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.
Something I’m really hoping for rules guidance on is how loud, exactly, is the verbal component of a spell. Something like, you can be heard within a 30’ radius or something. (Unless you have subtle spell, obviously.)
A feature going unused doesn't mean the rest of the features are bad. My initial assessment was based on the false thought that the loss of spells from primal awareness, the loss of languages and advantage on some checks from old favored enemy and the change of the level 20 which i had miss-read.
The increased spell preps mostly or entirely even out against the primal spells. The level 20 feature was always situational and advantage on some checks is not as good as 2 skill expertise. So largely ranger is slightly stronger with some QoL improvements over Tasha's with overall power level around the same as before and Rangers were never "weak" as a class.
and your camp thinks we're all idiots for not caring only about DPR.
I've never called anyone an "idiot," so kindly don't put words in my mouth. In addition, I don't "only care about DPR" either; I've routinely praised 2024 Rangers being better in the non-combat pillars of the game too - citing improvements such as Rangers being able to use rituals now, swap spells on a long rest so they can prepare more of their situational utility magic, and the fact that they get 3x as many Skill Expertises as they got in Tasha's. All of those are things that make them tangibly and provably better at the Exploration and Social Interaction pillars than they were in either 2014 or in 2021.
A Swords Bard would make an infinitely better Ranger-esque character than the Ranger themselves. More Expertise, more spells, more options, no fewer attacks. Even more primal magic options.
A Swords Bard doesn't get access to blanket Martial Weapon proficiencies, doesn't get shields, doesn't get weapon mastery, has smaller hit dice, moves slower, doesn't get a climbing or swimming speed, doesn't clear Exhaustion stacks on short rest, doesn't get Blindsight to 30 feet, can't turn invisible for 12 seconds as a bonus action, and perhaps most critically does not scale with Wisdom.
Sure, a Swords Bard could put Expertise in Survival and Perception, but unless they dump Charisma or Dexterity they will literally never be better at those skills than a Ranger with the same attribute array. Of course, if you did dump Cha you'd lose Bardic Inspiration charges and be a worse caster than the Ranger, and if you dumped Dex you'd be a worse martial than the Ranger (and honestly even if you didn't, you still wouldn't have weapon mastery or access to the Longbow).
If you really wanted to, you could build a terrible Bard that would merely be an acceptable Ranger. Of course, this comparison leaves out the free Hunter's Mark casts and the Ranger's entire subclass, so actually the Bard in question would be quite a bit less than acceptable. I think you maybe don't understand what a Ranger is if you really think that an extra Expertise and some more spell slots are all it takes for a completely different class to make a "better" Ranger.
A Swords Bard would make an infinitely better Ranger-esque character than the Ranger themselves. More Expertise, more spells, more options, no fewer attacks. Even more primal magic options.
A Swords Bard doesn't get access to blanket Martial Weapon proficiencies, doesn't get shields, doesn't get weapon mastery, has smaller hit dice, moves slower, doesn't get a climbing or swimming speed, doesn't clear Exhaustion stacks on short rest, doesn't get Blindsight to 30 feet, and perhaps most critically does not scale with Wisdom.
Sure, a Swords Bard could put Expertise in Survival and Perception, but unless they dump Charisma or Dexterity they will literally never be better at those skills than a Ranger with the same attribute array. Of course, if you did dump Cha you'd lose Bardic Inspiration charges and be a worse caster than the Ranger, and if you dumped Dex you'd be a worse martial than the Ranger (and honestly even if you didn't, you still wouldn't have weapon mastery or access to the Longbow).
If you really wanted to, you could build a terrible Bard that would merely be an acceptable Ranger. Of course, this comparison leaves out the free Hunter's Mark casts and the Ranger's entire subclass, so actually the Bard in question would be quite a bit less than acceptable. I think you maybe don't understand what a Ranger is if you really think that an extra Expertise and some more spell slots are all it takes for a completely different class to make a "better" Ranger.
i mean in the bards defense they are a full caster so they would get top tier ranger spells way before the ranger ever could stuff like Steel Wind Strike or Swift Quiver full casters are just stronger sadly because spells just do so much more.
i mean in the bards defense they are a full caster so they would get top tier ranger spells way before the ranger ever could stuff like Steel Wind Strike or Swift Quiver full casters are just stronger sadly because spells just do so much more.
I'm actually not sure they do; the way Magical Secrets works now specifically lists the Cleric, Druid, and Wizard spell lists as the ones you can learn spells from; the Paladin, Ranger, and Warlock are noticeably absent. But even if Bards (still) can access high-level Ranger spells before Rangers, that does not invalidate Rangers as a class.
This is part of what's making this conversation frustrating. Rangers are not their spells. Rangers are not their combat abilities. Rangers are not their survival skills. Rangers are what you get at the point where all of those things overlap. This is a truly unique identity, but it makes it very easy to constantly shift the focus of the conversation.
We can demonstrate that the Ranger has improved Spellcasting abilities, but then someone wants to talk about DPR. We can show that the Ranger has comparable DPR to other classes, but then it's "what about the non-combat skills". We show that the Ranger has unique and valuable non-combat features, but then, wouldn't you know it, somebody wants to criticize their Spellcasting. Round and round it goes.
Of course the Ranger is not going to beat a Bard at spellcasting, a Fighter at combat, or a Rogue at skills; if it could, why would anyone play those other classes?
i mean in the bards defense they are a full caster so they would get top tier ranger spells way before the ranger ever could stuff like Steel Wind Strike or Swift Quiver full casters are just stronger sadly because spells just do so much more.
I'm actually not sure they do; the way Magical Secrets works now specifically lists the Cleric, Druid, and Wizard spell lists as the ones you can learn spells from; the Paladin, Ranger, and Warlock are noticeably absent. But even if Bards (still) can access high-level Ranger spells before Rangers, that does not invalidate Rangers as a class.
This is part of what's making this conversation frustrating. Rangers are not their spells. Rangers are not their combat abilities. Rangers are not their survival skills. Rangers are what you get at the point where all of those things overlap. This is a truly unique identity, but it makes it very easy to constantly shift the focus of the conversation.
We can demonstrate that the Ranger has improved Spellcasting abilities, but then someone wants to talk about DPR. We can show that the Ranger has comparable DPR to other classes, but then it's "what about the non-combat skills". We show that the Ranger has unique and valuable non-combat features, but then, wouldn't you know it, somebody wants to criticize their Spellcasting. Round and round it goes.
Of course the Ranger is not going to beat a Bard at spellcasting, a Fighter at combat, or a Rogue at skills; if it could, why would anyone play those other classes?
true but they can get SWS bc its also a wizard spell the other stuff alot of it could be done with spells
true but they can get SWS bc its also a wizard spell the other stuff alot of it could be done with spells
That's fair, most of the Ranger's high level spells appear on another class' spell list. Again, I don't think this seriously harms the class' identity. The Ranger is more than the sum of its parts.
true but they can get SWS bc its also a wizard spell the other stuff alot of it could be done with spells
That's fair, most of the Ranger's high level spells appear on another class' spell list. Again, I don't think this seriously harms the class' identity. The Ranger is more than the sum of its parts.
And that really, is the key point- the ranger is competent at everything, exceptional at close to nothing. They are “good enough” without being “best in class”. That said, my feeling is that the one area where a ranger should be exceptional is nature/survival/exploration/overland travel. With the UA2 and 2024 versions he can be if you want him to be - just take expertise in nature and survival and no one, not even a scout rogue, is better.
true but they can get SWS bc its also a wizard spell the other stuff alot of it could be done with spells
That's fair, most of the Ranger's high level spells appear on another class' spell list. Again, I don't think this seriously harms the class' identity. The Ranger is more than the sum of its parts.
Steel Wind Strike might - so far the only other list we know for sure it'll be on is the War Domain, which Bards won't be able to access.. But going by the current list, Swift Quiver doesn't - that's going to be ranger-exclusive just by the name. The same will be true, I'm willing to bet, for spells like Conjure Volley, Conjure Barrage, and Lightning Arrow.
I'm actually not sure they do; the way Magical Secrets works now specifically lists the Cleric, Druid, and Wizard spell lists as the ones you can learn spells from; the Paladin, Ranger, and Warlock are noticeably absent. But even if Bards (still) can access high-level Ranger spells before Rangers, that does not invalidate Rangers as a class.
Crawford specifically mentioned in the Bard video that they did this so that Bards couldn't poach thematic spells that were unique to specific classes like Paladin's Find Steed, Ranger's Conjure Volley, Warlock's Armor of Agathys, etc.
This is part of what's making this conversation frustrating. Rangers are not their spells. Rangers are not their combat abilities. Rangers are not their survival skills. Rangers are what you get at the point where all of those things overlap. This is a truly unique identity, but it makes it very easy to constantly shift the focus of the conversation.
Agreed. The problem is, were at this point because no one can agree on what the Ranger is, and because of that, no matter what WotC comes up with it will never satisfy everyone. We saw this on UA for the Ranger; Wizards ended up giving us a Ranger that was a combination of the satisfaction scores from the two Ranger UAs. How do I know? Just compare UA2 and UA6: the new capstone for Ranger was the capstone that appeared on UA2, and they experimented with a different version for UA6 and it was not well received. Crawford himself said back when he announced the results of UA6 that they were going to proceed with a version based on the satisfaction scores of individual abilities from the two UAs, so I don't get why people are complaining now.
Ritual spells are going to a be HUGE for Rangers in 2024. Being able to cast Speak with Animals, Alarm, Beast Sense, Locate plants and Animal, detect magic and/or detect poison. All of these available from level 5 at least. These spells really allow Ranger's to do what we expect them to do. Alarm, setting traps to keep their party safe, locate plants an animals as a ritual spell means a level 5 ranger can track basically any plant or animal anywhere at will. Detect magic, detect poison again those are kind of tracking spells as well. In general the ranger spells are fantastic for the ranger fantasy. Add in expertise and you can make one that is super athletic and stealthy or one that is great at perception or one who has vast knowledge of various types of creatures. I do really like expertise and the spells as the "non-combat" focus and can definitely embrace that personally.
Would a druid 14/Ranger 6 be a better ranger than a pure lvl 20?
What is your definition of a Ranger? Because that seems to be where the wheels come off the cart in this thread.
In this scenario, it would be what the Ranger would get from 7-20. So comparing that to a druid 14/ranger 6.
Well I take it one at a time.
at 7 the ranger gets their second subclass feature, this can be very important to some subclasses, not so important to others, depends on your character concept and how much the sublcass gives you. Level 8 you are getting a feat and are 1 level away from 3rd level spells and 2 more skill expertise all of which can be very good and very important so 9 levels is really strong for a Ranger.
10 I personally think is a little underwhelming with just tireless, but 11 again has your subclass feature, 12 is a feat and 13 is 4th level spells some of which are ranger exclusive, especially now with the bard change, 14 is the fantastic nature's veil ability, 15 is subclass again, 16 is another fantastic feat and 17 put hunter's mark on the map for abilities to use at this level because of advantage AND gives those 5th level spells, 18 is feral senses which is AMAZING, and 19 is an EPIC Boon feat. 20 still not a huge fan of but by this point you might as well.
So it mostly comes down to the subclasses for it. If you don't like the 7th level feature of your subclass maybe go ahead and dip to get higher level spells. If you do really like it you are likely going to go all the way to 9 with Ranger because feat+ expertise + 3rd level spells is worth the next couple levels. Then the question is "do I like my level 11 subclass feature?" if the answer is no, probably dip out at level 9, if the answer is "Heck ya" then you are probably going all the way to level 14 for nature's veil and asking the question again? Do I want my subclass feature at 15? If yes than probably all the way to 20, if no dip out and go get 6 levels of another class.
You may even only put 2 levels into ranger to get armor, weapons, weapon mastery, some good spells, hunter's mark, a fighting style, and expertise in 1 skill and dip out after if you want more skills (rogue) or magic (Druid) or martial capabilities (Fighter/monk).
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.
You're talking about this like if you prefer other spells to Hunter's Mark that you can NEVER use it. If anything, the changes make it a little more accessible because it's always prepared and you can cast it without a slot. So it increases my access to the other spells (that I personally prefer) while still being there for me when it's the right choice tactically (hello Thousand Tooth the Devourer).
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.
I'd like to see some of the other ranger spells drop concentration if HM keeps it, especially something like Hail of Thorns which is only going to hit the one time. I'd be okay with that damage not STACKING with Hunter's Mark which might solve the OP worries. Basically I don't want to have to drop HM and recast it in order to use any other spell in my arsenal. Maybe it will turn out that being able to cast HM for free a few times will make me more likely to do that.
Currently I find that my most limited resource as a ranger is my concentration, not my spell slots. Of course, if I cared less about conserving spell slots, or didn't need a spell slot for it, I probably would switch spells more often. However, that average of 3ish extra damage per hit to me isn't currently worth the resources to me unless I expect to get several hits in with it.
But anyway, I'll play in the way that I find most tactically satisfying and if Hunter's Mark isn't that for a particular combat I have no real issue with just not using it.
While I'm here, editing to add that the additional expertise is insanely useful and being able to choose where it goes can really change the flavor options.
Would a druid 14/Ranger 6 be a better ranger than a pure lvl 20?
What is your definition of a Ranger? Because that seems to be where the wheels come off the cart in this thread.
In this scenario, it would be what the Ranger would get from 7-20. So comparing that to a druid 14/ranger 6.
Does your definition of a ranger include someone who is great at skills without needing to use magic? Then you probably want those two additional expertises at 9th level. Do you want more feats / your Dex and Wis to be as high as possible? Either way, you probably don't want to delay the ASI at 8th level. Do you like the idea of using bonus action Greater Invisibility without concentration during a fight? Then you'll probably want to go up to Nature's Veil. Do you like permanent Blindsight out to 30'? Then you might want Feral Senses. Do you actually care about your subclass features above 3rd level?
If you like druid spells more than those things - then yeah, Ranger 5/Druid 15 or some other mix might be more appealing. The nice thing about this game is that we get to choose. (Unless your DM bans multiclassing, anyway.)
I'd like to see some of the other ranger spells drop concentration if HM keeps it, especially something like Hail of Thorns which is only going to hit the one time. I'd be okay with that damage not STACKING with Hunter's Mark which might solve the OP worries. Basically I don't want to have to drop HM and recast it in order to use any other spell in my arsenal. Maybe it will turn out that being able to cast HM for free a few times will make me more likely to do that.
Currently I find that my most limited resource as a ranger is my concentration, not my spell slots. Of course, if I cared less about conserving spell slots, or didn't need a spell slot for it, I probably would switch spells more often. However, that average of 3ish extra damage per hit to me isn't currently worth the resources to me unless I expect to get several hits in with it.
But anyway, I'll play in the way that I find most tactically satisfying and if Hunter's Mark isn't that for a particular combat I have no real issue with just not using it.
While I'm here, editing to add that the additional expertise is insanely useful and being able to choose where it goes can really change the flavor options.
I'm pretty sure the spells that are single attack (like Hail of Thorns and Lightning Arrow) will have their concentration tag dropped similar to how the Paladin Smites had theirs dropped.
I'm pretty sure the spells that are single attack (like Hail of Thorns and Lightning Arrow) will have their concentration tag dropped similar to how the Paladin Smites had theirs dropped.
I'm very hopeful that's the case rather than it just being utility/exploration things like Locate Object or Pass Without Trace!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Something I’m really hoping for rules guidance on is how loud, exactly, is the verbal component of a spell. Something like, you can be heard within a 30’ radius or something. (Unless you have subtle spell, obviously.)
A feature going unused doesn't mean the rest of the features are bad. My initial assessment was based on the false thought that the loss of spells from primal awareness, the loss of languages and advantage on some checks from old favored enemy and the change of the level 20 which i had miss-read.
The increased spell preps mostly or entirely even out against the primal spells. The level 20 feature was always situational and advantage on some checks is not as good as 2 skill expertise. So largely ranger is slightly stronger with some QoL improvements over Tasha's with overall power level around the same as before and Rangers were never "weak" as a class.
I've never called anyone an "idiot," so kindly don't put words in my mouth. In addition, I don't "only care about DPR" either; I've routinely praised 2024 Rangers being better in the non-combat pillars of the game too - citing improvements such as Rangers being able to use rituals now, swap spells on a long rest so they can prepare more of their situational utility magic, and the fact that they get 3x as many Skill Expertises as they got in Tasha's. All of those are things that make them tangibly and provably better at the Exploration and Social Interaction pillars than they were in either 2014 or in 2021.
A Swords Bard doesn't get access to blanket Martial Weapon proficiencies, doesn't get shields, doesn't get weapon mastery, has smaller hit dice, moves slower, doesn't get a climbing or swimming speed, doesn't clear Exhaustion stacks on short rest, doesn't get Blindsight to 30 feet, can't turn invisible for 12 seconds as a bonus action, and perhaps most critically does not scale with Wisdom.
Sure, a Swords Bard could put Expertise in Survival and Perception, but unless they dump Charisma or Dexterity they will literally never be better at those skills than a Ranger with the same attribute array. Of course, if you did dump Cha you'd lose Bardic Inspiration charges and be a worse caster than the Ranger, and if you dumped Dex you'd be a worse martial than the Ranger (and honestly even if you didn't, you still wouldn't have weapon mastery or access to the Longbow).
If you really wanted to, you could build a terrible Bard that would merely be an acceptable Ranger. Of course, this comparison leaves out the free Hunter's Mark casts and the Ranger's entire subclass, so actually the Bard in question would be quite a bit less than acceptable. I think you maybe don't understand what a Ranger is if you really think that an extra Expertise and some more spell slots are all it takes for a completely different class to make a "better" Ranger.
i mean in the bards defense they are a full caster so they would get top tier ranger spells way before the ranger ever could stuff like Steel Wind Strike or Swift Quiver full casters are just stronger sadly because spells just do so much more.
I'm actually not sure they do; the way Magical Secrets works now specifically lists the Cleric, Druid, and Wizard spell lists as the ones you can learn spells from; the Paladin, Ranger, and Warlock are noticeably absent. But even if Bards (still) can access high-level Ranger spells before Rangers, that does not invalidate Rangers as a class.
This is part of what's making this conversation frustrating. Rangers are not their spells. Rangers are not their combat abilities. Rangers are not their survival skills. Rangers are what you get at the point where all of those things overlap. This is a truly unique identity, but it makes it very easy to constantly shift the focus of the conversation.
We can demonstrate that the Ranger has improved Spellcasting abilities, but then someone wants to talk about DPR. We can show that the Ranger has comparable DPR to other classes, but then it's "what about the non-combat skills". We show that the Ranger has unique and valuable non-combat features, but then, wouldn't you know it, somebody wants to criticize their Spellcasting. Round and round it goes.
Of course the Ranger is not going to beat a Bard at spellcasting, a Fighter at combat, or a Rogue at skills; if it could, why would anyone play those other classes?
true but they can get SWS bc its also a wizard spell the other stuff alot of it could be done with spells
That's fair, most of the Ranger's high level spells appear on another class' spell list. Again, I don't think this seriously harms the class' identity. The Ranger is more than the sum of its parts.
And that really, is the key point- the ranger is competent at everything, exceptional at close to nothing. They are “good enough” without being “best in class”. That said, my feeling is that the one area where a ranger should be exceptional is nature/survival/exploration/overland travel. With the UA2 and 2024 versions he can be if you want him to be - just take expertise in nature and survival and no one, not even a scout rogue, is better.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Steel Wind Strike might - so far the only other list we know for sure it'll be on is the War Domain, which Bards won't be able to access.. But going by the current list, Swift Quiver doesn't - that's going to be ranger-exclusive just by the name. The same will be true, I'm willing to bet, for spells like Conjure Volley, Conjure Barrage, and Lightning Arrow.
Crawford specifically mentioned in the Bard video that they did this so that Bards couldn't poach thematic spells that were unique to specific classes like Paladin's Find Steed, Ranger's Conjure Volley, Warlock's Armor of Agathys, etc.
Agreed. The problem is, were at this point because no one can agree on what the Ranger is, and because of that, no matter what WotC comes up with it will never satisfy everyone. We saw this on UA for the Ranger; Wizards ended up giving us a Ranger that was a combination of the satisfaction scores from the two Ranger UAs. How do I know? Just compare UA2 and UA6: the new capstone for Ranger was the capstone that appeared on UA2, and they experimented with a different version for UA6 and it was not well received. Crawford himself said back when he announced the results of UA6 that they were going to proceed with a version based on the satisfaction scores of individual abilities from the two UAs, so I don't get why people are complaining now.
Ritual spells are going to a be HUGE for Rangers in 2024. Being able to cast Speak with Animals, Alarm, Beast Sense, Locate plants and Animal, detect magic and/or detect poison. All of these available from level 5 at least. These spells really allow Ranger's to do what we expect them to do. Alarm, setting traps to keep their party safe, locate plants an animals as a ritual spell means a level 5 ranger can track basically any plant or animal anywhere at will. Detect magic, detect poison again those are kind of tracking spells as well. In general the ranger spells are fantastic for the ranger fantasy. Add in expertise and you can make one that is super athletic and stealthy or one that is great at perception or one who has vast knowledge of various types of creatures. I do really like expertise and the spells as the "non-combat" focus and can definitely embrace that personally.
Would a druid 14/Ranger 6 be a better ranger than a pure lvl 20?
What is your definition of a Ranger? Because that seems to be where the wheels come off the cart in this thread.
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 this scenario, it would be what the Ranger would get from 7-20. So comparing that to a druid 14/ranger 6.
Well I take it one at a time.
at 7 the ranger gets their second subclass feature, this can be very important to some subclasses, not so important to others, depends on your character concept and how much the sublcass gives you. Level 8 you are getting a feat and are 1 level away from 3rd level spells and 2 more skill expertise all of which can be very good and very important so 9 levels is really strong for a Ranger.
10 I personally think is a little underwhelming with just tireless, but 11 again has your subclass feature, 12 is a feat and 13 is 4th level spells some of which are ranger exclusive, especially now with the bard change, 14 is the fantastic nature's veil ability, 15 is subclass again, 16 is another fantastic feat and 17 put hunter's mark on the map for abilities to use at this level because of advantage AND gives those 5th level spells, 18 is feral senses which is AMAZING, and 19 is an EPIC Boon feat. 20 still not a huge fan of but by this point you might as well.
So it mostly comes down to the subclasses for it. If you don't like the 7th level feature of your subclass maybe go ahead and dip to get higher level spells. If you do really like it you are likely going to go all the way to 9 with Ranger because feat+ expertise + 3rd level spells is worth the next couple levels. Then the question is "do I like my level 11 subclass feature?" if the answer is no, probably dip out at level 9, if the answer is "Heck ya" then you are probably going all the way to level 14 for nature's veil and asking the question again? Do I want my subclass feature at 15? If yes than probably all the way to 20, if no dip out and go get 6 levels of another class.
You may even only put 2 levels into ranger to get armor, weapons, weapon mastery, some good spells, hunter's mark, a fighting style, and expertise in 1 skill and dip out after if you want more skills (rogue) or magic (Druid) or martial capabilities (Fighter/monk).
You're talking about this like if you prefer other spells to Hunter's Mark that you can NEVER use it. If anything, the changes make it a little more accessible because it's always prepared and you can cast it without a slot. So it increases my access to the other spells (that I personally prefer) while still being there for me when it's the right choice tactically (hello Thousand Tooth the Devourer).
I'd like to see some of the other ranger spells drop concentration if HM keeps it, especially something like Hail of Thorns which is only going to hit the one time. I'd be okay with that damage not STACKING with Hunter's Mark which might solve the OP worries. Basically I don't want to have to drop HM and recast it in order to use any other spell in my arsenal. Maybe it will turn out that being able to cast HM for free a few times will make me more likely to do that.
Currently I find that my most limited resource as a ranger is my concentration, not my spell slots. Of course, if I cared less about conserving spell slots, or didn't need a spell slot for it, I probably would switch spells more often. However, that average of 3ish extra damage per hit to me isn't currently worth the resources to me unless I expect to get several hits in with it.
But anyway, I'll play in the way that I find most tactically satisfying and if Hunter's Mark isn't that for a particular combat I have no real issue with just not using it.
While I'm here, editing to add that the additional expertise is insanely useful and being able to choose where it goes can really change the flavor options.
Does your definition of a ranger include someone who is great at skills without needing to use magic? Then you probably want those two additional expertises at 9th level.
Do you want more feats / your Dex and Wis to be as high as possible? Either way, you probably don't want to delay the ASI at 8th level.
Do you like the idea of using bonus action Greater Invisibility without concentration during a fight? Then you'll probably want to go up to Nature's Veil.
Do you like permanent Blindsight out to 30'? Then you might want Feral Senses.
Do you actually care about your subclass features above 3rd level?
If you like druid spells more than those things - then yeah, Ranger 5/Druid 15 or some other mix might be more appealing. The nice thing about this game is that we get to choose. (Unless your DM bans multiclassing, anyway.)
I'm pretty sure the spells that are single attack (like Hail of Thorns and Lightning Arrow) will have their concentration tag dropped similar to how the Paladin Smites had theirs dropped.
I'm very hopeful that's the case rather than it just being utility/exploration things like Locate Object or Pass Without Trace!