark for during combat, some others for non-combat/setup/ambushes etc. where switching isn't a problem.
Most casters are perfectly happy even with two or three in-combat concentration spells, and accept that they must pick between them; I'm not sure why people playing Rangers (hypothetically in some cases I suspect) are facing any unique hardship here?
And none of this changes the fact that the leaked Tasha's update does help with concentration juggling, as it lets you avoid wasting a spell slot by ending something early; the most common case will be ending Hunter's Mark early to cast a one-off concentration spell, but you can either use Favoured Foe instead in the first place, or use it to replace Hunter's Mark after interrupting it, either way losing one fewer spell slot (or two if you use it to do both). The key issue is what you're interrupting for, and whether you actually need to do that; if you do then interrupting is a perfectly acceptable cost, otherwise you should reconsider your choice of spells.
On that point, the bigger issue with Rangers is that you can only swap one spell per level, so if you screw up your spell choices early on it's a pain to fix them, but I doubt many DMs would stick to that rule if taking too many concentration spells is hurting your gameplay; I'm still hopeful that the UA changes to swapping spells (and cantrips) will be in Tasha's Cauldron, as that let you swap one spell (or cantrip) per long rest, so it's easier to fix issues, and you can swap ambush spells in and out depending whether you think you'll need them (they're some of my favourite spells for a Ranger, but they're super situational, better when you can scout).
I compiled the list by looking at spells that do an do not require concentration that someone would use in combat given that the conversation is focused on Favored Foe, an ability that will only ever be used in combat.
And once again, we fundamentally disagree on the help/hurt aspect of making Favored Foe concentration. You want to say that it helps, I say that when the biggest complaint of the ranger is that all their best options require concentration ADDING to that does not help. If you want to say it does, then you can think that, but for me the fact that it isn't using a spell slot is not a strong enough factor given the paltry damage that it does to a single enemy.
The simple fact is that, like the rogues sneak attack, Hunter's Mark is baked into the way Rangers play and should simply be a feature of the class. I think that when 5.5 or 6th edition comes out, it will be. I am not sure what feedback they got about giving it as feature made them pull back.
I compiled the list by looking at spells that do an do not require concentration that someone would use in combat given that the conversation is focused on Favored Foe, an ability that will only ever be used in combat.
That's a bit of an artificial limit to impose though; a Ranger's spell list can only (currently) be changed on level up, and even if the proposed UA change to once per long rest is added, the bulk of the spells you will want to choose will be ones that you need available all the time.
That should really include utility spells for out of combat, as well as pre-combat spells such as Pass Without Trace, and ambush/trap spells such as Snare. A realistic Ranger build is mostly non-concentration, with maybe two or three concentration spells if you're avoiding interruption, maybe a few more (or different spells) if you don't mind switching concentration if you get the opportunity to use them.
For a Ranger, how you get into combat is often as important as what you do when it starts; setting traps can make a huge difference, not just for yourself but your allies, and making the whole party extra stealthy so you can get a surprise round in is one of the most valuable pre-combat abilities there is.
And once again, we fundamentally disagree on the help/hurt aspect of making Favored Foe concentration. You want to say that it helps, I say that when the biggest complaint of the ranger is that all their best options require concentration ADDING to that does not help.
The "problem" with concentration is that using one spell ends another, so if you'd have preferred to have kept that previous spell running then the slot is "lost" to make that switch. The spell where that is most likely to be a "problem" is Hunter's Mark, as it's used to boost basic damage over time. Favoured Foe provides a boost to basic damage over time without costing a spell slot, ergo it helps with the "problem" because you can bring it up instead either initially, after the interruption, or both.
Again though, it's only a problem if you build your Ranger with too many concentration spells. Granted it will sometimes just happen anyway because you have Lightning Arrow and misjudged how numerous an enemy group would be and find you want to switch to AoE (or just get a perfect opportunity to), but when that happens it's not a "problem", that's just how it is when you use concentration spells.
Maybe in 6e WotC will do it differently, I strongly suspect you're right and they'll just make Hunter's Mark a built in feature, but clearly they don't think they can bolt that in right now because there are too many moving parts it will change. As I've already said before in this thread (and others), I'd prefer Favoured Foe to just be bonus uses of Hunter's Mark, none of the other boosts were necessary, but I don't have any fundamental problem with the leaked version of Favoured Foe as it functions slightly differently (only once per turn, but scaling damage and no bonus action requirement), and ultimately it's up to you if your build will benefit from it or not; if Hunter's Mark is pretty much your only concentration spell (in combat at least) then there's no reason to, but that won't be every Ranger.
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.
Even with concentration restrictions, the ranger’s damage output per spell slot used (when used in the appropriate situations) is “on target” compared to other non full spellcasters use of spell slots.
Lastly, for what now feels like the millionth time, interrupting concentration is the player's choice; if you don't like doing it, don't pick lots of concentration spells, this is the exact same situation for any caster. Rangers have alternatives to many of concentration spells that are just as useful and don't interrupt concentration.
However, losing concentration after getting hit is Not the player's choice. Therefore, it baffles me that the base Ranger has no options to boost their CON saves except by taking a feat like Warcaster, which is half wasted b/c Rangers get no cantrips. I'm hoping that the Tasha's variant will finally allow Rangers to either get a few cantrips or get a bonus to concentration saves.
If using multiclassing rangers blend well with (and gain a lot from) fighters, barbarians, druids, and rogues. Starting with one level in either of the two former get a ranger, especially a strength based and/or melee focused ranger, a LOT, including proficiency in constitution saving throws. That’s one of my favorite things about multiclassing and rangers. They can really hone in one a niche focus of their build with just a level or two.
If using multiclassing rangers blend well with (and gain a lot from) fighters, barbarians, druids, and rogues. Starting with one level in either of the two former get a ranger, especially a strength based and/or melee focused ranger, a LOT, including proficiency in constitution saving throws. That’s one of my favorite things about multiclassing and rangers. They can really hone in one a niche focus of their build with just a level or two.
I agree, I love the ranger, but I always multiclass them, typically with rogue, but I have considered mixing in an echo knight, I think it offer some interesting options
Lastly, for what now feels like the millionth time, interrupting concentration is the player's choice; if you don't like doing it, don't pick lots of concentration spells, this is the exact same situation for any caster. Rangers have alternatives to many of concentration spells that are just as useful and don't interrupt concentration.
However, losing concentration after getting hit is Not the player's choice. Therefore, it baffles me that the base Ranger has no options to boost their CON saves except by taking a feat like Warcaster, which is half wasted b/c Rangers get no cantrips. I'm hoping that the Tasha's variant will finally allow Rangers to either get a few cantrips or get a bonus to concentration saves.
That also depends on the ranger and any other investments they've made. But you're on the right track: not every feat is useful to everyone. Rangers have basically zero single-target spells. You don't need a cantrip to use War Caster, but it can be efficient.
That said, rangers can still get two solid uses out of the feat. Not every wizard is going to get the full benefit of War Caster, but 2/3 isn't bad. Most won't get the full use out of Shield Master, either.
I agree that Rangers stand to gain a lot from multi-classing. However, A) not all DMs allow it, and B) the amount gained by multi-classing vs. by sticking to the same class for the capstone really highlights how unimpressive the capstone is.
However, losing concentration after getting hit is Not the player's choice. Therefore, it baffles me that the base Ranger has no options to boost their CON saves except by taking a feat like Warcaster, which is half wasted b/c Rangers get no cantrips. I'm hoping that the Tasha's variant will finally allow Rangers to either get a few cantrips or get a bonus to concentration saves.
People usually take Resilient (CON), but yeah.
The only Cantrips you can get as Ranger is via feat or the Druidic Warrior fighting style which gives you 2 Cantrips from the Druid spell list. Fits if you want to play a more magic focussed Ranger that's closer to a Druid than a martial class but doesn't really work for other Rangers.
The issue with getting Resilient (CON) instead of Warcaster is that you lose out on the "You can perform the somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands."
That said, rangers can still get two solid uses out of the feat. Not every wizard is going to get the full benefit of War Caster, but 2/3 isn't bad. Most won't get the full use out of Shield Master, either.
Is it Really fair comparing the Wizard and the Ranger in this instance? Wizards get to choose from cantrips that A) do damage and often B) limit the combat capability of their foes. Shocking Grasp and Ray of Frost are there for a reason.
I agree that Rangers stand to gain a lot from multi-classing. However, A) not all DMs allow it, and B) the amount gained by multi-classing vs. by sticking to the same class for the capstone really highlights how unimpressive the capstone is.
I think the capstone argument is not valid for a number of reasons, 1 most capstones are not great, 2 and more importantly, unless you are starting a high level game with the intention of playing level 20 characters, you will never get to 20. I played for over a year fighting way above the cr for the level we were and we made it to level 12. Unless you are starting high level and playing high level, you will never see high levels.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Fog cloud is great spell by itself anyway, and one I take and use even at high levels. AoO are out, sight targeted spells and effects are out, and now rangers and eldritch knights have a great battlefield control and thematic option. Plus they can function along side their darkness warlock buddies. Sure, if another spellcaster brings up fog cloud for the party it’s better, but this new fighting style (and the option to switch fighting styles) is great fun and function for the ranger and EK!
This really isn't the case though.
Firstly, it's going to depend very heavily on the rest of the party whether a spell being "late" for a Ranger is a problem or not, and that doesn't really have any bearing on whether it's a good pick for the Ranger or not. Even so, if you were to axe half the non-concentration spells and only a third of the concentration spells, it doesn't change the fact you still have way more choices than you can take. Cut non-concentration by two-thirds and you can still nearly fill your entire list with them by level 20 and never have to worry about concentration if you don't want to.
And even if you want to avoid concentration conflicts in combat, you can still take two or three concentration spells in your list without problems; for example, Hunter's Mark, Detect Magic and Pass Without Trace, which very rarely are going to conflict with each other and are all extremely useful spells, swapping as necessary if your party has other sources for the latter two.
It's extremely easy to pick a spell list for a Ranger that doesn't have any issues with concentration, or which can take the hit on interruptions if you want to, and either way build a perfectly good Ranger.
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.
I compiled the list by looking at spells that do an do not require concentration that someone would use in combat given that the conversation is focused on Favored Foe, an ability that will only ever be used in combat.
And once again, we fundamentally disagree on the help/hurt aspect of making Favored Foe concentration. You want to say that it helps, I say that when the biggest complaint of the ranger is that all their best options require concentration ADDING to that does not help. If you want to say it does, then you can think that, but for me the fact that it isn't using a spell slot is not a strong enough factor given the paltry damage that it does to a single enemy.
The simple fact is that, like the rogues sneak attack, Hunter's Mark is baked into the way Rangers play and should simply be a feature of the class. I think that when 5.5 or 6th edition comes out, it will be. I am not sure what feedback they got about giving it as feature made them pull back.
That's a bit of an artificial limit to impose though; a Ranger's spell list can only (currently) be changed on level up, and even if the proposed UA change to once per long rest is added, the bulk of the spells you will want to choose will be ones that you need available all the time.
That should really include utility spells for out of combat, as well as pre-combat spells such as Pass Without Trace, and ambush/trap spells such as Snare. A realistic Ranger build is mostly non-concentration, with maybe two or three concentration spells if you're avoiding interruption, maybe a few more (or different spells) if you don't mind switching concentration if you get the opportunity to use them.
For a Ranger, how you get into combat is often as important as what you do when it starts; setting traps can make a huge difference, not just for yourself but your allies, and making the whole party extra stealthy so you can get a surprise round in is one of the most valuable pre-combat abilities there is.
The "problem" with concentration is that using one spell ends another, so if you'd have preferred to have kept that previous spell running then the slot is "lost" to make that switch. The spell where that is most likely to be a "problem" is Hunter's Mark, as it's used to boost basic damage over time. Favoured Foe provides a boost to basic damage over time without costing a spell slot, ergo it helps with the "problem" because you can bring it up instead either initially, after the interruption, or both.
Again though, it's only a problem if you build your Ranger with too many concentration spells. Granted it will sometimes just happen anyway because you have Lightning Arrow and misjudged how numerous an enemy group would be and find you want to switch to AoE (or just get a perfect opportunity to), but when that happens it's not a "problem", that's just how it is when you use concentration spells.
Maybe in 6e WotC will do it differently, I strongly suspect you're right and they'll just make Hunter's Mark a built in feature, but clearly they don't think they can bolt that in right now because there are too many moving parts it will change. As I've already said before in this thread (and others), I'd prefer Favoured Foe to just be bonus uses of Hunter's Mark, none of the other boosts were necessary, but I don't have any fundamental problem with the leaked version of Favoured Foe as it functions slightly differently (only once per turn, but scaling damage and no bonus action requirement), and ultimately it's up to you if your build will benefit from it or not; if Hunter's Mark is pretty much your only concentration spell (in combat at least) then there's no reason to, but that won't be every Ranger.
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.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorPlease avoid making personal attacks and making assumptions about other users.
Homebrew Rules || Homebrew FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources
Does anyone realize that a concentrationless Hunter's Mark is capable of being multi-casted.
That is, if a player wants to, they can Hunter's Mark multiple enemies at once. I believe this is the problem that concentration was meant to solve.
Even with concentration restrictions, the ranger’s damage output per spell slot used (when used in the appropriate situations) is “on target” compared to other non full spellcasters use of spell slots.
Favored Foe is printed as written in the previous leaks.
Lol, which ones?
Fair enough. 🙂
However, losing concentration after getting hit is Not the player's choice. Therefore, it baffles me that the base Ranger has no options to boost their CON saves except by taking a feat like Warcaster, which is half wasted b/c Rangers get no cantrips. I'm hoping that the Tasha's variant will finally allow Rangers to either get a few cantrips or get a bonus to concentration saves.
If using multiclassing rangers blend well with (and gain a lot from) fighters, barbarians, druids, and rogues. Starting with one level in either of the two former get a ranger, especially a strength based and/or melee focused ranger, a LOT, including proficiency in constitution saving throws. That’s one of my favorite things about multiclassing and rangers. They can really hone in one a niche focus of their build with just a level or two.
I agree, I love the ranger, but I always multiclass them, typically with rogue, but I have considered mixing in an echo knight, I think it offer some interesting options
That also depends on the ranger and any other investments they've made. But you're on the right track: not every feat is useful to everyone. Rangers have basically zero single-target spells. You don't need a cantrip to use War Caster, but it can be efficient.
That said, rangers can still get two solid uses out of the feat. Not every wizard is going to get the full benefit of War Caster, but 2/3 isn't bad. Most won't get the full use out of Shield Master, either.
I agree that Rangers stand to gain a lot from multi-classing. However, A) not all DMs allow it, and B) the amount gained by multi-classing vs. by sticking to the same class for the capstone really highlights how unimpressive the capstone is.
The issue with getting Resilient (CON) instead of Warcaster is that you lose out on the "You can perform the somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands."
Is it Really fair comparing the Wizard and the Ranger in this instance? Wizards get to choose from cantrips that A) do damage and often B) limit the combat capability of their foes. Shocking Grasp and Ray of Frost are there for a reason.
I think the capstone argument is not valid for a number of reasons, 1 most capstones are not great, 2 and more importantly, unless you are starting a high level game with the intention of playing level 20 characters, you will never get to 20. I played for over a year fighting way above the cr for the level we were and we made it to level 12. Unless you are starting high level and playing high level, you will never see high levels.