After being assured that the damage is not once per turn, I put together all the small things I appreciate about the buffs to Rangers.
Favorved enemy at level 1 giving you access to Hunter's Mark a few times for free is good. Having extra resources that early in the game is huge. I can use those slots for the new 2d8+wis cure wounds(I believe it is 2d8 now).
My ranger at levels 1 and 2 will have Nick and the two-handed fighting style, allowing me to attack twice at level 1, each attack doing 2d6+ modifier damage. If you have a +3 modifier, that's, on average, 10 damage per hit. At level 1, my ranger can do 20 points of damage thanks to a free hunter's mark. At 5th level, it becomes 3 attacks or 30 damage a turn. I know it doesn't seem like much, but I am not mentioning the subclass abilities, which all increase your damage also.
At level 3, I can pick my subclass choice, and I am picking Hunter. I really like Hunter's Lore I like knowing about a creature's resistance and immunity. Hunter's lore will help the spell slingers in their spell-casting choice. An extra d8 damage at 3 is decent, it ups the average damage to 24.5.
I don't know what changes they made for Hunter at 7 as the video mentions different things than what is in the arcana.
Level 9, you get 3rd-level spells, which means 2d6 damage for Hunter's Mark! With 3 attacks, that's 9d6 damage +d8 +15 damage. Rogues have 5d6 sneak attack at this level.
At level 11, the hunter gets splash damage. I hope it is not limited. Having 3d6 splashed on other creatures is great. Essentially, each hit does 5d6 damage! 3d6 to the hunter mark target and 2d6 to the splash target, so essentially, with the Ranger's 3 attacks doing 15d6+d8 damage, it is spread; however, that is a lot of damage.
At level 13, not having to worry about losing concentration is good.
At 17 level 3d6, the hunter's mark lasts all day, and your concentration can't be broken! At this point, my attacks do 4d6 damage, so that's 12d6 damage to the target, but 9d6 can splash, so that's 21d6 damage in one turn!
Now with the capstone, change those d6s to d10s! 18d10 is nasty.
I was loving the direction of the new Ranger until they said Hunter’s Mark is still concentration. So we can choose to not use 53% of our spell list or foregoing at a minimum 4 core class features 🤔. Making it concentration free is too powerful but giving the Paladin free 1d8 radiant with every attack isn’t ? Not to mention the slap in the face capstone ability. I loved the playtest capstone of adding our Wisdom modifier to attacks . This is terrible.
Why do we as fans of the Ranger get penalized for power gamers who take a 1 level dip?
I was loving the direction of the new Ranger until they said Hunter’s Mark is still concentration. So we can choose to not use 53% of our spell list or foregoing at a minimum 4 core class features 🤔. Making it concentration free is too powerful but giving the Paladin free 1d8 radiant with every attack isn’t ? Not to mention the slap in the face capstone ability. I loved the playtest capstone of adding our Wisdom modifier to attacks . This is terrible.
Why do we as fans of the Ranger get penalized for power gamers who take a 1 level dip?
Honestly, I think the easiest fix currently might be for several spells on the Ranger spell list to qualify as Hunter's Mark for purposes of later class abilities - not the free castings. (Although that might still be doable for some other 1st level spells), but for class/subclasses abilities like automatic advantage and not having to worry about damage breaking concentration.
I don't have an issue with the Ranger. One of the problems the community is having is that half-casters will always have a hard time meeting the demands of the players who want to play it, especially Rangers. Rangers are 33% Druid, 33% Fighter, and 33% Rogue, which works against them. Ranger's versatility seems appealing; players want the Ranger to be better than those classes, but you must play the class differently to appreciate it. The Ranger cannot outmag a druid? You have Druid players who will eventually think its spells are horrible. You have fighter players looking at the class saying I'd rather have my buffs than these weak spells. Rogue players will say I would rather have sneak attack/cunning attack over Hunter's mark.
I do understand the sudden hate for Hunter's Mark. I disagree as the Hunter's Mark has always been one of the cornerstone rangers. Warlock players are not pulling out their hair about hex! You could never have Zephyr Strike and Hunter's Mark; it has always been a choice. The changes to smite most likely mean that most of our spells are no longer concentration spells. (Hail of Thorns, Ensnaring Strike, and Searing Smite)
The argument that it forces you to use Hunter's Mark is weak. The favored enemy rule is one of the strongest level 1 abilities. You automatically know the spell, freeing up space to learn another spell, and you can cast it twice for free. You have 4 spell slots, and everyone else has 2.
Relentless Hunter at level 13 is not that great because Hunter's Mark is not doing that much and is not worthy of a level 13 ability to protect it. However, all of that changes in tier 4 games.
At level 17, you get Precise Hunter, which is advantage on all attacks against your hunter mark target. At 17, you get level 5 spells, meaning you get level 5 Hunter's Mark, which is 3d6 damage per hit! That's when the marginal at best Relentless Hunter value skyrockets because level 5 Hunter's Mark is 24 hours. Combine that with Relentless Hunter 1 Casting will last you a very long time.
Regarding the capstone, you are doing an extra 6.5 damage per hit, which is better than the wisdom modifier bonus. They gave us advantage at 17 which is earlier, instead of that wisdom buff to hit of Foe Slayer at 20. Instead of doing an extra Wis(15) mod per hit, they made Hunter's Mark d10(16.5).
It's per hit, so it scales the same way all per-hit abilities do - with your number of attacks.
That’s not what I meant . Scaling as in spells damage scales when up cast.
I’m wondering if it does that, because it would really make it more interesting. With the free casting, extending the duration with an upcast isn’t as useful. But adding an extra d6/ spell level is a bit more interesting. And if the free cast is at the highest ranger spell level available, now it’s getting pretty cool. (Also rewards staying single class) And then the capstone means 5d6 is now 5d10, now that feels a lot more like a capstone.
It's per hit, so it scales the same way all per-hit abilities do - with your number of attacks.
That’s not what I meant . Scaling as in spells damage scales when up cast.
I’m wondering if it does that, because it would really make it more interesting. With the free casting, extending the duration with an upcast isn’t as useful. But adding an extra d6/ spell level is a bit more interesting. And if the free cast is at the highest ranger spell level available, now it’s getting pretty cool. (Also rewards staying single class) And then the capstone means 5d6 is now 5d10, now that feels a lot more like a capstone.
Not only is it more damage (2d6), but it lasts for 8 hours. This means you do not have to cast it as often, and when you do, most likely it's free!
In my opinion I think 2024 'saves' Ranger. I donno about "we changed so much it's a new class" part but I feel it's more a Legolas, Hawkeye in a medieval fantasy then 2014
It's per hit, so it scales the same way all per-hit abilities do - with your number of attacks.
That’s not what I meant . Scaling as in spells damage scales when up cast.
Do you not see how scaling up with damage AND with number of attacks would be unbalancing? It has to be one or the other, and I'm glad they went with the latter because it means the free HM uses (which can't be upcast since they don't use slots) still retain their value as the Ranger goes up in level.
That’s not what I meant . Scaling as in spells damage scales when up cast.
Do you not see how scaling up with damage AND with number of attacks would be unbalancing? It has to be one or the other, and I'm glad they went with the latter because it means the free HM uses (which can't be upcast since they don't use slots) still retain their value as the Ranger goes up in level.
Would it be all that unbalanced, though? If you scale with (ranger) spell level. At level 9, you’re doing 3d6 extra damage twice, a rogue is doing 5d6 once. Seems pretty close. And odds are you miss with one of your two attacks sometimes. And you have to use concentration and spend a limited resource to do it, and if your target moves, you’re either chasing after them, or stuck doing regular damage to someone else. Where the rogue doesn’t care, they can SA whoever any turn. Feels like not a bad trade off, ranger would get the possibility to really hammer one target if the stats align. But that’s where the fun would come in is trying to pull that off.
I know there’s the potential for two weapon fighting, but you’ll need your bonus action to activate HM and again to move it around. A nick weapon does give you a third attack, assuming it still works the same way as it did on playtest. But what are the chances you hit all 3 times? And again, if the target moves, you’re back to just regular damage.
In theory, it could get sticky with multiclassing. But what full caster is going to dip into ranger to get extra damage on melee attacks? Maybe a bladesinger, but they would be pretty MAD.
Another possibility could be just making it a column in the class progression, similar to rogue SA or barbarian rage damage. Then they can be pretty granular about how quickly it goes up.
It's per hit, so it scales the same way all per-hit abilities do - with your number of attacks.
That’s not what I meant . Scaling as in spells damage scales when up cast.
Do you not see how scaling up with damage AND with number of attacks would be unbalancing? It has to be one or the other, and I'm glad they went with the latter because it means the free HM uses (which can't be upcast since they don't use slots) still retain their value as the Ranger goes up in level.
<scratches head> Paladin gets extra attack and can upcast smite spells and later gets an additional d8 damage added to every attack that stacks with upcast smites. Yes, it’s a spell slot per use but I don’t think anyone is asking for smite power level HM with an 8 hour duration. Edit: make the scaling 2d6 with 3rd level slot and 3d6 with 5th level slot. And Ranger spell slot exclusive to avoid MC shenanigans. Or something along those lines. Edit 2: oh, and this would be a class feature to modify the spell, not the base spell upcasting rule.
After being assured that the damage is not once per turn, I put together all the small things I appreciate about the buffs to Rangers.
Favorved enemy at level 1 giving you access to Hunter's Mark a few times for free is good. Having extra resources that early in the game is huge. I can use those slots for the new 2d8+wis cure wounds(I believe it is 2d8 now).
My ranger at levels 1 and 2 will have Nick and the two-handed fighting style, allowing me to attack twice at level 1, each attack doing 2d6+ modifier damage. If you have a +3 modifier, that's, on average, 10 damage per hit. At level 1, my ranger can do 20 points of damage thanks to a free hunter's mark. At 5th level, it becomes 3 attacks or 30 damage a turn. I know it doesn't seem like much, but I am not mentioning the subclass abilities, which all increase your damage also.
At level 3, I can pick my subclass choice, and I am picking Hunter. I really like Hunter's Lore I like knowing about a creature's resistance and immunity. Hunter's lore will help the spell slingers in their spell-casting choice. An extra d8 damage at 3 is decent, it ups the average damage to 24.5.
I don't know what changes they made for Hunter at 7 as the video mentions different things than what is in the arcana.
Level 9, you get 3rd-level spells, which means 2d6 damage for Hunter's Mark! With 3 attacks, that's 9d6 damage +d8 +15 damage. Rogues have 5d6 sneak attack at this level.
At level 11, the hunter gets splash damage. I hope it is not limited. Having 3d6 splashed on other creatures is great. Essentially, each hit does 5d6 damage! 3d6 to the hunter mark target and 2d6 to the splash target, so essentially, with the Ranger's 3 attacks doing 15d6+d8 damage, it is spread; however, that is a lot of damage.
At level 13, not having to worry about losing concentration is good.
At 17 level 3d6, the hunter's mark lasts all day, and your concentration can't be broken! At this point, my attacks do 4d6 damage, so that's 12d6 damage to the target, but 9d6 can splash, so that's 21d6 damage in one turn!
Now with the capstone, change those d6s to d10s! 18d10 is nasty.
Instagram/YouTube CeCe.Simulacrum
Twitch yourwelcomez
Source?
So far the One D&D play test document says once per turn, and I have not seen any official comment about this being changed.
https://startplaying.games/game-master/dmgrisix
The next playtest that had ranger stated to use the 2014 PHB version of the spell in its notes portion as the video said it hadn't tested well.
They reverted to 1d6 (upgrading to 1d10 at the capstone) so there[s no way it's 1/round instead of on each hit.
And people with advance copies are referring to it working per hit as well.
Are we 100% sure Hunter’s Mark scales ?
It's per hit, so it scales the same way all per-hit abilities do - with your number of attacks.
I was loving the direction of the new Ranger until they said Hunter’s Mark is still concentration. So we can choose to not use 53% of our spell list or foregoing at a minimum 4 core class features 🤔. Making it concentration free is too powerful but giving the Paladin free 1d8 radiant with every attack isn’t ? Not to mention the slap in the face capstone ability. I loved the playtest capstone of adding our Wisdom modifier to attacks . This is terrible.
Why do we as fans of the Ranger get penalized for power gamers who take a 1 level dip?
Honestly, I think the easiest fix currently might be for several spells on the Ranger spell list to qualify as Hunter's Mark for purposes of later class abilities - not the free castings. (Although that might still be doable for some other 1st level spells), but for class/subclasses abilities like automatic advantage and not having to worry about damage breaking concentration.
A
We not SEEN the 400 spells whose to say making Ranger focus on HM make it useless? They said they changed every spell in the handbook
We are being punished because some people power game and will find a way to take Hex and use HM
That’s not what I meant . Scaling as in spells damage scales when up cast.
I don't have an issue with the Ranger. One of the problems the community is having is that half-casters will always have a hard time meeting the demands of the players who want to play it, especially Rangers. Rangers are 33% Druid, 33% Fighter, and 33% Rogue, which works against them. Ranger's versatility seems appealing; players want the Ranger to be better than those classes, but you must play the class differently to appreciate it. The Ranger cannot outmag a druid? You have Druid players who will eventually think its spells are horrible. You have fighter players looking at the class saying I'd rather have my buffs than these weak spells. Rogue players will say I would rather have sneak attack/cunning attack over Hunter's mark.
I do understand the sudden hate for Hunter's Mark. I disagree as the Hunter's Mark has always been one of the cornerstone rangers. Warlock players are not pulling out their hair about hex! You could never have Zephyr Strike and Hunter's Mark; it has always been a choice. The changes to smite most likely mean that most of our spells are no longer concentration spells. (Hail of Thorns, Ensnaring Strike, and Searing Smite)
The argument that it forces you to use Hunter's Mark is weak. The favored enemy rule is one of the strongest level 1 abilities. You automatically know the spell, freeing up space to learn another spell, and you can cast it twice for free. You have 4 spell slots, and everyone else has 2.
Relentless Hunter at level 13 is not that great because Hunter's Mark is not doing that much and is not worthy of a level 13 ability to protect it. However, all of that changes in tier 4 games.
At level 17, you get Precise Hunter, which is advantage on all attacks against your hunter mark target. At 17, you get level 5 spells, meaning you get level 5 Hunter's Mark, which is 3d6 damage per hit! That's when the marginal at best Relentless Hunter value skyrockets because level 5 Hunter's Mark is 24 hours. Combine that with Relentless Hunter 1 Casting will last you a very long time.
Regarding the capstone, you are doing an extra 6.5 damage per hit, which is better than the wisdom modifier bonus. They gave us advantage at 17 which is earlier, instead of that wisdom buff to hit of Foe Slayer at 20. Instead of doing an extra Wis(15) mod per hit, they made Hunter's Mark d10(16.5).
Instagram/YouTube CeCe.Simulacrum
Twitch yourwelcomez
I’m wondering if it does that, because it would really make it more interesting. With the free casting, extending the duration with an upcast isn’t as useful. But adding an extra d6/ spell level is a bit more interesting. And if the free cast is at the highest ranger spell level available, now it’s getting pretty cool. (Also rewards staying single class) And then the capstone means 5d6 is now 5d10, now that feels a lot more like a capstone.
Not only is it more damage (2d6), but it lasts for 8 hours. This means you do not have to cast it as often, and when you do, most likely it's free!
Instagram/YouTube CeCe.Simulacrum
Twitch yourwelcomez
In my opinion I think 2024 'saves' Ranger. I donno about "we changed so much it's a new class" part but I feel it's more a Legolas, Hawkeye in a medieval fantasy then 2014
Do you not see how scaling up with damage AND with number of attacks would be unbalancing? It has to be one or the other, and I'm glad they went with the latter because it means the free HM uses (which can't be upcast since they don't use slots) still retain their value as the Ranger goes up in level.
Would it be all that unbalanced, though? If you scale with (ranger) spell level. At level 9, you’re doing 3d6 extra damage twice, a rogue is doing 5d6 once. Seems pretty close. And odds are you miss with one of your two attacks sometimes. And you have to use concentration and spend a limited resource to do it, and if your target moves, you’re either chasing after them, or stuck doing regular damage to someone else. Where the rogue doesn’t care, they can SA whoever any turn. Feels like not a bad trade off, ranger would get the possibility to really hammer one target if the stats align. But that’s where the fun would come in is trying to pull that off.
I know there’s the potential for two weapon fighting, but you’ll need your bonus action to activate HM and again to move it around. A nick weapon does give you a third attack, assuming it still works the same way as it did on playtest. But what are the chances you hit all 3 times? And again, if the target moves, you’re back to just regular damage.
In theory, it could get sticky with multiclassing. But what full caster is going to dip into ranger to get extra damage on melee attacks? Maybe a bladesinger, but they would be pretty MAD.
Another possibility could be just making it a column in the class progression, similar to rogue SA or barbarian rage damage. Then they can be pretty granular about how quickly it goes up.
<scratches head> Paladin gets extra attack and can upcast smite spells and later gets an additional d8 damage added to every attack that stacks with upcast smites. Yes, it’s a spell slot per use but I don’t think anyone is asking for smite power level HM with an 8 hour duration. Edit: make the scaling 2d6 with 3rd level slot and 3d6 with 5th level slot. And Ranger spell slot exclusive to avoid MC shenanigans. Or something along those lines. Edit 2: oh, and this would be a class feature to modify the spell, not the base spell upcasting rule.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?