If you want to further improve the 2024 ranger 's outdoor abilities you pretty much need to grant it outright advantage on nature and survival skill checks - this would put it on a par with the scout rogue with reliable talent.
Right, and Rangers have a number of ways to do this too - from spells like Enhance Ability, to tools like Cartographer / Navigator / Herbalism Kit / Cook's Utensils etc, depending on what they're trying to use a check to do and whether the "skill + tool = advantage" rule survived the playtest (and even if it didn't, it's also in Xanathar's.)
Oh my god. they have class features to use. not even just less. they miss out on, I'll say it one last time and hopefully you'll read it, One 5th of the classes class features, at minimum.
So zero math supporting "makes you weaker than every other class." Didn't think so.
Considering you didn't read my response, again, proves my point. You're either not reading a very simple sentence, OR you're choosing to ignore it. It's your perogative, my guy.
What you are calling math isn’t what they were asking about. A Ranger casting the new conjure animals will on average (assuming a hit) 11+Wis mod damage. Where a Ranger with two attacks and HM will be adding 7 damage (3 attacks 10.5). Yes you can do HM more often but you have the option when Conjure Animals might make sense to use instead. And for those instances your damage is still good.
Maybe my math is off, but at least it’s math. Not just “you’re not using a 5th of your class.”
Oh my god. they have class features to use. not even just less. they miss out on, I'll say it one last time and hopefully you'll read it, One 5th of the classes class features, at minimum.
So zero math supporting "makes you weaker than every other class." Didn't think so.
Considering you didn't read my response, again, proves my point. You're either not reading a very simple sentence, OR you're choosing to ignore it. It's your perogative, my guy.
What you are calling math isn’t what they were asking about. A Ranger casting the new conjure animals will on average (assuming a hit) 11+Wis mod damage. Where a Ranger with two attacks and HM will be adding 7 damage (3 attacks 10.5). Yes you can do HM more often but you have the option when Conjure Animals might make sense to use instead. And for those instances your damage is still good.
Maybe my math is off, but at least it’s math. Not just “you’re not using a 5th of your class.”
While I applaud you for trying, I strongly suspect you're wasting your time.
speaking of all the math for the ranger with HM does anyone have an graphs or anything to show the numbers? would love to see them
I posted a link to Treantmonk's playtest video earlier. While HM functions differently there, the damage HM was providing (+4d6 from BM, i.e 3 attacks + pet) should be the same, so it at least gives us a starting point.
Someone already did some math in the thread. As long as you make 3 attacks as a ranger, youre doing as much damage as a rogue at lvl 20. I think the average was 45 damage.
Since theres many ways to trigger HM with the 2024 rules, Beastmaster pet attacks, Two weapon fighting, Nick, Gloomstalkers extra attack, I dont think 2024 Ranger will fall behind damage-wise at all.
I bet the last 2 subclasses have some benefits from HM too.
I bet the last 2 subclasses have some benefits from HM too.
This is a good point, and going forward, it really helps create new options for future subclasses. Much like how many druid subclasses can use wild shape charges for things other than wildshaping, or barbarians will be able to use a rage to boost out of combat skills. Giving Hunter's Mark as a class feature means they know every ranger will have it, so it opens up more design space in the realm of "use a casting of HM and get X benefit" or "The target of your HM also gets this additional condition placed upon it" or some other more creative stuff I'm not smart enough to think of.
I have to say at first, I wasn't too excited about the HM requirement, but I'm coming around to see it might actually be pretty interesting.
Oh my god. they have class features to use. not even just less. they miss out on, I'll say it one last time and hopefully you'll read it, One 5th of the classes class features, at minimum.
Okay, setting aside how baffling an idea it is that you would absolutely never use Hunter's Mark, you seem really attached to this point that one fourth fifth of the Ranger's kit is devoted to this one feature. But that isn't even true. You took the number of levels at which the Ranger gets Hunter's Mark improvements (4) and divided it into the total number of levels (20) to get 1/5... But the Ranger gets other things at almost all those levels.
At level 1, they get HM, Spellcasting, and weapon mastery. If we want to be very simplistic about it, we could call that 1/3 of a level devoted to HM.
The next HM improvement is at level 13, which is the same level the Ranger gets access to 4th level spells. So that's 1/2 a level devoted to HM, putting us at 5/6 of a level overall.
Next HM improvement is at 17th, again split with a Spellcasting improvement for 1/2 the level dedicated to HM, putting us at 1-1/3 levels.
Finally, at level 20 Foe Slayer is fully an HM improvement; this is the only level in the game at which the Ranger only gets an HM improvement, putting us at a total of 2-1/3 levels out of 20 dedicated to the feature, or slightly more than 1/9th of the Ranger's feature space. This is about the same amount of space the 2014 Druid dedicates to Wild Shape, and less space than the 2014 Fighter dedicates to Indomitable.
To build on Mdhe's point, what you call One 5th of the class features unable to be used is a misunderstanding or misconception of what is actually happening.
2014 Ranger level 1: Favored Enemy = gives advantage on the type of favored enemy selected / Natural Explorer
2024 Ranger level 1: HM, Spellcasting, and weapon mastery. HM gets 2 free castings per LR, and it increases with level up
At level 3, 2024 Hunter subclass gets Hunter's Prey like in 2014, but they now also get a new feature called Hunters Lore that gives you info on targets marked by HM (if you use HM)
At level 11, Beast Master subclass gets Bestial Fury like in 2014, but now benefits from HM once a turn (again, if you use HM, but not necessary)
At level 13, you get ZILCH in 2014 except the ability to cast 4th level spells. For 2024, you get 4th lvl spells plus Relentless Hunter, which lets you keep concentration on HM. BTW, none of the other half-caster classes get anything at level 13, except 4th lvl spells.
At level 17, again you get NADA on 2014 except 5th level spells. For 2024, it follows the same pattern as level 13: 5th lvl spells and Precise Hunter, which gives advantage on HM. Once again, no other half-caster gets other features at this level except 5th lvl spells
And now we come to the capstone, which in 2014 let you add your WIS modifier to attacks against your favored enemy, provided you're fighting one in the first place LOL.
For 2024, your HM deals 1d10 instead of 1d6; still trash, but better than the old capstone LOL
What does this mean? The new features are specifically added to enhance HM where you didn't get anything before or additional enhancements where you didn't get any tangible benefit. If you don't want to use HM, you're not losing anything compared to Tasha's Ranger, but will still be able to get advantage of the other new features that the Base class gets like Weapon Mastery and improved spellcasting. BTW, Jeremy Crawford mentioned in one of the interviews released today (with The Character Sheet), that 200 spells in the new PHB were significantly enhanced, and we know from before the Ranger spell list and spells were modified, so I believe the Ranger is not going to be in a bad place. 1 Aug is when the NDA lifts, so we can doompost when we see the actual changes
Great find! I love the confirmation that some of their concentration spells are losing it. That means they'll either maintain additional utility while bringing an HM into the next fight, do more damage by combining something with HM they couldn't before, or both.
Great find! I love the confirmation that some of their concentration spells are losing it. That means they'll either maintain additional utility while bringing an HM into the next fight, do more damage by combining something with HM they couldn't before, or both.
Yeah, just posted it to your thread for Creator Previews
Here's another point: people are complaining about the new Favored Enemy at level 1, but that's basically an upgraded Favored Foe from Tasha's, which no one complains about.
This is also why I dont get the rage about the new Ranger, because its an improved Tasha's Ranger which is popular. My guess is they wanted to see something different
Here's another point: people are complaining about the new Favored Enemy at level 1, but that's basically an upgraded Favored Foe from Tasha's, which no one complains about.
This is also why I dont get the rage about the new Ranger, because its an improved Tasha's Ranger which is popular. My guess is they wanted to see something different
For the most part I personally was wanting something different from "mildly improved" tasha's ranger. I don't like the 20th level feature being linked to the first level feature. I don't like multiple class features built on a concentration spell or concentration effect. Even when tasha's came out I often used the 2014 favored enemy over favored foe simply because of the concentration aspect.
Thats amazing news. im really excited to see which spells lost concentration.
Probably the attack enhancement ones that were "cast before you attack, concentration to maintain until you hit". I expect them to follow the paladin smites and become cast-after-hit spells.
what does this mean? The new features are specifically added to enhance HM where you didn't get anything before or additional enhancements where you didn't get any tangible benefit. If you don't want to use HM, you're not losing anything compared to Tasha's Ranger, but will still be able to get advantage of the other new features that the Base class gets like Weapon Mastery and improved spellcasting. BTW, Jeremy Crawford mentioned in one of the interviews released today (with The Character Sheet), that 200 spells in the new PHB were significantly enhanced
You're losing out on features that might have been if Crawford et al hadn't listened to the minority that thinks DPR and Hunter's Mark are the only things that matter.
But it's good to hear that spells are getting buffed at a time when non-casters are getting stripped of any abilities that lets them do anything special at all. Like power-creep is the only selling point of 2024 5e.
This argument is pure opportunity cost fallacy; you cant miss features you were not getting in the first place, as I explained on a previous post. The playtests were specific on what the Ranger was going to get.
And what's this about martials being stripped of abilities? All martials got a significant boost across the board. If youre expecting martials to be anime powered protagonists then youre playing the wrong game. Even then, the gap between martials and casters has been significantly reduced on the new PHB
Thats amazing news. im really excited to see which spells lost concentration.
Probably the attack enhancement ones that were "cast before you attack, concentration to maintain until you hit". I expect them to follow the paladin smites and become cast-after-hit spells.
i was really hoping they would have changes hunters mark to be a "cast on hit" spell would have made it alot better. or as an upgrade later down the line for the ranger.
Thats amazing news. im really excited to see which spells lost concentration.
Probably the attack enhancement ones that were "cast before you attack, concentration to maintain until you hit". I expect them to follow the paladin smites and become cast-after-hit spells.
i was really hoping they would have changes hunters mark to be a "cast on hit" spell would have made it alot better. or as an upgrade later down the line for the ranger.
That model makes sense for one-off effects like smites and lightning arrow, but not for an ongoing bonus like HM, which is concentration to prevent stacking it with similar effects.
i was really hoping they would have changes hunters mark to be a "cast on hit" spell would have made it alot better. or as an upgrade later down the line for the ranger.
The nice thing about Hunter's Mark not being cast-on-hit is that you can do it while hiding without necessarily revealing your position. Attacks always reveal your position (absent special features) but spells are more of a grey area. Outside of combat, being able to apply Hunter's Mark without attacking dramatically increases the spell's utility.
I actually ran into this issue with the homebrew class I made to replace the Ranger in my city game. That class has a feature that can apply a magical tracking bug on creatures they hit with attacks. The problem ended up being that the player really wanted to be able to use the tracking bug without having to deal damage to the target! We solved this a different way, but I think the current state of Hunter's Mark as a discrete bonus action is a good middle ground between action economy and flexibility.
This argument is pure opportunity cost fallacy; you cant miss features you were not getting in the first place, as I explained on a previous post. The playtests were specific on what the Ranger was going to get.
And what's this about martials being stripped of abilities? All martials got a significant boost across the board. If youre expecting martials to be anime powered protagonists then youre playing the wrong game. Even then, the gap between martials and casters has been significantly reduced on the new PHB
Can I just say I really appreciate the rationality you're bringing to this discussion? There's so much needless emotion around "unused features" that are constantly muddying the waters here. Consider me firmly in your corner on this.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Right, and Rangers have a number of ways to do this too - from spells like Enhance Ability, to tools like Cartographer / Navigator / Herbalism Kit / Cook's Utensils etc, depending on what they're trying to use a check to do and whether the "skill + tool = advantage" rule survived the playtest (and even if it didn't, it's also in Xanathar's.)
What you are calling math isn’t what they were asking about. A Ranger casting the new conjure animals will on average (assuming a hit) 11+Wis mod damage. Where a Ranger with two attacks and HM will be adding 7 damage (3 attacks 10.5). Yes you can do HM more often but you have the option when Conjure Animals might make sense to use instead. And for those instances your damage is still good.
Maybe my math is off, but at least it’s math. Not just “you’re not using a 5th of your class.”
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
While I applaud you for trying, I strongly suspect you're wasting your time.
speaking of all the math for the ranger with HM does anyone have an graphs or anything to show the numbers? would love to see them
I posted a link to Treantmonk's playtest video earlier. While HM functions differently there, the damage HM was providing (+4d6 from BM, i.e 3 attacks + pet) should be the same, so it at least gives us a starting point.
Someone already did some math in the thread. As long as you make 3 attacks as a ranger, youre doing as much damage as a rogue at lvl 20. I think the average was 45 damage.
Since theres many ways to trigger HM with the 2024 rules, Beastmaster pet attacks, Two weapon fighting, Nick, Gloomstalkers extra attack, I dont think 2024 Ranger will fall behind damage-wise at all.
I bet the last 2 subclasses have some benefits from HM too.
This is a good point, and going forward, it really helps create new options for future subclasses. Much like how many druid subclasses can use wild shape charges for things other than wildshaping, or barbarians will be able to use a rage to boost out of combat skills. Giving Hunter's Mark as a class feature means they know every ranger will have it, so it opens up more design space in the realm of "use a casting of HM and get X benefit" or "The target of your HM also gets this additional condition placed upon it" or some other more creative stuff I'm not smart enough to think of.
I have to say at first, I wasn't too excited about the HM requirement, but I'm coming around to see it might actually be pretty interesting.
To build on Mdhe's point, what you call One 5th of the class features unable to be used is a misunderstanding or misconception of what is actually happening.
2014 Ranger level 1: Favored Enemy = gives advantage on the type of favored enemy selected / Natural Explorer
2024 Ranger level 1: HM, Spellcasting, and weapon mastery. HM gets 2 free castings per LR, and it increases with level up
At level 3, 2024 Hunter subclass gets Hunter's Prey like in 2014, but they now also get a new feature called Hunters Lore that gives you info on targets marked by HM (if you use HM)
At level 11, Beast Master subclass gets Bestial Fury like in 2014, but now benefits from HM once a turn (again, if you use HM, but not necessary)
At level 13, you get ZILCH in 2014 except the ability to cast 4th level spells. For 2024, you get 4th lvl spells plus Relentless Hunter, which lets you keep concentration on HM. BTW, none of the other half-caster classes get anything at level 13, except 4th lvl spells.
At level 17, again you get NADA on 2014 except 5th level spells. For 2024, it follows the same pattern as level 13: 5th lvl spells and Precise Hunter, which gives advantage on HM. Once again, no other half-caster gets other features at this level except 5th lvl spells
And now we come to the capstone, which in 2014 let you add your WIS modifier to attacks against your favored enemy, provided you're fighting one in the first place LOL.
For 2024, your HM deals 1d10 instead of 1d6; still trash, but better than the old capstone LOL
What does this mean? The new features are specifically added to enhance HM where you didn't get anything before or additional enhancements where you didn't get any tangible benefit. If you don't want to use HM, you're not losing anything compared to Tasha's Ranger, but will still be able to get advantage of the other new features that the Base class gets like Weapon Mastery and improved spellcasting. BTW, Jeremy Crawford mentioned in one of the interviews released today (with The Character Sheet), that 200 spells in the new PHB were significantly enhanced, and we know from before the Ranger spell list and spells were modified, so I believe the Ranger is not going to be in a bad place. 1 Aug is when the NDA lifts, so we can doompost when we see the actual changes
And there is a published interview by Screen Rant where JC specifically addresses HM. You can find it here:https://screenrant.com/jeremy-crawford-dnd-players-handbook-interview/
He confirms Ranger spell list was revised and some Ranger spells lose concentration. Also here: https://screenrant.com/dnd-new-players-handbook-rangers-concentration-hunters-mark/
Great find! I love the confirmation that some of their concentration spells are losing it. That means they'll either maintain additional utility while bringing an HM into the next fight, do more damage by combining something with HM they couldn't before, or both.
Yeah, just posted it to your thread for Creator Previews
Thats amazing news. im really excited to see which spells lost concentration.
Here's another point: people are complaining about the new Favored Enemy at level 1, but that's basically an upgraded Favored Foe from Tasha's, which no one complains about.
Favored Foe: discount HM (1d4, 1 min), needs concentration, uses equal to proficiency bonus
This is also why I dont get the rage about the new Ranger, because its an improved Tasha's Ranger which is popular. My guess is they wanted to see something different
For the most part I personally was wanting something different from "mildly improved" tasha's ranger. I don't like the 20th level feature being linked to the first level feature. I don't like multiple class features built on a concentration spell or concentration effect. Even when tasha's came out I often used the 2014 favored enemy over favored foe simply because of the concentration aspect.
Probably the attack enhancement ones that were "cast before you attack, concentration to maintain until you hit". I expect them to follow the paladin smites and become cast-after-hit spells.
This argument is pure opportunity cost fallacy; you cant miss features you were not getting in the first place, as I explained on a previous post. The playtests were specific on what the Ranger was going to get.
And what's this about martials being stripped of abilities? All martials got a significant boost across the board. If youre expecting martials to be anime powered protagonists then youre playing the wrong game. Even then, the gap between martials and casters has been significantly reduced on the new PHB
i was really hoping they would have changes hunters mark to be a "cast on hit" spell would have made it alot better. or as an upgrade later down the line for the ranger.
That model makes sense for one-off effects like smites and lightning arrow, but not for an ongoing bonus like HM, which is concentration to prevent stacking it with similar effects.
The nice thing about Hunter's Mark not being cast-on-hit is that you can do it while hiding without necessarily revealing your position. Attacks always reveal your position (absent special features) but spells are more of a grey area. Outside of combat, being able to apply Hunter's Mark without attacking dramatically increases the spell's utility.
I actually ran into this issue with the homebrew class I made to replace the Ranger in my city game. That class has a feature that can apply a magical tracking bug on creatures they hit with attacks. The problem ended up being that the player really wanted to be able to use the tracking bug without having to deal damage to the target! We solved this a different way, but I think the current state of Hunter's Mark as a discrete bonus action is a good middle ground between action economy and flexibility.
Can I just say I really appreciate the rationality you're bringing to this discussion? There's so much needless emotion around "unused features" that are constantly muddying the waters here. Consider me firmly in your corner on this.