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.
You keep saying "scaling with number of attacks" as if rangers keep getting more attacks. They get one at 5 and that's it. That is not an effective scaling progression. Just ask any monk.
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.
You keep saying "scaling with number of attacks" as if rangers keep getting more attacks. They get one at 5 and that's it. That is not an effective scaling progression. Just ask any monk.
There's little more to it than that - with weapon mastery, two weapon combat no longer requires use of the bonus action, which makes for three, and (granted this is only one subclass, but ALL possibilities need to be considered when adding/changing rules) the Beast Master gets another two for their pet, for a total of 5. Add in Haste (if used) and a potential reaction attack, and the Ranger can get up to 7 in a single round if all the cards fall right, and will still have 5 every round, depending on build.
Jumping on Roland's point, Beast Master's pet will also benefit from Hunter's Mark. Hunter has a pretty impressive HM benefit as well, which the entire party can benefit from. I am going to lean into the possibility that every subclass will have some additional HM benefit.
Jumping on Roland's point, Beast Master's pet will also benefit from Hunter's Mark. Hunter has a pretty impressive HM benefit as well, which the entire party can benefit from. I am going to lean into the possibility that every subclass will have some additional HM benefit.
I don't know about Fey Wanderer and Gloom Stalker, but they have another source of bonus damage to help make up for it.
I still would like to see some of the higher level buff spells count as Hunter's Mark for purposes of class and subclass features. That would fix my one hangup with the current class - which is "Use Hunter's Mark or lose a quarter of your class features!" That, and the capstone is pretty lame, but that isn't unique to Rangers, and since playing to level 20 is such a rare event anyways, that's not very high on my list of issues.
They've said that theyre going to focus on trying to make people play to level 20 way more now after the revised rules. Getting to trigger an extra d10 per attack doesnt that bad.
Im mostly thinking about all of Rangers utility combat spells that has concentration and if ill have to constantly recast HM everytime i want to do anything other than just damage.
You keep saying "scaling with number of attacks" as if rangers keep getting more attacks. They get one at 5 and that's it. That is not an effective scaling progression. Just ask any monk.
1) Feats exist. 2) Reactions exist.
Getting at least 4 attacks is easy for any ranger (Regular + EA + Nick + OA.). With things like magic items, party buffs (e.g. Haste), and subclass choice (e.g. BM) they can push into the 7-8 range. WotC needs to design for those tables too, not just the unoptimized ones that stick with two attacks and call it a day.
You keep saying "scaling with number of attacks" as if rangers keep getting more attacks. They get one at 5 and that's it. That is not an effective scaling progression. Just ask any monk.
1) Feats exist. 2) Reactions exist.
Getting at least 4 attacks is easy for any ranger (Regular + EA + Nick + OA.). With things like magic items, party buffs (e.g. Haste), and subclass choice (e.g. BM) they can push into the 7-8 range. WotC needs to design for those tables too, not just the unoptimized ones that stick with two attacks and call it a day.
Curious, how is it easy to get OA's? Especially every round?
You keep saying "scaling with number of attacks" as if rangers keep getting more attacks. They get one at 5 and that's it. That is not an effective scaling progression. Just ask any monk.
1) Feats exist. 2) Reactions exist.
Getting at least 4 attacks is easy for any ranger (Regular + EA + Nick + OA.). With things like magic items, party buffs (e.g. Haste), and subclass choice (e.g. BM) they can push into the 7-8 range. WotC needs to design for those tables too, not just the unoptimized ones that stick with two attacks and call it a day.
Curious, how is it easy to get OA's? Especially every round?
Every round might be tricky, but with the right feats and party build, it can become much more common than normal. Everybody knows about the Sentinel feat, but the Mage Slayer feat gives reaction attacks if a creature within reach casts a spell, and an Order Domain Cleric grants a reaction attack every time they cast a spell that affects a party member - cast a 1st level Healing Word with your bonus action, grant a reaction attack to that party member, with the only limit being how many spell slots you have. Game balance requires taking the extremes into account.
You keep saying "scaling with number of attacks" as if rangers keep getting more attacks. They get one at 5 and that's it. That is not an effective scaling progression. Just ask any monk.
1) Feats exist. 2) Reactions exist.
Getting at least 4 attacks is easy for any ranger (Regular + EA + Nick + OA.). With things like magic items, party buffs (e.g. Haste), and subclass choice (e.g. BM) they can push into the 7-8 range. WotC needs to design for those tables too, not just the unoptimized ones that stick with two attacks and call it a day.
Curious, how is it easy to get OA's? Especially every round?
Every round might be tricky, but with the right feats and party build, it can become much more common than normal. Everybody knows about the Sentinel feat, but the Mage Slayer feat gives reaction attacks if a creature within reach casts a spell, and an Order Domain Cleric grants a reaction attack every time they cast a spell that affects a party member - cast a 1st level Healing Word with your bonus action, grant a reaction attack to that party member, with the only limit being how many spell slots you have. Game balance requires taking the extremes into account.
Sentinel requires the enemy to attempt to disengage or to hit someone other than the ranger who happens to be next to the ranger, so not likely every round unless a very melee heavy party or the party forgoes flanking for some reason.
Mage slayer requires the enemy to cast a spell, again, not a given, especially every round.
Order Domain Cleric requires a cleric dip and if the ranger is casting a heal, that is one less action or bonus action available for attacks.
So none of those are reliable enough to say 'easily trigger' and all three of those have costs, with the ranger having one less feat and/or lower stats or one less level of ranger.
You keep saying "scaling with number of attacks" as if rangers keep getting more attacks. They get one at 5 and that's it. That is not an effective scaling progression. Just ask any monk.
1) Feats exist. 2) Reactions exist.
Getting at least 4 attacks is easy for any ranger (Regular + EA + Nick + OA.). With things like magic items, party buffs (e.g. Haste), and subclass choice (e.g. BM) they can push into the 7-8 range. WotC needs to design for those tables too, not just the unoptimized ones that stick with two attacks and call it a day.
Curious, how is it easy to get OA's? Especially every round?
Every round might be tricky, but with the right feats and party build, it can become much more common than normal. Everybody knows about the Sentinel feat, but the Mage Slayer feat gives reaction attacks if a creature within reach casts a spell, and an Order Domain Cleric grants a reaction attack every time they cast a spell that affects a party member - cast a 1st level Healing Word with your bonus action, grant a reaction attack to that party member, with the only limit being how many spell slots you have. Game balance requires taking the extremes into account.
Sentinel requires the enemy to attempt to disengage or to hit someone other than the ranger who happens to be next to the ranger, so not likely every round unless a very melee heavy party or the party forgoes flanking for some reason.
Mage slayer requires the enemy to cast a spell, again, not a given, especially every round.
Order Domain Cleric requires a cleric dip and if the ranger is casting a heal, that is one less action or bonus action available for attacks.
So none of those are reliable enough to say 'easily trigger' and all three of those have costs, with the ranger having one less feat and/or lower stats or one less level of ranger.
Order domain doesn't require a dip, merely for someone else in the group to be playing it, much like Haste is most likely cast by someone else. And as has been said, game balance requires that corner cases be considered.
Order domain doesn't require a dip, merely for someone else in the group to be playing it, much like Haste is most likely cast by someone else. And as has been said, game balance requires that corner cases be considered.
Someone else to be playing it and casts a heal every round and gives the extra attack to the ranger, who happens to be in a good position to use it and this does not mean that later, when the party really needs a heal, they still have one available... that is a lot more than 'a corner case.'
It is a corner case that the DM gives everyone +3 weapons at level 1, but pretty sure that is not that would be a good basis for balancing.
Order domain doesn't require a dip, merely for someone else in the group to be playing it, much like Haste is most likely cast by someone else. And as has been said, game balance requires that corner cases be considered.
Someone else to be playing it and casts a heal every round and gives the extra attack to the ranger, who happens to be in a good position to use it and this does not mean that later, when the party really needs a heal, they still have one available... that is a lot more than 'a corner case.'
It is a corner case that the DM gives everyone +3 weapons at level 1, but pretty sure that is not that would be a good basis for balancing.
Now you are dipping into hyperbole.
If I am playing an Order domain Cleric, I'm going to be looking to cast a spell on the party member who does the most damage per attack - if there is a Rogue in the group, that's the most likely recipient. But if instead I have a Ranger, well, it might be them. Especially since if they are wounded (not an unlikely scenario if they are a melee build), I am effectively double dipping my effect - and keep in mind that under the new rules, healing spells do double the dice they used to do. So, for my bonus action, I cast a 1st level Healing Word, restoring 2d4+Wis modifier in HP, AND giving a party member an additional attack they otherwise would not have been able to take. Plus my own regular action as well. That isn't some deep dive into the rules, nor does it require some outlandish scenario like a DM handing our magic items like candy - this is the entry level subclass feature. If you are equating that with having +3 magic items out of the gate, well, that's on you.
Is this the final version of the class? The lvl 20 feature is very underwhelming, and I think more abilities that don’t just revolve around Hunter’s Mark would be neat, I liked that we got a climb and swimming speed for example.
Order domain doesn't require a dip, merely for someone else in the group to be playing it, much like Haste is most likely cast by someone else. And as has been said, game balance requires that corner cases be considered.
Someone else to be playing it and casts a heal every round and gives the extra attack to the ranger, who happens to be in a good position to use it and this does not mean that later, when the party really needs a heal, they still have one available... that is a lot more than 'a corner case.'
It is a corner case that the DM gives everyone +3 weapons at level 1, but pretty sure that is not that would be a good basis for balancing.
Now you are dipping into hyperbole.
If I am playing an Order domain Cleric, I'm going to be looking to cast a spell on the party member who does the most damage per attack - if there is a Rogue in the group, that's the most likely recipient. But if instead I have a Ranger, well, it might be them. Especially since if they are wounded (not an unlikely scenario if they are a melee build), I am effectively double dipping my effect - and keep in mind that under the new rules, healing spells do double the dice they used to do. So, for my bonus action, I cast a 1st level Healing Word, restoring 2d4+Wis modifier in HP, AND giving a party member an additional attack they otherwise would not have been able to take. Plus my own regular action as well. That isn't some deep dive into the rules, nor does it require some outlandish scenario like a DM handing our magic items like candy - this is the entry level subclass feature. If you are equating that with having +3 magic items out of the gate, well, that's on you.
IF you are playing an order domain cleric, then it might be the ranger. It might be the barbarian. It might be some summoned creature. Even if it is the ranger, that is requiring that particular combination, which is not the same as 'get OA's easily.'
Plus, if the party really is completely optimized for combat, then the DM will just toss tougher monsters against them.
As a long time ranger player, the "new" ranger makes the new PHB a hard no considering the pre release info, but I am a cynic about the new core 3 books to start with so take my position with a grain or 3 of salt. I am fortunate enough to have content sharing with people that have pre-ordered the 24 PHB so I will get to read it without buying it, but I am very turned off buy what has been released to date.
So none of those are reliable enough to say 'easily trigger' and all three of those have costs, with the ranger having one less feat and/or lower stats or one less level of ranger.
Are you really quibbling this much over +1d6? 🥱
"Easily" does not have to mean "100% of the time." It's easy because OA is a thing any Ranger can do, and the feats that give them more opportunities to take one are half-feats anyway. In addition, if the enemy is constantly playing around my reactions by disengaging or avoiding hitting my allies or avoiding casting spells when I'm in melee with them, that's actually a bigger win for me than the reaction attack with +1d6 would have been.
So none of those are reliable enough to say 'easily trigger' and all three of those have costs, with the ranger having one less feat and/or lower stats or one less level of ranger.
Are you really quibbling this much over +1d6? 🥱
"Easily" does not have to mean "100% of the time." It's easy because OA is a thing any Ranger can do, and the feats that give them more opportunities to take one are half-feats anyway. In addition, if the enemy is constantly playing around my reactions by disengaging or avoiding hitting my allies or avoiding casting spells when I'm in melee with them, that's actually a bigger win for me than the reaction attack with +1d6 would have been.
1) I am not among those who seem to be claiming that potential +1d6 is some sort of issue.
2) If I, even as a non-ranger, win the lottery, many things would be easy. Yes, when that ranger has all the right circumstances, things they could do under those ideal circumstances become easy. However when those circumstances are not particularly common, then it is not anything one would consider 'easy.'
Enemies have to go out of their way to avoid triggering reactions? If they cut and run, triggering an OA, how would that be worse for the ranger than if they stand there and perhaps whack said ranger one more time before they go down?
So none of those are reliable enough to say 'easily trigger' and all three of those have costs, with the ranger having one less feat and/or lower stats or one less level of ranger.
Are you really quibbling this much over +1d6? 🥱
"Easily" does not have to mean "100% of the time." It's easy because OA is a thing any Ranger can do, and the feats that give them more opportunities to take one are half-feats anyway. In addition, if the enemy is constantly playing around my reactions by disengaging or avoiding hitting my allies or avoiding casting spells when I'm in melee with them, that's actually a bigger win for me than the reaction attack with +1d6 would have been.
1) I am not among those who seem to be claiming that potential +1d6 is some sort of issue.
2) If I, even as a non-ranger, win the lottery, many things would be easy. Yes, when that ranger has all the right circumstances, things they could do under those ideal circumstances become easy. However when those circumstances are not particularly common, then it is not anything one would consider 'easy.'
Enemies have to go out of their way to avoid triggering reactions? If they cut and run, triggering an OA, how would that be worse for the ranger than if they stand there and perhaps whack said ranger one more time before they go down?
I have no idea what you're on about. The question that got us on this tangent was whether HM being a flat amount of damage per hit that scales just with number of attacks is enough. We're pointing out that +4d6 per round out of a single 1st-level slot (or fine, +3d6 per round if you consider OAs to be too rare to count somehow) is more than acceptable throughput, but also that it's quite possible for Rangers to get more attacks per round than 3. WotC have to consider both ends of that spectrum when designing the spell, but even at the lowest possible end it's adding more damage per round than something like Witch Bolt with far fewer restrictions.
1. I'm not sure about dispel magic (wouldn't it have to be cast on the marked target?), but silence wouldn't work if HM is already up, and if it's not, then the ranger simply need to move out of the spell's zone of effect to cast it.
2. This is the great trade-off and the main reason a lot of people are kind of "meh" about the direction the ranger took (i.e. effectively requiring a concentration spell to turn on a good chunk of class/subclass features).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You keep saying "scaling with number of attacks" as if rangers keep getting more attacks. They get one at 5 and that's it. That is not an effective scaling progression. Just ask any monk.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
There's little more to it than that - with weapon mastery, two weapon combat no longer requires use of the bonus action, which makes for three, and (granted this is only one subclass, but ALL possibilities need to be considered when adding/changing rules) the Beast Master gets another two for their pet, for a total of 5. Add in Haste (if used) and a potential reaction attack, and the Ranger can get up to 7 in a single round if all the cards fall right, and will still have 5 every round, depending on build.
Jumping on Roland's point, Beast Master's pet will also benefit from Hunter's Mark. Hunter has a pretty impressive HM benefit as well, which the entire party can benefit from. I am going to lean into the possibility that every subclass will have some additional HM benefit.
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
I don't know about Fey Wanderer and Gloom Stalker, but they have another source of bonus damage to help make up for it.
I still would like to see some of the higher level buff spells count as Hunter's Mark for purposes of class and subclass features. That would fix my one hangup with the current class - which is "Use Hunter's Mark or lose a quarter of your class features!" That, and the capstone is pretty lame, but that isn't unique to Rangers, and since playing to level 20 is such a rare event anyways, that's not very high on my list of issues.
They've said that theyre going to focus on trying to make people play to level 20 way more now after the revised rules. Getting to trigger an extra d10 per attack doesnt that bad.
Im mostly thinking about all of Rangers utility combat spells that has concentration and if ill have to constantly recast HM everytime i want to do anything other than just damage.
1) Feats exist.
2) Reactions exist.
Getting at least 4 attacks is easy for any ranger (Regular + EA + Nick + OA.). With things like magic items, party buffs (e.g. Haste), and subclass choice (e.g. BM) they can push into the 7-8 range. WotC needs to design for those tables too, not just the unoptimized ones that stick with two attacks and call it a day.
Curious, how is it easy to get OA's? Especially every round?
Every round might be tricky, but with the right feats and party build, it can become much more common than normal. Everybody knows about the Sentinel feat, but the Mage Slayer feat gives reaction attacks if a creature within reach casts a spell, and an Order Domain Cleric grants a reaction attack every time they cast a spell that affects a party member - cast a 1st level Healing Word with your bonus action, grant a reaction attack to that party member, with the only limit being how many spell slots you have. Game balance requires taking the extremes into account.
Sentinel requires the enemy to attempt to disengage or to hit someone other than the ranger who happens to be next to the ranger, so not likely every round unless a very melee heavy party or the party forgoes flanking for some reason.
Mage slayer requires the enemy to cast a spell, again, not a given, especially every round.
Order Domain Cleric requires a cleric dip and if the ranger is casting a heal, that is one less action or bonus action available for attacks.
So none of those are reliable enough to say 'easily trigger' and all three of those have costs, with the ranger having one less feat and/or lower stats or one less level of ranger.
Order domain doesn't require a dip, merely for someone else in the group to be playing it, much like Haste is most likely cast by someone else. And as has been said, game balance requires that corner cases be considered.
Someone else to be playing it and casts a heal every round and gives the extra attack to the ranger, who happens to be in a good position to use it and this does not mean that later, when the party really needs a heal, they still have one available... that is a lot more than 'a corner case.'
It is a corner case that the DM gives everyone +3 weapons at level 1, but pretty sure that is not that would be a good basis for balancing.
Now you are dipping into hyperbole.
If I am playing an Order domain Cleric, I'm going to be looking to cast a spell on the party member who does the most damage per attack - if there is a Rogue in the group, that's the most likely recipient. But if instead I have a Ranger, well, it might be them. Especially since if they are wounded (not an unlikely scenario if they are a melee build), I am effectively double dipping my effect - and keep in mind that under the new rules, healing spells do double the dice they used to do. So, for my bonus action, I cast a 1st level Healing Word, restoring 2d4+Wis modifier in HP, AND giving a party member an additional attack they otherwise would not have been able to take. Plus my own regular action as well. That isn't some deep dive into the rules, nor does it require some outlandish scenario like a DM handing our magic items like candy - this is the entry level subclass feature. If you are equating that with having +3 magic items out of the gate, well, that's on you.
Is this the final version of the class? The lvl 20 feature is very underwhelming, and I think more abilities that don’t just revolve around Hunter’s Mark would be neat, I liked that we got a climb and swimming speed for example.
IF you are playing an order domain cleric, then it might be the ranger. It might be the barbarian. It might be some summoned creature. Even if it is the ranger, that is requiring that particular combination, which is not the same as 'get OA's easily.'
Plus, if the party really is completely optimized for combat, then the DM will just toss tougher monsters against them.
As a long time ranger player, the "new" ranger makes the new PHB a hard no considering the pre release info, but I am a cynic about the new core 3 books to start with so take my position with a grain or 3 of salt. I am fortunate enough to have content sharing with people that have pre-ordered the 24 PHB so I will get to read it without buying it, but I am very turned off buy what has been released to date.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Are you really quibbling this much over +1d6? 🥱
"Easily" does not have to mean "100% of the time." It's easy because OA is a thing any Ranger can do, and the feats that give them more opportunities to take one are half-feats anyway. In addition, if the enemy is constantly playing around my reactions by disengaging or avoiding hitting my allies or avoiding casting spells when I'm in melee with them, that's actually a bigger win for me than the reaction attack with +1d6 would have been.
1) I am not among those who seem to be claiming that potential +1d6 is some sort of issue.
2) If I, even as a non-ranger, win the lottery, many things would be easy. Yes, when that ranger has all the right circumstances, things they could do under those ideal circumstances become easy. However when those circumstances are not particularly common, then it is not anything one would consider 'easy.'
Enemies have to go out of their way to avoid triggering reactions? If they cut and run, triggering an OA, how would that be worse for the ranger than if they stand there and perhaps whack said ranger one more time before they go down?
I have no idea what you're on about. The question that got us on this tangent was whether HM being a flat amount of damage per hit that scales just with number of attacks is enough. We're pointing out that +4d6 per round out of a single 1st-level slot (or fine, +3d6 per round if you consider OAs to be too rare to count somehow) is more than acceptable throughput, but also that it's quite possible for Rangers to get more attacks per round than 3. WotC have to consider both ends of that spectrum when designing the spell, but even at the lowest possible end it's adding more damage per round than something like Witch Bolt with far fewer restrictions.
I'm a little concerned with Ranger 2024. Because for two reasons:
1 - The Ranger's evolution revolves around the Hunter's Mark magic then what happens if a wizard casts the dispel magic or silence spellon the Ranger?
2 - What happens if a player wants to use another spell that uses concentration, for example Swift Quiver?
1. I'm not sure about dispel magic (wouldn't it have to be cast on the marked target?), but silence wouldn't work if HM is already up, and if it's not, then the ranger simply need to move out of the spell's zone of effect to cast it.
2. This is the great trade-off and the main reason a lot of people are kind of "meh" about the direction the ranger took (i.e. effectively requiring a concentration spell to turn on a good chunk of class/subclass features).