how that youve seen all the classes how are you feeling about the ranger? still feel like its fine? or think it needed another pass? scrapped? or think its amazing? would love to hear your thoughts
Overall I'm still excited about the new Ranger. Being able to swap even one spell on a long rest is a game changer for the class, and for the first time, I don't need Tasha's or Xanathar's to feel like I have a decent subclass. And a bunch of free Hunter's Marks at low levels is so good, it opens up so much more of their list for me.
My one remaining complaint is the capstone - compared to all the other classes that go bonkers with their capstones, Ranger's just lacks oomph. All it needs is to remove concentration and it would be so much more exciting, as I would then be imagining all the other cool ranger buffs I can combine HM with even if I never get to play at that level.
I think Treantmonk put it best at the end of the class preview series:
"Wow, people sure hate on the Ranger these days! Just because we have the option to cast Hunter's Mark with a throwaway first-level feature - 'but we don't want to cast Hunter's Mark!' - then... don't cast it! (laughs) You want to cast Conjure Animals then cast Conjure Animals, the new version is great! The fact that you're not using a 1st-level feature in that combat is not a big deal; just use it for some other combat, or don't use it, it's not a big deal... it's a first-level feature, I don't understand why people are obsessed with having the option to cast something they don't have to cast. It's not even the best 1st-level feature the Ranger gets! I just don't understand it."
how that youve seen all the classes how are you feeling about the ranger? still feel like its fine? or think it needed another pass? scrapped? or think its amazing? would love to hear your thoughts
Overall I'm still excited about the new Ranger. Being able to swap even one spell on a long rest is a game changer for the class, and for the first time, I don't need Tasha's or Xanathar's to feel like I have a decent subclass. And a bunch of free Hunter's Marks at low levels is so good, it opens up so much more of their list for me.
My one remaining complaint is the capstone - compared to all the other classes that go bonkers with their capstones, Ranger's just lacks oomph. All it needs is to remove concentration and it would be so much more exciting, as I would then be imagining all the other cool ranger buffs I can combine HM with even if I never get to play at that level.
I think Treantmonk put it best at the end of the class preview series:
"Wow, people sure hate on the Ranger these days! Just because we have the option to cast Hunter's Mark with a throwaway first-level feature - 'but we don't want to cast Hunter's Mark!' - then... don't cast it! (laughs) You want to cast Conjure Animals then cast Conjure Animals, the new version is great! The fact that you're not using a 1st-level feature in that combat is not a big deal; just use it for some other combat, or don't use it, it's not a big deal... it's a first-level feature, I don't understand why people are obsessed with having the option to cast something they don't have to cast. It's not even the best 1st-level feature the Ranger gets! I just don't understand it."
thats a fair take i know some people are still going to be haters but i think a simple homebrew fix ill be using for the hunters mark thing is the 13th level thing where they cant lose concentration and just make it not need con anymore. Other then that yea i think alot of the other ranger changes where great even more so the change spells on a long rest one
Won't hunter's mark be able to be upcasted? Would be nice if the free castings are of the highest available spell slot you have. Not just a lvl 1 free casting. Hoping tbe aame for paladin and smite.
I think Treantmonk put it best at the end of the class preview series:
"Wow, people sure hate on the Ranger these days! Just because we have the option to cast Hunter's Mark with a throwaway first-level feature - 'but we don't want to cast Hunter's Mark!' - then... don't cast it! (laughs) You want to cast Conjure Animals then cast Conjure Animals, the new version is great! The fact that you're not using a 1st-level feature in that combat is not a big deal; just use it for some other combat, or don't use it, it's not a big deal... it's a first-level feature, I don't understand why people are obsessed with having the option to cast something they don't have to cast. It's not even the best 1st-level feature the Ranger gets! I just don't understand it."
This feels deliberately disingenuous on TreantMonk's part - he has to know how duplicitous he's being with a statement like this. Hunter's Mark isn't just a pair of first level features (bonus castings and bonus preparation), it's necessary for features at the following levels:
1: Bonus casts and bonus preparation.
Unknown: we know that at higher levels the number of bonus casts of Hunter's Mark scales up.
3: At least two subclasses, Beast Master and Hunter, get a subclass ability dependent on Hunter's Mark.
None of the class summaries seem to delineate at what levels subclasses unlock new features, so more unknown higher-level content may be present.
13 (Relentless Hunter)
17 (Precise Hunter) (Note: by this level, bonus casts of HM have scaled from 2 to 6)
20 (Foe Slayer, the new winner of the contest for worst capstone in the game)
Criticisms that this class is too dependent on Hunter's Mark are simply not criticisms about a specific L1 feature. If you play your Ranger without casting Hunter's Mark, by level 20 at least 5-6 (depending on subclass) of your features will not be doing anything.
Treantmonk has actually seen the PHB in general and the ranger specifically but is under an nda, so what he can say is limited to only things WotC has announced. He has the context the rest of us lack.
I’m not usually a fan of YouTubers in general, including him. But before people throw around accusations, maybe consider he’s being honest in his opinion, and has the benefit of more information.
Won't hunter's mark be able to be upcasted? Would be nice if the free castings are of the highest available spell slot you have. Not just a lvl 1 free casting. Hoping tbe aame for paladin and smite.
I doubt the free uses will scale - but remember they reverted to the old HM that applies to each hit and only scales up in duration. Meaning it'll last an hour baseline anyway, which is plenty of time for each free use even if you're occasionally dropping concentration on it to cast other things. So casting it at level 1 a bunch of times is perfectly fine, and will naturally scale as you get additional attacks (EA, BA, reaction, haste, magic weapons etc.)
Criticisms that this class is too dependent on Hunter's Mark are simply not criticisms about a specific L1 feature. If you play your Ranger without casting Hunter's Mark, by level 20 at least 5-6 (depending on subclass) of your features will not be doing anything.
Okay... and? I have features in lots of classes that don't do anything, Ranger most of all. I almost never used Favored Enemy, Natural Explorer, Primeval Awareness, or Hide In Plain Sight, even before Tasha's. But for me, those features just didn't exist, and what I got when I leveled up were more spells and attacks. I still felt like a ranger.
What Treantmonk is saying is that, on the days you don't cast Hunter's Mark, you don't stop being a ranger. It's a simple calculation - what one thing can I concentrate on that's going to get me the most bang for my buck? A lot of the time, that's going to be Hunter's Mark; as I level up, other things will be more impactful, but those things will also be limited due to being in higher-level slots. HM will never completely go away, and that's okay.
The thing about Treantmonk's quote is that he's specifically talking about the average campaign which typically ends around 10th level. So, you only have the 1st level feature to be concerned about. The upgrade at 13th, 17th, and 20th will not be seen by many players. I do think the capstone is a big letdown though.
I kind of compare it to Monk which also received some big changes. Just like HM, a Monk's primary feature is Monk's Focus, that gives you Focus Points and Flurry of Blows, Patient Defense, and Step of the Wind, which gets upgraded at 10th level, and subclasses build off of this as well. You also have Deflect Attacks at 3rd level that gets an upgrade at 13th level. Are you going to complain that if you don't use FoB, PD, SotW you are losing out on your 10th level feature (and any subclass related features)? Or if you don't use your reaction to Deflect an attack you are losing out on your 13th? I know I won't.
Edit: In any event, when a situation warrants it, you have other spells that can be used. HM, while a core feature for Rangers now, is not the only thing they can do. And not always the best option to use in every situation.
I think Treantmonk put it best at the end of the class preview series:
"Wow, people sure hate on the Ranger these days! Just because we have the option to cast Hunter's Mark with a throwaway first-level feature - 'but we don't want to cast Hunter's Mark!' - then... don't cast it! (laughs) You want to cast Conjure Animals then cast Conjure Animals, the new version is great! The fact that you're not using a 1st-level feature in that combat is not a big deal; just use it for some other combat, or don't use it, it's not a big deal... it's a first-level feature, I don't understand why people are obsessed with having the option to cast something they don't have to cast. It's not even the best 1st-level feature the Ranger gets! I just don't understand it."
This feels deliberately disingenuous on TreantMonk's part - he has to know how duplicitous he's being with a statement like this. Hunter's Mark isn't just a pair of first level features (bonus castings and bonus preparation), it's necessary for features at the following levels:
1: Bonus casts and bonus preparation.
Unknown: we know that at higher levels the number of bonus casts of Hunter's Mark scales up.
3: At least two subclasses, Beast Master and Hunter, get a subclass ability dependent on Hunter's Mark.
None of the class summaries seem to delineate at what levels subclasses unlock new features, so more unknown higher-level content may be present.
13 (Relentless Hunter)
17 (Precise Hunter) (Note: by this level, bonus casts of HM have scaled from 2 to 6)
20 (Foe Slayer, the new winner of the contest for worst capstone in the game)
Criticisms that this class is too dependent on Hunter's Mark are simply not criticisms about a specific L1 feature. If you play your Ranger without casting Hunter's Mark, by level 20 at least 5-6 (depending on subclass) of your features will not be doing anything.
Treantmonk is one of those pundits on the game whose analysis and ideas on classes revolves entirely around white-room theory-crafting where the only thing they judge classes by (because it's the only thing they can measure in such scenarios) is damage output. So he isn't going to care that one-third of a class's features revolve around a specific spell that locks out most of your other choices in combat, or which gives you dead space in your feature list if you don't constantly use that one spell. If you aren't going to treat a feature that only contributes to DPR as valuable, that's your loss, apparently.
For reference, Treantmonk did a video saying the new Elements Monk is good that consisted entirely of two white-room battles with a party built around supporting his Monk and exploiting Spike Growth. No acknowledgement of social situations, staying power across an adventuring day; heck, he even picked monsters with unremarkable Con saves to minimize the impact of Stunning Strike's nerf. He, and other white-room pundits, aren't just a poor indication of good design, he and others like him have openly encouraged the shallow, wildly-imbalanced, and dismissive of non-combat scenarios and features approach that plagues 2024 5e's design.
Well, it is much easier to quantify how combat features will work then it is how much use you will get out of two additional languages and expertise in skills.
Social encounters may involve skills and die rolls or could be completely devoid of any mechanics at all and 100% RP, depending on the table so, again, hard to evaluate. Where combat will work very similar at just about every table unless there is a lot of homebrew.
Treantmonk is one of those pundits on the game whose analysis and ideas on classes revolves entirely around white-room theory-crafting where the only thing they judge classes by (because it's the only thing they can measure in such scenarios) is damage output. So he isn't going to care that one-third of a class's features revolve around a specific spell that locks out most of your other choices in combat, or which gives you dead space in your feature list if you don't constantly use that one spell. If you aren't going to treat a feature that only contributes to DPR as valuable, that's your loss, apparently.
His point wasn't that you're required to treat HM as valuable; his point was that whether you consider HM valuable or not, 2024 Rangers get plenty of good things aside from it. Nobody is forcing you to concentrate on HM, and nothing but your own sunk cost fallacy/psychology is making you feel like you somehow lose something by choosing to concentrate on something else instead.
For reference, Treantmonk did a video saying the new Elements Monk is good that consisted entirely of two white-room battles with a party built around supporting his Monk and exploiting Spike Growth. No acknowledgement of social situations, staying power across an adventuring day; heck, he even picked monsters with unremarkable Con saves to minimize the impact of Stunning Strike's nerf. He, and other white-room pundits, aren't just a poor indication of good design, he and others like him have openly encouraged the shallow, wildly-imbalanced, and dismissive of non-combat scenarios and features approach that plagues 2024 5e's design.
1) I for one am really glad WotC listens more to the "white-room pundits" than to opinions like this one. Hopefully the fact that they're so valued by WotC that they got free advance copies of the book isn't too irksome.
2) He did another playtest (with d4, Pack Tactics, and DMed by Insight Check) that didn't use Spike Growth at all and his WotE monk was still the MVP, due to its concentration-free flight, high saves and ability to freely reposition allies.
Well, it is much easier to quantify how combat features will work then it is how much use you will get out of two additional languages and expertise in skills.
Social encounters may involve skills and die rolls or could be completely devoid of any mechanics at all and 100% RP, depending on the table so, again, hard to evaluate. Where combat will work very similar at just about every table unless there is a lot of homebrew.
Also - not to point out the blindingly obvious to our friend here - but combat is the pillar where failure is most likely to lead to death. Failing social and exploration encounters usually just means more story. (Oh noes!)
Also - not to point out the blindingly obvious to our friend here - but combat is the pillar where failure is most likely to lead to death. Failing social and exploration encounters usually just means more story. (Oh noes!)
Failing social encounters can lead to certain death. You walk into some unknown court and act like a complete, disrespectful twit in any campaign of mine and you may well not get to initiative before being taken down, or at best, to initiative against far more than you should or can reasonably handle.
Failing exploration encounters usually means failing combat or failing social, but if it is a matter of simply ignoring or otherwise not finding, then that is less story, not more. And may well be important later, again, potentially making a combat more than you can handle.
Now I am not saying that every table does or should run that way. That is merely the way I run mine. There are tables where it is all 99% combat and others that are far more social and those where the social aspects are completely player level and character social skills do not matter. There are still DM's out there who consider charisma stat and character social skills some sort of cheating, bypassing actual RP.
My point is, though, that there are tables where social skills do matter and not having at least one character in the party good at them (and good at playing them) results in an unbalanced party. This is not to say that the Ranger class should have a more social option (although the 2014 Fae Ranger is pretty crazy for that), just that social options are not wasted at many tables.
I think it sums up 2024 5e to hear its defenders say that social and exploration encounters have zero consequence whatsoever.
The best part too is that versatile tools that can benefit out-of-combat scenarios exist, and still exist in 2024. It's just that the only tools outside of ability checks for such purposes belong solely to casters now, and martials have no access to such options.
Think you might need to grab your glasses and read again, because no one is saying, "social and exploration encounters have zero consequence whatsoever", especially people who are looking forward to the the rules updates. If anything they've done so much more to add out of combat utility to classes.
I think it sums up 2024 5e to hear its defenders say that social and exploration encounters have zero consequence whatsoever.
The best part too is that versatile tools that can benefit out-of-combat scenarios exist, and still exist in 2024. It's just that the only tools outside of ability checks for such purposes belong solely to casters now, and martials have no access to such options.
Think you might need to grab your glasses and read again, because no one is saying, "social and exploration encounters have zero consequence whatsoever", especially people who are looking forward to the the rules updates. If anything they've done so much more to add out of combat utility to classes.
"Failing social and exploration encounters usually just means more story. (Oh noes!)" (from post #193) sounds a lot like 'have zero consequences.' It even suggests that failing such encounters is a positive, giving 'more story'
I think it sums up 2024 5e to hear its defenders say that social and exploration encounters have zero consequence whatsoever.
The best part too is that versatile tools that can benefit out-of-combat scenarios exist, and still exist in 2024. It's just that the only tools outside of ability checks for such purposes belong solely to casters now, and martials have no access to such options.
Think you might need to grab your glasses and read again, because no one is saying, "social and exploration encounters have zero consequence whatsoever", especially people who are looking forward to the the rules updates. If anything they've done so much more to add out of combat utility to classes.
"Failing social and exploration encounters usually just means more story. (Oh noes!)" (from post #193) sounds a lot like 'have zero consequences.' It even suggests that failing such encounters is a positive, giving 'more story'
So what you're saying is... more role playing opportunities, fun consequences and all that are of no consequence? Yet y'all complaining that said things removed? Make ya minds up. lol
I think it sums up 2024 5e to hear its defenders say that social and exploration encounters have zero consequence whatsoever.
The best part too is that versatile tools that can benefit out-of-combat scenarios exist, and still exist in 2024. It's just that the only tools outside of ability checks for such purposes belong solely to casters now, and martials have no access to such options.
Think you might need to grab your glasses and read again, because no one is saying, "social and exploration encounters have zero consequence whatsoever", especially people who are looking forward to the the rules updates. If anything they've done so much more to add out of combat utility to classes.
"Failing social and exploration encounters usually just means more story. (Oh noes!)" (from post #193) sounds a lot like 'have zero consequences.' It even suggests that failing such encounters is a positive, giving 'more story'
So what you're saying is... more role playing opportunities, fun consequences and all that are of no consequence? Yet y'all complaining that said things removed? Make ya minds up. lol
I was saying that in my campaign and in many campaigns there are negative consequences from failing such encounters. I was saying this in opposition to those suggesting otherwise.
I think it sums up 2024 5e to hear its defenders say that social and exploration encounters have zero consequence whatsoever.
The best part too is that versatile tools that can benefit out-of-combat scenarios exist, and still exist in 2024. It's just that the only tools outside of ability checks for such purposes belong solely to casters now, and martials have no access to such options.
Think you might need to grab your glasses and read again, because no one is saying, "social and exploration encounters have zero consequence whatsoever", especially people who are looking forward to the the rules updates. If anything they've done so much more to add out of combat utility to classes.
"Failing social and exploration encounters usually just means more story. (Oh noes!)" (from post #193) sounds a lot like 'have zero consequences.' It even suggests that failing such encounters is a positive, giving 'more story'
So what you're saying is... more role playing opportunities, fun consequences and all that are of no consequence? Yet y'all complaining that said things removed? Make ya minds up. lol
I was saying that in my campaign and in many campaigns there are negative consequences from failing such encounters. I was saying this in opposition to those suggesting otherwise.
And what I was getting at was outside of skill checks and RP, social and exploration pillars don’t have very many rules, and for good reason. Where combat does require a more robust ruleset. Hence why people like Treantmonk focus on these.
I think it sums up 2024 5e to hear its defenders say that social and exploration encounters have zero consequence whatsoever.
The best part too is that versatile tools that can benefit out-of-combat scenarios exist, and still exist in 2024. It's just that the only tools outside of ability checks for such purposes belong solely to casters now, and martials have no access to such options.
Think you might need to grab your glasses and read again, because no one is saying, "social and exploration encounters have zero consequence whatsoever", especially people who are looking forward to the the rules updates. If anything they've done so much more to add out of combat utility to classes.
"Failing social and exploration encounters usually just means more story. (Oh noes!)" (from post #193) sounds a lot like 'have zero consequences.' It even suggests that failing such encounters is a positive, giving 'more story'
So what you're saying is... more role playing opportunities, fun consequences and all that are of no consequence? Yet y'all complaining that said things removed? Make ya minds up. lol
I was saying that in my campaign and in many campaigns there are negative consequences from failing such encounters. I was saying this in opposition to those suggesting otherwise.
And what I was getting at was outside of skill checks and RP, social and exploration pillars don’t have very many rules, and for good reason. Where combat does require a more robust ruleset. Hence why people like Treantmonk focus on these.
Saying "Outside of the rules that exist, there are not many rules" is not saying much. The argument seemed to be that there are known consequences for losing combat, namely death, which, in the opinion of the poster I was responding too, makes combat far more important than social or exploration options. I was disputing that, pointing out that social or exploration failures can also result in death.
You seem to be saying now that was not Treatnmonk's point and they were only concentrating on analysis of combat since it is easier to analyze, however, the DM still decides what the party is up against and the tougher the party is, the tougher the opposition they are likely to face. Furthermore, since the DM still decides what the party is up against, any analysis of combat effectiveness cannot take into account, in advance, what any given DM will throw at the party any more than analysis of social or exploration options can.
Again, there are tables where nothing but combat matters and that is ok. But that is not all tables. And for those tables that want more than just endless combat, those additional features facilitate that 'more.'
I think the final word with the 2024 Ranger is that, if you want to play a character who is an expert in traversing and surviving in nature...
...play a Rogue, because the Ranger has zero features that's give it any sort of mechanical advantage in that area over a Rogue's Expertises.
In fact, you have fewer features for skill-related things and versatility than you do for one first-level spell.
Rangers also get expertise though… they also get spellcasting a level 1, which affords rangers a great deal of mechanical advantage that rogues do not get.
I think the final word with the 2024 Ranger is that, if you want to play a character who is an expert in traversing and surviving in nature...
...play a Rogue, because the Ranger has zero features that's give it any sort of mechanical advantage in that area over a Rogue's Expertises.
In fact, you have fewer features for skill-related things and versatility than you do for one first-level spell.
Rangers also get expertise though… they also get spellcasting a level 1, which affords rangers a great deal of mechanical advantage that rogues do not get.
In the preview article about the Ranger, they specifically mentioned their spells as aids to exploration.
If you want a non-spellcasting “Ranger”, then Rogue (especially Scout) is probably a better fit.
My point is, though, that there are tables where social skills do matter and not having at least one character in the party good at them (and good at playing them) results in an unbalanced party. This is not to say that the Ranger class should have a more social option (although the 2014 Fae Ranger is pretty crazy for that), just that social options are not wasted at many tables.
1) I never said social skills shouldn't matter. It's possible for checks to matter without instant death being a consequence.
2) Rangers have plenty of social abilities - between Expertise, as well as spells that let them do things like interrogate pets, potted plants, rocks etc. Rangers make fantastic detectives in a lot of campaigns.
I think the final word with the 2024 Ranger is that, if you want to play a character who is an expert in traversing and surviving in nature...
...play a Rogue, because the Ranger has zero features that's give it any sort of mechanical advantage in that area over a Rogue's Expertises.
In fact, you have fewer features for skill-related things and versatility than you do for one first-level spell.
Rangers get Expertises (plural) too. And I'm sorry but this is nonsense. Rangers get fantastic exploration abilities. Even the hunter's mark spell you revile so much has uses in the exploration pillar when the ranger "accidentally" allows an enemy to flee from combat and run back to their hidden base.
Again, highlighting the fact that there are no ways for non-casters to interact with the world beyond ability checks or to have unique abilities to contribute in social or exploration situations other than spells.
Rangers aren't "non-casters." See that big word on their class table that says "Spellcasting?" That means they cast spells.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Overall I'm still excited about the new Ranger. Being able to swap even one spell on a long rest is a game changer for the class, and for the first time, I don't need Tasha's or Xanathar's to feel like I have a decent subclass. And a bunch of free Hunter's Marks at low levels is so good, it opens up so much more of their list for me.
My one remaining complaint is the capstone - compared to all the other classes that go bonkers with their capstones, Ranger's just lacks oomph. All it needs is to remove concentration and it would be so much more exciting, as I would then be imagining all the other cool ranger buffs I can combine HM with even if I never get to play at that level.
I think Treantmonk put it best at the end of the class preview series:
"Wow, people sure hate on the Ranger these days! Just because we have the option to cast Hunter's Mark with a throwaway first-level feature - 'but we don't want to cast Hunter's Mark!' - then... don't cast it! (laughs) You want to cast Conjure Animals then cast Conjure Animals, the new version is great! The fact that you're not using a 1st-level feature in that combat is not a big deal; just use it for some other combat, or don't use it, it's not a big deal... it's a first-level feature, I don't understand why people are obsessed with having the option to cast something they don't have to cast. It's not even the best 1st-level feature the Ranger gets! I just don't understand it."
thats a fair take i know some people are still going to be haters but i think a simple homebrew fix ill be using for the hunters mark thing is the 13th level thing where they cant lose concentration and just make it not need con anymore. Other then that yea i think alot of the other ranger changes where great even more so the change spells on a long rest one
Won't hunter's mark be able to be upcasted? Would be nice if the free castings are of the highest available spell slot you have. Not just a lvl 1 free casting. Hoping tbe aame for paladin and smite.
This feels deliberately disingenuous on TreantMonk's part - he has to know how duplicitous he's being with a statement like this. Hunter's Mark isn't just a pair of first level features (bonus castings and bonus preparation), it's necessary for features at the following levels:
Criticisms that this class is too dependent on Hunter's Mark are simply not criticisms about a specific L1 feature. If you play your Ranger without casting Hunter's Mark, by level 20 at least 5-6 (depending on subclass) of your features will not be doing anything.
Treantmonk has actually seen the PHB in general and the ranger specifically but is under an nda, so what he can say is limited to only things WotC has announced. He has the context the rest of us lack.
I’m not usually a fan of YouTubers in general, including him. But before people throw around accusations, maybe consider he’s being honest in his opinion, and has the benefit of more information.
I doubt the free uses will scale - but remember they reverted to the old HM that applies to each hit and only scales up in duration. Meaning it'll last an hour baseline anyway, which is plenty of time for each free use even if you're occasionally dropping concentration on it to cast other things. So casting it at level 1 a bunch of times is perfectly fine, and will naturally scale as you get additional attacks (EA, BA, reaction, haste, magic weapons etc.)
Okay... and? I have features in lots of classes that don't do anything, Ranger most of all. I almost never used Favored Enemy, Natural Explorer, Primeval Awareness, or Hide In Plain Sight, even before Tasha's. But for me, those features just didn't exist, and what I got when I leveled up were more spells and attacks. I still felt like a ranger.
What Treantmonk is saying is that, on the days you don't cast Hunter's Mark, you don't stop being a ranger. It's a simple calculation - what one thing can I concentrate on that's going to get me the most bang for my buck? A lot of the time, that's going to be Hunter's Mark; as I level up, other things will be more impactful, but those things will also be limited due to being in higher-level slots. HM will never completely go away, and that's okay.
The thing about Treantmonk's quote is that he's specifically talking about the average campaign which typically ends around 10th level. So, you only have the 1st level feature to be concerned about. The upgrade at 13th, 17th, and 20th will not be seen by many players. I do think the capstone is a big letdown though.
I kind of compare it to Monk which also received some big changes. Just like HM, a Monk's primary feature is Monk's Focus, that gives you Focus Points and Flurry of Blows, Patient Defense, and Step of the Wind, which gets upgraded at 10th level, and subclasses build off of this as well. You also have Deflect Attacks at 3rd level that gets an upgrade at 13th level. Are you going to complain that if you don't use FoB, PD, SotW you are losing out on your 10th level feature (and any subclass related features)? Or if you don't use your reaction to Deflect an attack you are losing out on your 13th? I know I won't.
Edit: In any event, when a situation warrants it, you have other spells that can be used. HM, while a core feature for Rangers now, is not the only thing they can do. And not always the best option to use in every situation.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Well, it is much easier to quantify how combat features will work then it is how much use you will get out of two additional languages and expertise in skills.
Social encounters may involve skills and die rolls or could be completely devoid of any mechanics at all and 100% RP, depending on the table so, again, hard to evaluate. Where combat will work very similar at just about every table unless there is a lot of homebrew.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
His point wasn't that you're required to treat HM as valuable; his point was that whether you consider HM valuable or not, 2024 Rangers get plenty of good things aside from it. Nobody is forcing you to concentrate on HM, and nothing but your own sunk cost fallacy/psychology is making you feel like you somehow lose something by choosing to concentrate on something else instead.
1) I for one am really glad WotC listens more to the "white-room pundits" than to opinions like this one. Hopefully the fact that they're so valued by WotC that they got free advance copies of the book isn't too irksome.
2) He did another playtest (with d4, Pack Tactics, and DMed by Insight Check) that didn't use Spike Growth at all and his WotE monk was still the MVP, due to its concentration-free flight, high saves and ability to freely reposition allies.
Also - not to point out the blindingly obvious to our friend here - but combat is the pillar where failure is most likely to lead to death. Failing social and exploration encounters usually just means more story. (Oh noes!)
Failing social encounters can lead to certain death. You walk into some unknown court and act like a complete, disrespectful twit in any campaign of mine and you may well not get to initiative before being taken down, or at best, to initiative against far more than you should or can reasonably handle.
Failing exploration encounters usually means failing combat or failing social, but if it is a matter of simply ignoring or otherwise not finding, then that is less story, not more. And may well be important later, again, potentially making a combat more than you can handle.
Now I am not saying that every table does or should run that way. That is merely the way I run mine. There are tables where it is all 99% combat and others that are far more social and those where the social aspects are completely player level and character social skills do not matter. There are still DM's out there who consider charisma stat and character social skills some sort of cheating, bypassing actual RP.
My point is, though, that there are tables where social skills do matter and not having at least one character in the party good at them (and good at playing them) results in an unbalanced party. This is not to say that the Ranger class should have a more social option (although the 2014 Fae Ranger is pretty crazy for that), just that social options are not wasted at many tables.
Think you might need to grab your glasses and read again, because no one is saying, "social and exploration encounters have zero consequence whatsoever", especially people who are looking forward to the the rules updates. If anything they've done so much more to add out of combat utility to classes.
"Failing social and exploration encounters usually just means more story. (Oh noes!)" (from post #193) sounds a lot like 'have zero consequences.' It even suggests that failing such encounters is a positive, giving 'more story'
So what you're saying is... more role playing opportunities, fun consequences and all that are of no consequence? Yet y'all complaining that said things removed? Make ya minds up. lol
I was saying that in my campaign and in many campaigns there are negative consequences from failing such encounters. I was saying this in opposition to those suggesting otherwise.
And what I was getting at was outside of skill checks and RP, social and exploration pillars don’t have very many rules, and for good reason. Where combat does require a more robust ruleset. Hence why people like Treantmonk focus on these.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Saying "Outside of the rules that exist, there are not many rules" is not saying much. The argument seemed to be that there are known consequences for losing combat, namely death, which, in the opinion of the poster I was responding too, makes combat far more important than social or exploration options. I was disputing that, pointing out that social or exploration failures can also result in death.
You seem to be saying now that was not Treatnmonk's point and they were only concentrating on analysis of combat since it is easier to analyze, however, the DM still decides what the party is up against and the tougher the party is, the tougher the opposition they are likely to face. Furthermore, since the DM still decides what the party is up against, any analysis of combat effectiveness cannot take into account, in advance, what any given DM will throw at the party any more than analysis of social or exploration options can.
Again, there are tables where nothing but combat matters and that is ok. But that is not all tables. And for those tables that want more than just endless combat, those additional features facilitate that 'more.'
Rangers also get expertise though… they also get spellcasting a level 1, which affords rangers a great deal of mechanical advantage that rogues do not get.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
In the preview article about the Ranger, they specifically mentioned their spells as aids to exploration.
If you want a non-spellcasting “Ranger”, then Rogue (especially Scout) is probably a better fit.
That... explains a lot.
1) I never said social skills shouldn't matter. It's possible for checks to matter without instant death being a consequence.
2) Rangers have plenty of social abilities - between Expertise, as well as spells that let them do things like interrogate pets, potted plants, rocks etc. Rangers make fantastic detectives in a lot of campaigns.
Rangers get Expertises (plural) too. And I'm sorry but this is nonsense. Rangers get fantastic exploration abilities. Even the hunter's mark spell you revile so much has uses in the exploration pillar when the ranger "accidentally" allows an enemy to flee from combat and run back to their hidden base.
Rangers aren't "non-casters." See that big word on their class table that says "Spellcasting?" That means they cast spells.