i meant alot of their EB invocations have been changes to any cantrip now
The class is still balanced around Eldritch Blast being the primary cantrip choice. Because while it's nice that other cantrips can be boosted by things like Agonizing Blast now, none of them give you multiple attacks as you level i.e. adding your ability modifier multiple times, so EB is still the optimal choice. And because of that, that's what WotC needs to assume most people will take, and design around.
but there is also a great many other invocations someone can take and be just as effective not to mention all the free spells they get from them
I would have liked to see hunter's mark lose its verbal component. We don't know what the spells look like though so we can't say for sure it didn't. If it is longer range and no verbal component its utility could be increased. Obviously some of the subclasses increase its utility already
Hunter's Mark has always been about doing max damage to a single high HP foe. It has always been close to useless when having to deal with a multitude of low to medium HP foes because of use of the bonus action. 2024 is no different, yes additional features along the way improve and are linked to it but then that is how they grew the feature instead of just adding damage every few levels. That doesn't make the class bad, it makes the feature stronger. What I'm waiting to see are the changes to spells like conjure animals, zephyr strike, etc. Will they be concentration? will some add extra attacks? those factors will determine just how strong the ranger really is when dealing with something other than the BBETG.
Hunter's Mark has always been about doing max damage to a single high HP foe. It has always been close to useless when having to deal with a multitude of low to medium HP foes because of use of the bonus action. 2024 is no different, yes additional features along the way improve and are linked to it but then that is how they grew the feature instead of just adding damage every few levels. That doesn't make the class bad, it makes the feature stronger. What I'm waiting to see are the changes to spells like conjure animals, zephyr strike, etc. Will they be concentration? will some add extra attacks? those factors will determine just how strong the ranger really is when dealing with something other than the BBETG.
I would say that if you're up against swarms of weak mooks, then I completely agree, Hunter's Mark is not your optimal choice in that scenario as you'll end up overkilling individual targets and burning a bunch of bonus actions moving it around, when instead you could concentrate on an AoE zone like Spike Growth or the new Conjure Animals to grind them down in batches instead.
Which just goes to show that the Ranger has multiple options for how they approach fights now.
The Warlock example isn't even comparable because with the invocations, they are choices you get to make,while with Ranger, if you dont use HM, like I've said MANY times now, you are missing out on A 5TH OF THE CLASS. Idk how that's sooooo hard to understand. And you brought up one of my points PERFECTLY. When you get higher level, if you do use higher level spells, you are giving up your 13th, 17th, and possibly 20th level class features, while with other classes, that will never happen. There's a fundamental problem with that. That does make them weak, it makes them weak in comparison to other classes when deciding not to use HM.
Honestly, with HM still requiring concentration and still costing a bonus action to cast, there's a very simple change to put it on the same level as other classes. At 13th level, let the Ranger concentrate on an additional Ranger spell along with HM. That would at least fix the HM problem.
Honestly, with HM still requiring concentration and still costing a bonus action to cast, there's a very simple change to put it on the same level as other classes. At 13th level, let the Ranger concentrate on an additional Ranger spell along with HM. That would at least fix the HM problem.
Crawford explicitly said in the Ranger video that they don't want Rangers doing that at 13.
I'm not against the idea of them not needing to concentrate on HM anymore, but it should be even higher up, if not the capstone.
The Warlock example isn't even comparable because with the invocations, they are choices you get to make,while with Ranger, if you dont use HM, like I've said MANY times now, you are missing out on A 5TH OF THE CLASS. Idk how that's sooooo hard to understand.
What's hard to understand is why words on a page you're not actively using are so painful to behold. Not every feature a class gets needs to be used every day.
And you brought up one of my points PERFECTLY. When you get higher level, if you do use higher level spells, you are giving up your 13th, 17th, and possibly 20th level class features, while with other classes, that will never happen. There's a fundamental problem with that. That does make them weak, it makes them weak in comparison to other classes when deciding not to use HM.
It doesn't make you weaker. Not concentrating on HM simply means... that you're not concentrating on HM. When you've used up your higher-level spell slots doing more powerful things, HM will still exist. And if you make it to a long rest having HM uses left over, congratulations, you made it through the adventuring day.
While I agree that not every class feature always needs to always be in use, the fact that if you don't use HM, you're missing, again, a possible 5th of the class, is a problem. No other class does this. If someone plays Chains of Asmodeus, the new Vecna book, or some Homebrew where people have the possibility to get to level 20, then you are factually not using a 5th of the class. Gaining access to the same spell more times per day because it's free doesn't change the problems with the class. Not concentrating on HM means you aren't using part of your 1st, possibly 3rd because of subclass, 13th, 17th, and 20th class features. That's crazy. No other class does this.
I would have liked to see hunter's mark lose its verbal component. We don't know what the spells look like though so we can't say for sure it didn't. If it is longer range and no verbal component its utility could be increased. Obviously some of the subclasses increase its utility already
I would very much agree with this. Hunter's Mark could be a useful out-of-combat spell if Rangers could use it as a kind of tracer on a specific target without them noticing.
While I agree that not every class feature always needs to always be in use, the fact that if you don't use HM, you're missing, again, a possible 5th of the class, is a problem.
That presumes that you never use HM.
Sure, sometimes there will be fights where AOE is more efficient (for the ranger, specifically), or similar circumstances. But those 1/5th of the class features are there to keep HM competitive, so it's easier to "lean into."
Sometimes a Rogue has a fight where they can't use Sneak Attack. Sometimes a Wizard has an encounter where they don't have the right spell (haha, who am I kidding? that never happens completely). Sometimes there's a social encounter where a Ranger has nothing to hunt... Doesn't mean all those class features are wastes. Just, not everything is optimal for everyone, all the time.
Like I've said...many times...in many responses...
The Ranger isn't good because you HAVE to use a specific spell or you miss out on a 5th of the class as a whole...I do not, for the life of me, understand how people don't read that clear English sentence and understand. They are stuck in a niche that requires them to use a specific spell or they are inherently weaker than other classes.
Why is it a problem that later features of the class add further support to a defining feature? Barbarians have three features devoted to increasing the power of Rage in some way or another, four if you count a feature that is devoted to recharging Rage uses. Hunter's Mark does not make rangers inherently weaker than other classes. Rangers are going to be better or worse than other classes depending on what features are being drawn up in comparative analysis. Not being able to nova damage as well as a rogue would not make a ranger a bad class because Hunter's Mark is not the same as Sneak Attack. We have already seen that the ranger can deliver on par with rogues in damage, it is just applied over several attacks in a turn rather than a single blast of damage. Rangers are not stuck in any niche either. The 2024 rules allow the ranger to actually be built with a variety of options. Just like with any build, a choice to focus on one area will mean making some sacrifices in others. One should not be expecting a ranger to be a one-person party - what is important that the ranger is effective at what it was built to do and is fun to play.
From what I can see, the new ranger is going to be both of those things.
While I get your point, my point is that if a person decides to go with a build that prioritizes other concentration spells over HM, then you're robbing yourself of a 5th of your class features, making you weaker than every other class. Like I mentioned before with something similar to Barbarian Rage, with Rogue's Sneak Attack, while you don't always have to use it, using other abilities doesn't stop you from using it. That's not the same with HM. If you decide to concentrate on another spell or have other bonus actions you'd prefer to do, like idk, attacking with your animal companion or something as Beast Master, then you're out class features until you decide to use it. Wizard is a little difference because they are a full caster, so spells are their forte in general, but even then, you can build around certain spells by choice. With Ranger, sure, you can choose to go with something else other than HM, but then you're not using the class to its full potential. Sad thing is, other classes can be used to their full potential without having to cast a specific bonus action concentration spell. It'd be different if it was a subclass thing, but it's not. It's baked into the class as a whole, plus a little into subclasses like Beast Master and Hunter, incentivizing the use of the spell even more.
While I get your point, my point is that if a person decides to go with a build that prioritizes other concentration spells over HM, then you're robbing yourself of a 5th of your class features, making you weaker than every other class. Like I mentioned before with something similar to Barbarian Rage, with Rogue's Sneak Attack, while you don't always have to use it, using other abilities doesn't stop you from using it. That's not the same with HM. If you decide to concentrate on another spell or have other bonus actions you'd prefer to do, like idk, attacking with your animal companion or something as Beast Master, then you're out class features until you decide to use it. Wizard is a little difference because they are a full caster, so spells are their forte in general, but even then, you can build around certain spells by choice. With Ranger, sure, you can choose to go with something else other than HM, but then you're not using the class to its full potential. Sad thing is, other classes can be used to their full potential without having to cast a specific bonus action concentration spell. It'd be different if it was a subclass thing, but it's not. It's baked into the class as a whole, plus a little into subclasses like Beast Master and Hunter, incentivizing the use of the spell even more.
We don't know what the new spell list will include, but it was stated by Crawford that they changed many of the spell available to the ranger and removed the requirement of concentration for many spells already available to the ranger. You are correct that if you insist on never using Hunter's Mark, your ranger may suffer missing out on some of their features, but why would any person want to do that? In my experience, people choose the ranger because they want to live out their Strider fantasies or be a magically empowered outdoorsman. Hunter's Mark fits very nicely into both of those categories.
When using Hunter's Mark, using other concentration spells would make it too powerful, according to Crawford. Concentration spells in isolation require concentration because, generally, they are very powerful spells for their level. The ranger is getting a powerful level 1 spell with free castings and additional features to power that spell up even more, which other classes will not be able to enjoy even if they put in a dip to get the spell. Other spells are going to be available for when the situation calls for them and the ranger can simply use those as needed, but yes, the features of the ranger are designed to buff its first level feature. I do not see how that is a bad thing. The math seems to support that it is a good thing, from what we have seen in this thread. It appears to me to be a powerful gish. Really, the only way I would change my opinion on that is if we get to September and find that the ranger spell list is awful. Considering the changes that I have seen so far however, I do not find that to be very likely.
While I get your point, my point is that if a person decides to go with a build that prioritizes other concentration spells over HM, then you're robbing yourself of a 5th of your class features, making you weaker than every other class. Like I mentioned before with something similar to Barbarian Rage, with Rogue's Sneak Attack, while you don't always have to use it, using other abilities doesn't stop you from using it. That's not the same with HM. If you decide to concentrate on another spell or have other bonus actions you'd prefer to do, like idk, attacking with your animal companion or something as Beast Master, then you're out class features until you decide to use it. Wizard is a little difference because they are a full caster, so spells are their forte in general, but even then, you can build around certain spells by choice. With Ranger, sure, you can choose to go with something else other than HM, but then you're not using the class to its full potential. Sad thing is, other classes can be used to their full potential without having to cast a specific bonus action concentration spell. It'd be different if it was a subclass thing, but it's not. It's baked into the class as a whole, plus a little into subclasses like Beast Master and Hunter, incentivizing the use of the spell even more.
(btw, you're hitting "Reply" instead of "Quote" so it's hard for other people to tell to whom you are replying.)
So, there's not opportunity cost to HM for the Ranger. They get the spell and free castings of it. They can't not prioritize it. It's there, as a fundamental class option. (And it doesn't use the bonus action every turn, so other bonus actions are available when using it.)
because the defining feature is a concentration bonus action spell. like I've said, in other comments again, using Rage doesn't prevent you from using class options presented unless you decide to to multiclass into a spellcaster with spells that require concentration. Also, I never said Hunter's Mark makes Rangers weaker than other classes. It doesn't. requiring HM to use a 5th of your classes does make it weaker than other classes. I'm fine with playing the new ranger to give it a go, as I've always liked the idea of Rangers, but neither the thematic abilities of the 2014 edition, nor the streamlined abilities of the 2024 edition, give way to a unique class that feels different. Sure, you can now give the Ranger more spells, let them change spells, and give them Expertise...that doesn't make them different than the Bard or Rogue. The special things they get access to that make them different are, what, Roving to gain more movement speed with a climb and swim speed, reducing Exhaustion on short rests and gaining temporary hit points with Tireless, bonus action to straight up turn invisible with Nature's Veil, and Blindsight at level 18 with Feral Sense. Maybe it's enough for others, and that's completely ok, but it's just sad that everything else "unique" to the class is just class features that other classes can get, especially the survival, navigator type abilities (i.e. Expertise and Spells).
Also, like I've said before (jesus, it feels like I've said that many times already. I wonder why?), if you build around Hunter's Mark, your damage is similar to Rogue's with Sneak Attack, so damage has never been an issue.
I would have liked to see hunter's mark lose its verbal component. We don't know what the spells look like though so we can't say for sure it didn't. If it is longer range and no verbal component its utility could be increased. Obviously some of the subclasses increase its utility already
I would very much agree with this. Hunter's Mark could be a useful out-of-combat spell if Rangers could use it as a kind of tracer on a specific target without them noticing.
I honestly wouldn't mind if they did that either, but Metamagic Adept does exist if you really want that functionality.
(Also, it's 90ft range - your DM should allow you at least the chance of doing it from max range unnoticed, maybe with a stealth check. Maybe we'll get better guidance on sound.)
While I get your point, my point is that if a person decides to go with a build that prioritizes other concentration spells over HM, then you're robbing yourself of a 5th of your class features, making you weaker than every other class.
Repeating the bold ad nauseam does not make it true. If you want this to be remotely credible, show math.
While I get your point, my point is that if a person decides to go with a build that prioritizes other concentration spells over HM, then you're robbing yourself of a 5th of your class features, making you weaker than every other class. Like I mentioned before with something similar to Barbarian Rage, with Rogue's Sneak Attack, while you don't always have to use it, using other abilities doesn't stop you from using it. That's not the same with HM. If you decide to concentrate on another spell or have other bonus actions you'd prefer to do, like idk, attacking with your animal companion or something as Beast Master, then you're out class features until you decide to use it. Wizard is a little difference because they are a full caster, so spells are their forte in general, but even then, you can build around certain spells by choice. With Ranger, sure, you can choose to go with something else other than HM, but then you're not using the class to its full potential. Sad thing is, other classes can be used to their full potential without having to cast a specific bonus action concentration spell. It'd be different if it was a subclass thing, but it's not. It's baked into the class as a whole, plus a little into subclasses like Beast Master and Hunter, incentivizing the use of the spell even more.
(btw, you're hitting "Reply" instead of "Quote" so it's hard for other people to tell to whom you are replying.)
So, there's not opportunity cost to HM for the Ranger. They get the spell and free castings of it. They can't not prioritize it. It's there, as a fundamental class option. (And it doesn't use the bonus action every turn, so other bonus actions are available when using it.)
You have a point, so that's been my bad. However, prioritizing HM isn't the issue. It's the fact that if you don't prioritize it, then you're missing out on a 5th of your class features. A concentration spell shouldn't be a center part of a class because it fundamentally makes the class weaker than others. We don't know all the spells in the new handbook just yet, but if the new Ranger, let's say, decided to use Healing Spirit, Silence, Spike Growth, Summon Beast, Summon Fey, Grasping Vine, Guardian of Nature, Summon Elemental, or other Ranger spells, then you're not using a 5th of your class. There's isn't a single other class that does that. If a person decides to go full into spellcasting over just using HM, they will be weaker than others because the one spell that gets buffed isn't being used, incentivizing a certain playstyle (the type of playstyle is fine).
I would have liked to see hunter's mark lose its verbal component. We don't know what the spells look like though so we can't say for sure it didn't. If it is longer range and no verbal component its utility could be increased. Obviously some of the subclasses increase its utility already
I would very much agree with this. Hunter's Mark could be a useful out-of-combat spell if Rangers could use it as a kind of tracer on a specific target without them noticing.
I honestly wouldn't mind if they did that either, but Metamagic Adept does exist if you really want that functionality.
(Also, it's 90ft range - your DM should allow you at least the chance of doing it from max range unnoticed, maybe with a stealth check. Maybe we'll get better guidance on sound.)
While I get your point, my point is that if a person decides to go with a build that prioritizes other concentration spells over HM, then you're robbing yourself of a 5th of your class features, making you weaker than every other class.
Repeating the bold ad nauseam does not make it true. If you want this to be remotely credible, show math.
Show the math??? Look at the number of Class Features that don't get used when not using Hunter's Mark??????? I've shown that SO MANY TIMES. Level 1, occasionally partially level 3 because of subclass, level 13, level 17, and level 20. At minimum, that's a 5th, at max, it can be a 4th. Idk how that math is so hard to understand.
because the defining feature is a concentration bonus action spell. like I've said, in other comments again, using Rage doesn't prevent you from using class options presented unless you decide to to multiclass into a spellcaster with spells that require concentration. Also, I never said Hunter's Mark makes Rangers weaker than other classes. It doesn't. requiring HM to use a 5th of your classes does make it weaker than other classes. I'm fine with playing the new ranger to give it a go, as I've always liked the idea of Rangers, but neither the thematic abilities of the 2014 edition, nor the streamlined abilities of the 2024 edition, give way to a unique class that feels different. Sure, you can now give the Ranger more spells, let them change spells, and give them Expertise...that doesn't make them different than the Bard or Rogue. The special things they get access to that make them different are, what, Roving to gain more movement speed with a climb and swim speed, reducing Exhaustion on short rests and gaining temporary hit points with Tireless, bonus action to straight up turn invisible with Nature's Veil, and Blindsight at level 18 with Feral Sense. Maybe it's enough for others, and that's completely ok, but it's just sad that everything else "unique" to the class is just class features that other classes can get, especially the survival, navigator type abilities (i.e. Expertise and Spells).
Also, like I've said before (jesus, it feels like I've said that many times already. I wonder why?), if you build around Hunter's Mark, your damage is similar to Rogue's with Sneak Attack, so damage has never been an issue.
I don't really care that Rage doesn't prevent a barbarian from using class options because the barbarian is not a gish; it has almost no use for their bonus action at all. At least we agree that devoting several features to augmenting the class defining feature is not a bad thing though.
How is the ranger weaker because its design is around Hunter's Mark? It seems to me that it is pretty powerful.
The 2024 ranger is the first ranger that I have been interested in playing, so from my standpoint, it does feel pretty different. What makes the new ranger different than the rogue is the inclusion of spellcasting and being more hardy. What makes the new ranger different from the bard is that it can deliver much higher martial ability and is far more mobile and durable.
Other members of the Expert Group can be highly skilled in survival and navigator type abilities, but will they? Sometimes, maybe, but I would certainly think that a member of the Expert Group should be able to be polymaths; they were meant to be at the very least. What the rogue and the bard cannot do even with that is take on the harshness of the environment like the ranger can. That is still locked into the ranger's thematic and functional lane.
but there is also a great many other invocations someone can take and be just as effective not to mention all the free spells they get from them
Effective - yes. Just as effective - in combat terms, I'd say not unless you're going for Blade Pact and weren't planning to shoot blasts anyway.
I would have liked to see hunter's mark lose its verbal component. We don't know what the spells look like though so we can't say for sure it didn't. If it is longer range and no verbal component its utility could be increased. Obviously some of the subclasses increase its utility already
Hunter's Mark has always been about doing max damage to a single high HP foe. It has always been close to useless when having to deal with a multitude of low to medium HP foes because of use of the bonus action. 2024 is no different, yes additional features along the way improve and are linked to it but then that is how they grew the feature instead of just adding damage every few levels. That doesn't make the class bad, it makes the feature stronger. What I'm waiting to see are the changes to spells like conjure animals, zephyr strike, etc. Will they be concentration? will some add extra attacks? those factors will determine just how strong the ranger really is when dealing with something other than the BBETG.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I would say that if you're up against swarms of weak mooks, then I completely agree, Hunter's Mark is not your optimal choice in that scenario as you'll end up overkilling individual targets and burning a bunch of bonus actions moving it around, when instead you could concentrate on an AoE zone like Spike Growth or the new Conjure Animals to grind them down in batches instead.
Which just goes to show that the Ranger has multiple options for how they approach fights now.
The Warlock example isn't even comparable because with the invocations, they are choices you get to make,while with Ranger, if you dont use HM, like I've said MANY times now, you are missing out on A 5TH OF THE CLASS. Idk how that's sooooo hard to understand. And you brought up one of my points PERFECTLY. When you get higher level, if you do use higher level spells, you are giving up your 13th, 17th, and possibly 20th level class features, while with other classes, that will never happen. There's a fundamental problem with that. That does make them weak, it makes them weak in comparison to other classes when deciding not to use HM.
Honestly, with HM still requiring concentration and still costing a bonus action to cast, there's a very simple change to put it on the same level as other classes. At 13th level, let the Ranger concentrate on an additional Ranger spell along with HM. That would at least fix the HM problem.
Crawford explicitly said in the Ranger video that they don't want Rangers doing that at 13.
I'm not against the idea of them not needing to concentrate on HM anymore, but it should be even higher up, if not the capstone.
What's hard to understand is why words on a page you're not actively using are so painful to behold. Not every feature a class gets needs to be used every day.
It doesn't make you weaker. Not concentrating on HM simply means... that you're not concentrating on HM. When you've used up your higher-level spell slots doing more powerful things, HM will still exist. And if you make it to a long rest having HM uses left over, congratulations, you made it through the adventuring day.
While I agree that not every class feature always needs to always be in use, the fact that if you don't use HM, you're missing, again, a possible 5th of the class, is a problem. No other class does this. If someone plays Chains of Asmodeus, the new Vecna book, or some Homebrew where people have the possibility to get to level 20, then you are factually not using a 5th of the class. Gaining access to the same spell more times per day because it's free doesn't change the problems with the class. Not concentrating on HM means you aren't using part of your 1st, possibly 3rd because of subclass, 13th, 17th, and 20th class features. That's crazy. No other class does this.
I would very much agree with this. Hunter's Mark could be a useful out-of-combat spell if Rangers could use it as a kind of tracer on a specific target without them noticing.
That presumes that you never use HM.
Sure, sometimes there will be fights where AOE is more efficient (for the ranger, specifically), or similar circumstances. But those 1/5th of the class features are there to keep HM competitive, so it's easier to "lean into."
Sometimes a Rogue has a fight where they can't use Sneak Attack. Sometimes a Wizard has an encounter where they don't have the right spell (haha, who am I kidding? that never happens completely). Sometimes there's a social encounter where a Ranger has nothing to hunt... Doesn't mean all those class features are wastes. Just, not everything is optimal for everyone, all the time.
Why is it a problem that later features of the class add further support to a defining feature? Barbarians have three features devoted to increasing the power of Rage in some way or another, four if you count a feature that is devoted to recharging Rage uses. Hunter's Mark does not make rangers inherently weaker than other classes. Rangers are going to be better or worse than other classes depending on what features are being drawn up in comparative analysis. Not being able to nova damage as well as a rogue would not make a ranger a bad class because Hunter's Mark is not the same as Sneak Attack. We have already seen that the ranger can deliver on par with rogues in damage, it is just applied over several attacks in a turn rather than a single blast of damage. Rangers are not stuck in any niche either. The 2024 rules allow the ranger to actually be built with a variety of options. Just like with any build, a choice to focus on one area will mean making some sacrifices in others. One should not be expecting a ranger to be a one-person party - what is important that the ranger is effective at what it was built to do and is fun to play.
From what I can see, the new ranger is going to be both of those things.
EDIT: Miscounted the Rage-focused features.
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
While I get your point, my point is that if a person decides to go with a build that prioritizes other concentration spells over HM, then you're robbing yourself of a 5th of your class features, making you weaker than every other class. Like I mentioned before with something similar to Barbarian Rage, with Rogue's Sneak Attack, while you don't always have to use it, using other abilities doesn't stop you from using it. That's not the same with HM. If you decide to concentrate on another spell or have other bonus actions you'd prefer to do, like idk, attacking with your animal companion or something as Beast Master, then you're out class features until you decide to use it. Wizard is a little difference because they are a full caster, so spells are their forte in general, but even then, you can build around certain spells by choice. With Ranger, sure, you can choose to go with something else other than HM, but then you're not using the class to its full potential. Sad thing is, other classes can be used to their full potential without having to cast a specific bonus action concentration spell. It'd be different if it was a subclass thing, but it's not. It's baked into the class as a whole, plus a little into subclasses like Beast Master and Hunter, incentivizing the use of the spell even more.
We don't know what the new spell list will include, but it was stated by Crawford that they changed many of the spell available to the ranger and removed the requirement of concentration for many spells already available to the ranger. You are correct that if you insist on never using Hunter's Mark, your ranger may suffer missing out on some of their features, but why would any person want to do that? In my experience, people choose the ranger because they want to live out their Strider fantasies or be a magically empowered outdoorsman. Hunter's Mark fits very nicely into both of those categories.
When using Hunter's Mark, using other concentration spells would make it too powerful, according to Crawford. Concentration spells in isolation require concentration because, generally, they are very powerful spells for their level. The ranger is getting a powerful level 1 spell with free castings and additional features to power that spell up even more, which other classes will not be able to enjoy even if they put in a dip to get the spell. Other spells are going to be available for when the situation calls for them and the ranger can simply use those as needed, but yes, the features of the ranger are designed to buff its first level feature. I do not see how that is a bad thing. The math seems to support that it is a good thing, from what we have seen in this thread. It appears to me to be a powerful gish. Really, the only way I would change my opinion on that is if we get to September and find that the ranger spell list is awful. Considering the changes that I have seen so far however, I do not find that to be very likely.
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
(btw, you're hitting "Reply" instead of "Quote" so it's hard for other people to tell to whom you are replying.)
So, there's not opportunity cost to HM for the Ranger. They get the spell and free castings of it. They can't not prioritize it. It's there, as a fundamental class option. (And it doesn't use the bonus action every turn, so other bonus actions are available when using it.)
because the defining feature is a concentration bonus action spell. like I've said, in other comments again, using Rage doesn't prevent you from using class options presented unless you decide to to multiclass into a spellcaster with spells that require concentration. Also, I never said Hunter's Mark makes Rangers weaker than other classes. It doesn't. requiring HM to use a 5th of your classes does make it weaker than other classes. I'm fine with playing the new ranger to give it a go, as I've always liked the idea of Rangers, but neither the thematic abilities of the 2014 edition, nor the streamlined abilities of the 2024 edition, give way to a unique class that feels different. Sure, you can now give the Ranger more spells, let them change spells, and give them Expertise...that doesn't make them different than the Bard or Rogue. The special things they get access to that make them different are, what, Roving to gain more movement speed with a climb and swim speed, reducing Exhaustion on short rests and gaining temporary hit points with Tireless, bonus action to straight up turn invisible with Nature's Veil, and Blindsight at level 18 with Feral Sense. Maybe it's enough for others, and that's completely ok, but it's just sad that everything else "unique" to the class is just class features that other classes can get, especially the survival, navigator type abilities (i.e. Expertise and Spells).
Also, like I've said before (jesus, it feels like I've said that many times already. I wonder why?), if you build around Hunter's Mark, your damage is similar to Rogue's with Sneak Attack, so damage has never been an issue.
I honestly wouldn't mind if they did that either, but Metamagic Adept does exist if you really want that functionality.
(Also, it's 90ft range - your DM should allow you at least the chance of doing it from max range unnoticed, maybe with a stealth check. Maybe we'll get better guidance on sound.)
Repeating the bold ad nauseam does not make it true. If you want this to be remotely credible, show math.
You have a point, so that's been my bad. However, prioritizing HM isn't the issue. It's the fact that if you don't prioritize it, then you're missing out on a 5th of your class features. A concentration spell shouldn't be a center part of a class because it fundamentally makes the class weaker than others. We don't know all the spells in the new handbook just yet, but if the new Ranger, let's say, decided to use Healing Spirit, Silence, Spike Growth, Summon Beast, Summon Fey, Grasping Vine, Guardian of Nature, Summon Elemental, or other Ranger spells, then you're not using a 5th of your class. There's isn't a single other class that does that. If a person decides to go full into spellcasting over just using HM, they will be weaker than others because the one spell that gets buffed isn't being used, incentivizing a certain playstyle (the type of playstyle is fine).
Show the math??? Look at the number of Class Features that don't get used when not using Hunter's Mark??????? I've shown that SO MANY TIMES. Level 1, occasionally partially level 3 because of subclass, level 13, level 17, and level 20. At minimum, that's a 5th, at max, it can be a 4th. Idk how that math is so hard to understand.
I don't really care that Rage doesn't prevent a barbarian from using class options because the barbarian is not a gish; it has almost no use for their bonus action at all. At least we agree that devoting several features to augmenting the class defining feature is not a bad thing though.
How is the ranger weaker because its design is around Hunter's Mark? It seems to me that it is pretty powerful.
The 2024 ranger is the first ranger that I have been interested in playing, so from my standpoint, it does feel pretty different. What makes the new ranger different than the rogue is the inclusion of spellcasting and being more hardy. What makes the new ranger different from the bard is that it can deliver much higher martial ability and is far more mobile and durable.
Other members of the Expert Group can be highly skilled in survival and navigator type abilities, but will they? Sometimes, maybe, but I would certainly think that a member of the Expert Group should be able to be polymaths; they were meant to be at the very least. What the rogue and the bard cannot do even with that is take on the harshness of the environment like the ranger can. That is still locked into the ranger's thematic and functional lane.
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