Now that I've seen more details I'm not sure what I think about the 2024 Ranger. It's definitely better than 2014 Ranger but I can't get over the feeling I wanted just a little bit more, but I also don't know what that more would be at the moment. Maybe a capstone that was a little more fun? I don't know.
It's nice they removed concentration from some spells and changed some for the better, like Lightening Arrow working like the new smites. I think it's weird that the kept the concentration of Ensnaring Strike when a lot of things similar to it didn't.
True, but the thing is, the writing was on the wall on where the Ranger was moving to on Tasha's if you saw the playtests, and this is a straight upgrade to that. People love to hate HM, but it is a straight upgrade to Favored Foe, specially as it applies to every attack roll while Favored Foe only applies on the first hit. It's true that it still competes with some spells that still retain concentration, but power creep is a thing if HM drops concentration. The old ribbon features were OK as flavor text, but they almost never came up in actual play. As for the capstone, this is the same as was offered in UA2, but the one from UA6 was not much better either: WIS modifier when attack roll misses on target with HM, and WIS modifier to damage rolls of target under HM.
To be honest. I would have been fine if they would have kept this as part of their 1st level features. Not in place of anything from 2024 Ranger, but in addition to it
From Natural Explorer:
While traveling for an hour or more in your favored terrain, you gain the following benefits:
Difficult terrain doesn’t slow your group’s travel.
Your group can’t become lost except by magical means.
Even when you are engaged in another activity while traveling (such as foraging, navigating, or tracking), you remain alert to danger.
If you are traveling alone, you can move stealthily at a normal pace.
When you forage, you find twice as much food as you normally would.
While tracking other creatures, you also learn their exact number, their sizes, and how long ago they passed through the area.
Get rid of favored terrain and let it work in any terrain. It’s flavorful for the Ranger and if it never comes up it has no impact on the 2024 features
makes sense to me I may just add it as homebrew. I wouldn't include the "can't get lost" as that should always be possible but I might give the ranger advantage on checks to not get lost. the others all make sense, even if the foraging means you're able to supply a party of 12+ if you have the outsider background
Without having the full rules it's hard to tell, but I think building the class around hunters mark as a spell is a mistake. You already have too many bonus action abilities as is.
Plus, you could build rangers without taking hunters mark.
Hunters mark as a spell means you can't cast other spells in combat, since most of them require concentration. And you can't use you bonus action because you need to move your mark when your target dies.
It's overall just a janky ability when you get to actual play. It should be a passive bonus like the Fey Wanderer damage.
I think we're caring too much about HM... You can at max level only do it a total of 6 times between rests so... Your not supposed to have it up every round of every combat? You should just... Cast it once a combat and I think it has uses outside of it too like a GPS tracking device
I don't understand why HM being concentration is so make or break for ppl. Are there any classes that can cast 2 concentration spells at the same time, or am I tweaking?
Also, the HM free use has more value than a Paladin's free smite imo. I'd bet the Ranger is a better 1 v 1 combatant than the Paladin at this point.
To be honest. I would have been fine if they would have kept this as part of their 1st level features. Not in place of anything from 2024 Ranger, but in addition to it
From Natural Explorer:
While traveling for an hour or more in your favored terrain, you gain the following benefits:
Difficult terrain doesn’t slow your group’s travel.
Your group can’t become lost except by magical means.
Even when you are engaged in another activity while traveling (such as foraging, navigating, or tracking), you remain alert to danger.
If you are traveling alone, you can move stealthily at a normal pace.
When you forage, you find twice as much food as you normally would.
While tracking other creatures, you also learn their exact number, their sizes, and how long ago they passed through the area.
Get rid of favored terrain and let it work in any terrain. It’s flavorful for the Ranger and if it never comes up it has no impact on the 2024 features
The problem I always have with these awful features is that even the ones that matter should just be the province of the skill check system. Rant incoming:
Say the party is slowly tracking some quarry through an unfamiliar swamp. As a ranger player I would say something like "Hey DM, can my ranger help the group find a quicker and easier path through this terrain without us getting lost?" And they'd likely reply either "Sure you can!" or "Maybe - roll Survival!" and I'd reply "nice, I have Expertise and high Wisdom" and the Wizard goes "I have Enhance Ability prepared," and the Cleric goes "I have Guidance!" and the Bard goes "I'll inspire you!" and now we've got a scenario where not only does my character get to shine, but a bunch of other players at the table feel like they got to contribute too, and I knocked like three or four bullets off the wordy list above with one question.
The second problem is what I've seen called the "Air Breathing Mermaid" - where often, if an ability says "you can do X" perfectly reasonable thing, that just plants the idea in the DM's head that people without that ability can't do that thing. The third bullet is a perfect example of this - "you remain alert to danger while tracking, navigating, and foraging." Wait, does that mean characters without Natural Explorer aren't alert to danger while doing those things? Has our group been doing it wrong this entire time? Does my Rogue follow tracks with his face pressed against the ground like Elmer Fudd? Does my Druid forage for berries with her headphones in and not notice the kobolds sprouting up around her?
And even if you go with the argument that "well, of course you can do these things with a skill check, this ability just lets you do it without a check!" - that's not an improvement either. Because you've gone from overcoming a challenge to just bypassing it, and that's boring. That's the second bullet - "you can't become lost." Oh, really? I guess the DM can throw out all these sidequests and random encounters they rolled up and skip ahead. I'm sure glad the Ranger was here to save us from all this... content?
TL;DR I can absolutely see why they ditched these kinds of ribbons in favor of just granting Expertise; it's simpler, it's cleaner, it's more versatile, and it's just plain more effective.
I don't understand why HM being concentration is so make or break for ppl. Are there any classes that can cast 2 concentration spells at the same time, or am I tweaking?
Also, the HM free use has more value than a Paladin's free smite imo. I'd bet the Ranger is a better 1 v 1 combatant than the Paladin at this point.
Is Ranger the best duel wielding class now?
For me it's because so many of the Ranger's spells ALSO require concentration, including spells that only add damage on a single attack. And since Hunter's Mark lasts so long, I have to actively take it down to use another spell. Or I can cast HM on my first turn and pretty much use it as my only spell the whole combat.
That's a smart way to play resource wise but I find it kind of dull, so I don't usually use HM - instead I'll use other spells. I do tend to use Hunter's Mark if I'm just attacking one strong enemy, especially at range.
So it's less maybe that I want to run two concentration spells and more that I wonder why something like Hail of Thorns is also concentration when it only affects a single attack. Nearly all the ranger combat spells are concentration. Basically, I find that I run out of concentration, not spell slots.
With the free castings, maybe I'll rethink that style a little and feel better about putting HM up for only one or two turns and then pulling it back down for other spells. I do also appreciate that my Ranger will be able to learn HM for free so pick up another spell, and to be able to change spells out after a long rest will help with that versatility as well.
I don't understand why HM being concentration is so make or break for ppl. Are there any classes that can cast 2 concentration spells at the same time, or am I tweaking?
Also, the HM free use has more value than a Paladin's free smite imo. I'd bet the Ranger is a better 1 v 1 combatant than the Paladin at this point.
Is Ranger the best duel wielding class now?
you arent wrong no other official class/subclass can have 2 concentration spells up. What people are upset about is that it is 1/5th of your class features are tied to a spell that uses concentration. It would be like if the Warlock had class features tied to Hex (tho EB+Hex is a much stronger combo bc EB is a great cantrip) like sure it works and the numbers are there but you miss out on using other spells without wasting your uses.
Well, Barkskin change from 16 to 17 AC, BA cast time and no concentration is very nice. Makes so it doesn't feel too bad that Roving doesn't work with heavy armor when you want to try a STRanger.
Even if you defend the class focus on Hunter's Mark...what is the point of playing a Ranger as opposed to a Paladin who takes a one-level Ranger dip?
Because let's compare a Paladin 11/Ranger 1 to a pure Ranger 12 build. The former gets you over the other:
Three uses of Channel Divinity options.
A pool of hit points you can restore to anyone via BA, rather than temp HP only to yourself as an action.
Aura of Protection, which helps with all concentration spells and not just one.
1d8 extra damage on all attacks innately, plus 1d4 without concentration via Divine Favor.
More armor options.
And you're only losing out on Expertise and some movement speed. You can get an extra 2-12 damage on every attack, on top of Hunter's Mark, by starting out as a Paladin, and can do the Dual Wielder build for four attacks just as a Ranger can.
I'd say the Ranger is dead, but that applies to literally every non-power-gamer build as of 2024 5e.
Not... everyone (me for example) gives one whit about 'min maxing'
Even if you defend the class focus on Hunter's Mark...what is the point of playing a Ranger as opposed to a Paladin who takes a one-level Ranger dip?
Because let's compare a Paladin 11/Ranger 1 to a pure Ranger 12 build. The former gets you over the other:
Three uses of Channel Divinity options.
A pool of hit points you can restore to anyone via BA, rather than temp HP only to yourself as an action.
Aura of Protection, which helps with all concentration spells and not just one.
1d8 extra damage on all attacks innately, plus 1d4 without concentration via Divine Favor.
More armor options.
And you're only losing out on Expertise and some movement speed. You can get an extra 2-12 damage on every attack, on top of Hunter's Mark, by starting out as a Paladin, and can do the Dual Wielder build for four attacks just as a Ranger can.
I'd say the Ranger is dead, but that applies to literally every non-power-gamer build as of 2024 5e.
Not... everyone (me for example) gives one whit about 'min maxing'
Honestly, their last comment comes across as petty and belittling of players who don't power game. Not everyone plays like that and more often than not those kind of players tend to be toxic at the table. I've played at two tables where we had one power-gamer on each, and the games were unbearable. Don't let it bother you.
Since all they care about is power gaming, they could just go play Bard 10, Fighter 2, and Warlock 1. That way they can nuke everything with the new broken Conjure Minor Elementals.
Even if you defend the class focus on Hunter's Mark...what is the point of playing a Ranger as opposed to a Paladin who takes a one-level Ranger dip?
Because let's compare a Paladin 11/Ranger 1 to a pure Ranger 12 build. The former gets you over the other:
Three uses of Channel Divinity options.
A pool of hit points you can restore to anyone via BA, rather than temp HP only to yourself as an action.
Aura of Protection, which helps with all concentration spells and not just one.
1d8 extra damage on all attacks innately, plus 1d4 without concentration via Divine Favor.
More armor options.
And you're only losing out on Expertise and some movement speed. You can get an extra 2-12 damage on every attack, on top of Hunter's Mark, by starting out as a Paladin, and can do the Dual Wielder build for four attacks just as a Ranger can.
I'd say the Ranger is dead, but that applies to literally every non-power-gamer build as of 2024 5e.
Yeah, Paladins do a lot of damage; if you're only concerned about DPR, you probably should play a Paladin rather than a Ranger. Of course, doing this comparison at level 12, right after the Paladin with a Ranger dip gets access to the very powerful Radiant Strikes feature, but a little before the pure Ranger gets the undeniably awesome Nature's Veil is going to skew the comparison in the Paladin's favor... But of course, that's why you did it that way. Let's take your comparison at face value. At level 12, the Ranger has:
3 Expertises
2 additional languages
10 extra feet of movement (33% more than the Paladin)
Swimming and Climbing speeds
More free Hunter's Mark casts (probably 2 more, but we don't know for sure)
Reduces exhaustion on short rest
Changes out spells on Long Rest
Temp HP that lasts until Long Rest
The ability to use its core combat features with ranged attacks
Wisdom scaling.
Remember when we cared about things that weren't DPR? Yeah, me neither. You keep listing other classes with completely different features that you think would make "better" Rangers... have you considered you just don't like Rangers? If the whole ready-for-anything, highly versatile in and out of combat warrior-expert thing doesn't appeal to you, maybe just play a different class.
To be honest. I would have been fine if they would have kept this as part of their 1st level features. Not in place of anything from 2024 Ranger, but in addition to it
From Natural Explorer:
While traveling for an hour or more in your favored terrain, you gain the following benefits:
Difficult terrain doesn’t slow your group’s travel.
Your group can’t become lost except by magical means.
Even when you are engaged in another activity while traveling (such as foraging, navigating, or tracking), you remain alert to danger.
If you are traveling alone, you can move stealthily at a normal pace.
When you forage, you find twice as much food as you normally would.
While tracking other creatures, you also learn their exact number, their sizes, and how long ago they passed through the area.
Get rid of favored terrain and let it work in any terrain. It’s flavorful for the Ranger and if it never comes up it has no impact on the 2024 features
The problem I always have with these awful features is that even the ones that matter should just be the province of the skill check system. Rant incoming:
Say the party is slowly tracking some quarry through an unfamiliar swamp. As a ranger player I would say something like "Hey DM, can my ranger help the group find a quicker and easier path through this terrain without us getting lost?" And they'd likely reply either "Sure you can!" or "Maybe - roll Survival!" and I'd reply "nice, I have Expertise and high Wisdom" and the Wizard goes "I have Enhance Ability prepared," and the Cleric goes "I have Guidance!" and the Bard goes "I'll inspire you!" and now we've got a scenario where not only does my character get to shine, but a bunch of other players at the table feel like they got to contribute too, and I knocked like three or four bullets off the wordy list above with one question.
The second problem is what I've seen called the "Air Breathing Mermaid" - where often, if an ability says "you can do X" perfectly reasonable thing, that just plants the idea in the DM's head that people without that ability can't do that thing. The third bullet is a perfect example of this - "you remain alert to danger while tracking, navigating, and foraging." Wait, does that mean characters without Natural Explorer aren't alert to danger while doing those things? Has our group been doing it wrong this entire time? Does my Rogue follow tracks with his face pressed against the ground like Elmer Fudd? Does my Druid forage for berries with her headphones in and not notice the kobolds sprouting up around her?
And even if you go with the argument that "well, of course you can do these things with a skill check, this ability just lets you do it without a check!" - that's not an improvement either. Because you've gone from overcoming a challenge to just bypassing it, and that's boring. That's the second bullet - "you can't become lost." Oh, really? I guess the DM can throw out all these sidequests and random encounters they rolled up and skip ahead. I'm sure glad the Ranger was here to save us from all this... content?
TL;DR I can absolutely see why they ditched these kinds of ribbons in favor of just granting Expertise; it's simpler, it's cleaner, it's more versatile, and it's just plain more effective.
To your rant there are rules some of the Natural Explorer is referring to: edit: not sure how the new rules will handle overland travel
Other Activities
Characters who turn their attention to other tasks as the group travels are not focused on watching for danger. These characters don’t contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group’s chance of noticing hidden threats. However, a character not watching for danger can do one of the following activities instead, or some other activity with the DM’s permission.
Also, if the DM designs encounters, the content you are concerned about, that require the party to get lost to encounter them then that’s not a good design. Even without the party getting lost the DM can still ensure they engage with the content. Not getting lost doesn’t mean you don’t encounter anything either.
Foraging has a skill check so the party can still contribute since they don’t have to contribute to directions.
It seems you are making more out of these features like others are making out of HM being a focus of the new Ranger.
The books are out - nothing is going to change them. Feedback can, of course, alter things for the next "of Everything" book that gets published, and personally I would like for less reliance on Hunter's Mark, OR many of the concentration spells to lose it, OR for Hunter's Mark to stop needing concentration at some point (but not as the capstone, that's too late). I know that those HM enhancements come at levels where the Ranger previously had nothing, and that the new Ranger is definitely improved over the older one, but it still doesn't feel great to turn off multiple class features because it looked like a decent time to cast a different spell than typical for this combat. Paladins don't have to decide whether or not their Aura of Protection works when they cast any of the spells they have on their list, and there aren't exactly a whole lot of Barbarian class features that turn off Rage, and Rangers shouldn't have to make that choice either. It's bad design as far as I'm concerned.
There were too many cheeses when they removed concentration for HM back in UA2, to the point Jeremy Crawford flat out said during the UA6 survey results that there was no way they would remove the concentration requirement based on internal playtesting.
There were too many cheeses when they removed concentration for HM back in UA2, to the point Jeremy Crawford flat out said during the UA6 survey results that there was no way they would remove the concentration requirement based on internal playtesting.
Now that is something I can understand, but in that case I seriously think they should have found another route.
And to be honest, at higher levels I'm not so sure it even holds water, as the Paladin eventually gets a flat damage bonus per attack that doesn't require concentration in order to maintain. Sure, the Ranger, by virtue of often favoring missile/two weapon combat will attack more, but that would be mitigated by using a smaller die, which they already do.
There were too many cheeses when they removed concentration for HM back in UA2, to the point Jeremy Crawford flat out said during the UA6 survey results that there was no way they would remove the concentration requirement based on internal playtesting.
Now that is something I can understand, but in that case I seriously think they should have found another route.
And to be honest, at higher levels I'm not so sure it even holds water, as the Paladin eventually gets a flat damage bonus per attack that doesn't require concentration in order to maintain. Sure, the Ranger, by virtue of often favoring missile/two weapon combat will attack more, but that would be mitigated by using a smaller die, which they already do.
they should have made the concentration go away at 13th level no one is taking a quick 13 lvl dip into ranger for concentration free HM
These are good changes. It never made sense for Hail of Thorns or Lightning Arrow to be concentration spells, and this will make Hunter's Mark much more playable.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
makes sense to me I may just add it as homebrew. I wouldn't include the "can't get lost" as that should always be possible but I might give the ranger advantage on checks to not get lost. the others all make sense, even if the foraging means you're able to supply a party of 12+ if you have the outsider background
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Without having the full rules it's hard to tell, but I think building the class around hunters mark as a spell is a mistake. You already have too many bonus action abilities as is.
Plus, you could build rangers without taking hunters mark.
Hunters mark as a spell means you can't cast other spells in combat, since most of them require concentration. And you can't use you bonus action because you need to move your mark when your target dies.
It's overall just a janky ability when you get to actual play. It should be a passive bonus like the Fey Wanderer damage.
Site Info: Wizard's ToS | Fan Content Policy | Forum Rules | Physical Books | Content Not Working | Contact Support
How To: Homebrew Rules | Create Homebrew | Snippet Codes | Tool Tips (Custom) | Rollables (Generator)
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Feats | Spells | Magic Items
Other: Beyond20 | Page References | Other Guides | Entitlements | Dice Randomization | Images Fix | FAQ
I think we're caring too much about HM... You can at max level only do it a total of 6 times between rests so... Your not supposed to have it up every round of every combat? You should just... Cast it once a combat and I think it has uses outside of it too like a GPS tracking device
I don't understand why HM being concentration is so make or break for ppl. Are there any classes that can cast 2 concentration spells at the same time, or am I tweaking?
Also, the HM free use has more value than a Paladin's free smite imo. I'd bet the Ranger is a better 1 v 1 combatant than the Paladin at this point.
Is Ranger the best duel wielding class now?
The problem I always have with these awful features is that even the ones that matter should just be the province of the skill check system. Rant incoming:
Say the party is slowly tracking some quarry through an unfamiliar swamp. As a ranger player I would say something like "Hey DM, can my ranger help the group find a quicker and easier path through this terrain without us getting lost?" And they'd likely reply either "Sure you can!" or "Maybe - roll Survival!" and I'd reply "nice, I have Expertise and high Wisdom" and the Wizard goes "I have Enhance Ability prepared," and the Cleric goes "I have Guidance!" and the Bard goes "I'll inspire you!" and now we've got a scenario where not only does my character get to shine, but a bunch of other players at the table feel like they got to contribute too, and I knocked like three or four bullets off the wordy list above with one question.
The second problem is what I've seen called the "Air Breathing Mermaid" - where often, if an ability says "you can do X" perfectly reasonable thing, that just plants the idea in the DM's head that people without that ability can't do that thing. The third bullet is a perfect example of this - "you remain alert to danger while tracking, navigating, and foraging." Wait, does that mean characters without Natural Explorer aren't alert to danger while doing those things? Has our group been doing it wrong this entire time? Does my Rogue follow tracks with his face pressed against the ground like Elmer Fudd? Does my Druid forage for berries with her headphones in and not notice the kobolds sprouting up around her?
And even if you go with the argument that "well, of course you can do these things with a skill check, this ability just lets you do it without a check!" - that's not an improvement either. Because you've gone from overcoming a challenge to just bypassing it, and that's boring. That's the second bullet - "you can't become lost." Oh, really? I guess the DM can throw out all these sidequests and random encounters they rolled up and skip ahead. I'm sure glad the Ranger was here to save us from all this... content?
TL;DR I can absolutely see why they ditched these kinds of ribbons in favor of just granting Expertise; it's simpler, it's cleaner, it's more versatile, and it's just plain more effective.
For me it's because so many of the Ranger's spells ALSO require concentration, including spells that only add damage on a single attack. And since Hunter's Mark lasts so long, I have to actively take it down to use another spell. Or I can cast HM on my first turn and pretty much use it as my only spell the whole combat.
That's a smart way to play resource wise but I find it kind of dull, so I don't usually use HM - instead I'll use other spells. I do tend to use Hunter's Mark if I'm just attacking one strong enemy, especially at range.
So it's less maybe that I want to run two concentration spells and more that I wonder why something like Hail of Thorns is also concentration when it only affects a single attack. Nearly all the ranger combat spells are concentration. Basically, I find that I run out of concentration, not spell slots.
With the free castings, maybe I'll rethink that style a little and feel better about putting HM up for only one or two turns and then pulling it back down for other spells. I do also appreciate that my Ranger will be able to learn HM for free so pick up another spell, and to be able to change spells out after a long rest will help with that versatility as well.
you arent wrong no other official class/subclass can have 2 concentration spells up. What people are upset about is that it is 1/5th of your class features are tied to a spell that uses concentration. It would be like if the Warlock had class features tied to Hex (tho EB+Hex is a much stronger combo bc EB is a great cantrip) like sure it works and the numbers are there but you miss out on using other spells without wasting your uses.
There are 4 ranger spells remade to not require concentration. 4 Ranger Spells remade to mitigate the HM reliance
Super curious to know what made a spell qualify for having concentration removed and some not.
According to Jeremy a few spells they felt were too useless with it
Well, Barkskin change from 16 to 17 AC, BA cast time and no concentration is very nice. Makes so it doesn't feel too bad that Roving doesn't work with heavy armor when you want to try a STRanger.
Not... everyone (me for example) gives one whit about 'min maxing'
Honestly, their last comment comes across as petty and belittling of players who don't power game. Not everyone plays like that and more often than not those kind of players tend to be toxic at the table. I've played at two tables where we had one power-gamer on each, and the games were unbearable. Don't let it bother you.
Since all they care about is power gaming, they could just go play Bard 10, Fighter 2, and Warlock 1. That way they can nuke everything with the new broken Conjure Minor Elementals.
Yeah, Paladins do a lot of damage; if you're only concerned about DPR, you probably should play a Paladin rather than a Ranger. Of course, doing this comparison at level 12, right after the Paladin with a Ranger dip gets access to the very powerful Radiant Strikes feature, but a little before the pure Ranger gets the undeniably awesome Nature's Veil is going to skew the comparison in the Paladin's favor... But of course, that's why you did it that way. Let's take your comparison at face value. At level 12, the Ranger has:
Remember when we cared about things that weren't DPR? Yeah, me neither. You keep listing other classes with completely different features that you think would make "better" Rangers... have you considered you just don't like Rangers? If the whole ready-for-anything, highly versatile in and out of combat warrior-expert thing doesn't appeal to you, maybe just play a different class.
To your rant there are rules some of the Natural Explorer is referring to: edit: not sure how the new rules will handle overland travel
Also, if the DM designs encounters, the content you are concerned about, that require the party to get lost to encounter them then that’s not a good design. Even without the party getting lost the DM can still ensure they engage with the content. Not getting lost doesn’t mean you don’t encounter anything either.
Foraging has a skill check so the party can still contribute since they don’t have to contribute to directions.
It seems you are making more out of these features like others are making out of HM being a focus of the new Ranger.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
The books are out - nothing is going to change them. Feedback can, of course, alter things for the next "of Everything" book that gets published, and personally I would like for less reliance on Hunter's Mark, OR many of the concentration spells to lose it, OR for Hunter's Mark to stop needing concentration at some point (but not as the capstone, that's too late). I know that those HM enhancements come at levels where the Ranger previously had nothing, and that the new Ranger is definitely improved over the older one, but it still doesn't feel great to turn off multiple class features because it looked like a decent time to cast a different spell than typical for this combat. Paladins don't have to decide whether or not their Aura of Protection works when they cast any of the spells they have on their list, and there aren't exactly a whole lot of Barbarian class features that turn off Rage, and Rangers shouldn't have to make that choice either. It's bad design as far as I'm concerned.
There were too many cheeses when they removed concentration for HM back in UA2, to the point Jeremy Crawford flat out said during the UA6 survey results that there was no way they would remove the concentration requirement based on internal playtesting.
Now that is something I can understand, but in that case I seriously think they should have found another route.
And to be honest, at higher levels I'm not so sure it even holds water, as the Paladin eventually gets a flat damage bonus per attack that doesn't require concentration in order to maintain. Sure, the Ranger, by virtue of often favoring missile/two weapon combat will attack more, but that would be mitigated by using a smaller die, which they already do.
they should have made the concentration go away at 13th level no one is taking a quick 13 lvl dip into ranger for concentration free HM
These are good changes. It never made sense for Hail of Thorns or Lightning Arrow to be concentration spells, and this will make Hunter's Mark much more playable.