I think it's very strange to give a class a weaker version of a low level spell that is already iconic to the class.
Would it not be stranger if it were equal or stronger?
And in reality it's not so much weaker as people seem to think; before 5th level you only have one attack as standard, so it's d4 vs d6, only a 1 point average difference. It dips at 5th (not sure why it doesn't scale here) when you get a second attack as standard, but at 6th it does d6, so half the potential damage of Hunter's Mark, but that's 3.5 bonus damage vs a potential 7 bonus damage per turn (you may not hit with both attacks), which isn't actually all that much, and it even scales to a d8 later on, though that's peanuts by then.
Where you'll notice the bigger difference is if you build a two weapon ranger (two attacks before 5th level, three from then onwards), but that's precisely the type of Ranger that should be using Hunter's Mark most of the time, as it's an ideal choice if you're going for max attacks, especially if you also go Hunter with Horde Breaker or such.
But for other builds, in terms of damage the difference really is a lot smaller than people make out, and all of this is on a feature that triggers without a bonus action, with no range limit, and can stack on top of some other concentration effects (Favoured Foe triggering as they end), all without costing a spell slot, so you can save those for later.
The silliest part about all the whining about the feature is that it proves it's at about the right level; it's given as an optional feature so it shouldn't be a no-brainer, you need to think about what your build needs; if limited spells and concentration competition are going to be a problem, then Favoured Foe helps with both (you're not losing a spell slot if you end it early, or bring it up after something else ends). And ultimately Rangers don't need to take Hunter's Mark; if they don't do so they have an extra spell (and spell slots) for other things, which can end up doing more damage overall, especially in the case of AoE spells and traps, used properly.
And the other silly things is this ignores everything else Rangers are getting; the additional spell list is really good (beast masters with a companion beast and a summoned one?), Deft Explorer and Primal Awareness are both really good, new fighting styles make for some interesting new builds (Fog Cloud and Blind Fighting for example), and Nature's Veil (single turn invisibility) gives a defensive option that can replace Hide in Plain Sight, leaving the latter for more trap oriented/ambusher play. All in all the Rangers get a lot of fun stuff in this book.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
And the other silly things is this ignores everything else Rangers are getting; the additional spell list is really good (beast masters with a companion beast and a summoned one?), ...
My copy of Tasha's is due to arrive next week. Quick question in the interim, how is this supposed to work in terms of giving commands? What kind of action, if any, is used to command them, can they both receive a command via the same, single, action and if so, can they each get a different command from that same action? This is looking kind of similar to Battle Smiths with both a Steel Defender and a Homunculus Servant.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I think it's very strange to give a class a weaker version of a low level spell that is already iconic to the class.
Would it not be stranger if it were equal or stronger?
And in reality it's not so much weaker as people seem to think; before 5th level you only have one attack as standard, so it's d4 vs d6, only a 1 point average difference. It dips at 5th (not sure why it doesn't scale here) when you get a second attack as standard, but at 6th it does d6, so half the potential damage of Hunter's Mark, but that's 3.5 bonus damage vs a potential 7 bonus damage per turn (you may not hit with both attacks), which isn't actually all that much, and it even scales to a d8 later on, though that's peanuts by then.
Where you'll notice the bigger difference is if you build a two weapon ranger (two attacks before 5th level, three from then onwards), but that's precisely the type of Ranger that should be using Hunter's Mark most of the time, as it's an ideal choice if you're going for max attacks, especially if you also go Hunter with Horde Breaker or such.
But for other builds, in terms of damage the difference really is a lot smaller than people make out, and all of this is on a feature that triggers without a bonus action, with no range limit, and can stack on top of some other concentration effects (Favoured Foe triggering as they end), all without costing a spell slot, so you can save those for later.
The silliest part about all the whining about the feature is that it proves it's at about the right level; it's given as an optional feature so it shouldn't be a no-brainer, you need to think about what your build needs; if limited spells and concentration competition are going to be a problem, then Favoured Foe helps with both (you're not losing a spell slot if you end it early, or bring it up after something else ends). And ultimately Rangers don't need to take Hunter's Mark; if they don't do so they have an extra spell (and spell slots) for other things, which can end up doing more damage overall, especially in the case of AoE spells and traps, used properly.
And the other silly things is this ignores everything else Rangers are getting; the additional spell list is really good (beast masters with a companion beast and a summoned one?), Deft Explorer and Primal Awareness are both really good, new fighting styles make for some interesting new builds (Fog Cloud and Blind Fighting for example), and Nature's Veil (single turn invisibility) gives a defensive option that can replace Hide in Plain Sight, leaving the latter for more trap oriented/ambusher play. All in all the Rangers get a lot of fun stuff in this book.
Hmm.. I think I would've prefered something that didn't require concentration but wasn't a direct damage boost either.. I think I suggested sort of a snare effect.. taking 10ft of movement from the first target hit.. something like that...
I think you do make some fair points.. .Even if I can't make myself agree with you on the feature being good design.. One thing though.. perhaps calling the opposing opinion "whining" isn't super great for a constructive discussion.. it sort of sets a dismissive tone to the whole thing.. I wouldn't wanna say that people of your perspective are "simping" or "white knighting" for WoTC either.. I dunno.. I can see why you'd get frustrated from constantly having to deal with an opinion you disagree with.. but yea.. I just know how quickly these talks can turn sour..
I'm totally with you on the other changes... I actually think the ranger had some great improvements made.. I just happen to really dislike the direction they went with favored foe... It sort of reads like they painted themselves into a corner by wanting to make it a lvl 1 damaging feature.
Personally I'm also a big fan of the swarmkeeper concept.. having a swarm of cute colorful bird peck your enemies to death is just glorious.
And the other silly things is this ignores everything else Rangers are getting; the additional spell list is really good (beast masters with a companion beast and a summoned one?), ...
My copy of Tasha's is due to arrive next week. Quick question in the interim, how is this supposed to work in terms of giving commands? What kind of action, if any, is used to command them, can they both receive a command via the same, single, action and if so, can they each get a different command from that same action? This is looking kind of similar to Battle Smiths with both a Steel Defender and a Homunculus Servant.
The summoned creatures share your initiative but take their turn immediately afterwards, and all you need to do is issue a command verbally (no lost bonus action or attack), so as long as you can speak it will use its full turn (otherwise it just uses Dodge).
I'm a bit disappointed they removed Summon Fey from the Bard spell list though; I have a Bard character that's been using the UA version and it's been a lot of fun, as my character is (intentionally) quite flimsy and heavily support oriented, so being able to summon a creature when more front-line fighters are needed was huge. My DM's going to let me keep it without swapping for a magical secret, but it seems weird to make it magical secrets only, as it felt like a great fit for certain types of Bard (especially if you also nab the Fey Touched feat), especially when every other pure caster gets at least one of the new summon spells.
But yeah, mechanically they work really well; it means all Rangers have a new option for temporary companion creatures, meanwhile Beast Masters can not only take the same, but also have much improved companion beast options available, meaning you can have a small pack putting out some serious damage and/or interference (and Beast Masters actually did pretty good damage already).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
This post has potentially manipulated dice roll results.
I think Tasha is a thought book, like Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes or a setting book, rather than a crunch mechanics-heavy book, such as Xanathar's Guide to Everything.
It's made as a discussion with the D&D community. Sure, it may not be what you want to see (I love crunchy mechanics too), but it's a book that allows your imagination and creative juices to start to flow. It's a conversation about equality, experience, friendship and creativity, rather than crunchy crunchy stat blocks and mechanics. It's not what you want, it's closer to what you need.
And that doesn't hurt Tasha's; It merely makes it different, something new.
Sure, it's not tough, rules-heavy and all that kind of greasy, finger-licking goodness, but I'd stand by Tasha's any day when it comes to getting new ideas. Because that's the spirit of the book - a talk with the community, for the community, helped by the community. And that is what makes Tasha's worthwhile and special.
I stand with Tasha on this one. So, do you stand with her too? (For you mechanics lovers, roll a d20 - an even roll means you stand with Tasha, and an odd roll means you're being stood on by Tasha. You're welcome.)
I think Tasha is a thought book, like Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes or a setting book, rather than a crunch mechanics-heavy book, such as Xanathar's Guide to Everything.
It isn't really though, most of us DM's have been doing most of this books content for a long time already, that's what being a DM is all about. We certainly don't need WoTC to write a lecture to 'Be good to each other'. Bill and Ted and E.T. told us that in the 80's, and again California Man told us in the 90's. It was just their attempt to pad out the book and distract us from how badly they nerfed some of the subclasses. There is nothing in the book at all that is really exciting - from a story telling perspective, not a mechanics one.
I think Tasha is a thought book, like Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes or a setting book, rather than a crunch mechanics-heavy book, such as Xanathar's Guide to Everything.
It isn't really though, most of us DM's have been doing most of this books content for a long time already, that's what being a DM is all about. We certainly don't need WoTC to write a lecture to 'Be good to each other'. Bill and Ted and E.T. told us that in the 80's, and again California Man told us in the 90's. It was just their attempt to pad out the book and distract us from how badly they nerfed some of the subclasses. There is nothing in the book at all that is really exciting - from a story telling perspective, not a mechanics one.
Please... take a couple minutes to read through the Rules and Mechanics section of this forum and note all the posts saying "The rules say exactly this, so this." Note many such posts exist outside that section too. For some reason, in 5e, people seem to think that DM's need special permission to homebrew such solutions. For those people, this book makes it more explicit.
Ditto with the entire section on DMing, which is a significant portion of the book. It is not for experienced DM's such as you or I but for newbies still figuring it all out. And in that context, it reads pretty good. Stuff that should likely have been in the DMG but was not thought of at the time or it was deemed not enough room for.
In fairness, that's because it's the Rules and Mechanics section, not the Homebrew section. Although I agree, that is something that should have been more explicit and detailed to begin with.
Really, the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced TCoE's real name should have been "Afterthought: The Book"...
I really hope that many discussions in Rules & Mechanics are more thought experiments for intellectual stimulation than really arguments out of conviction. Right now there is one developing where there is some doubt whether or not Bigby's Hand allows you to do exactly what is written in the spell description or anything that encompasses "mimicking the movements of your own hand".
And yeah, you can have that discussion all day and argue different points but at the end of the day if a player who cast it asks whether or not they can use the hand to show a rude gesture towards the enemy, are you really going to disallow it?
As a DM, I absolutely would allow it. As far as RAI however, WotC is very, very, veeeeeeeery strict about what features can and cannot do...
EDIT: In regards to your specific example Lathlear, that would fall under flavor rather than crunch, which WotC is (usually) more flexible on. However, that is a topic for a different thread...
(WARNING: Opinion, not fact.) For DMs who already adjust the rules for their players' enjoyment, TCoE doesn't really add anything they didn't already know - that optional rules are valid if the table agrees to them. So, I can see how some DMs and players find it "meh" if it's something they're already doing.
I can also see how some DMs and players find it awesome to learn that optional rules are valid if the table agrees to them (despite all I've seen in 5e suggesting that this was always the case).
I can also see how some DMs and players find it annoying when others point to TCoE options as required at all tables.
TCoE's impact will be up to you... as pretty much everything in 5e has been as far as I'm concerned.
EDIT (hours later rather than post a new response): I can also see how some people may find TCoE to be "meh" if it doesn't give them the options they were hoping to find (again despite the fact that all I've seen in 5e suggests that people were always fully allowed and capable of coming up with their own options).
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Would it not be stranger if it were equal or stronger?
And in reality it's not so much weaker as people seem to think; before 5th level you only have one attack as standard, so it's d4 vs d6, only a 1 point average difference. It dips at 5th (not sure why it doesn't scale here) when you get a second attack as standard, but at 6th it does d6, so half the potential damage of Hunter's Mark, but that's 3.5 bonus damage vs a potential 7 bonus damage per turn (you may not hit with both attacks), which isn't actually all that much, and it even scales to a d8 later on, though that's peanuts by then.
Where you'll notice the bigger difference is if you build a two weapon ranger (two attacks before 5th level, three from then onwards), but that's precisely the type of Ranger that should be using Hunter's Mark most of the time, as it's an ideal choice if you're going for max attacks, especially if you also go Hunter with Horde Breaker or such.
But for other builds, in terms of damage the difference really is a lot smaller than people make out, and all of this is on a feature that triggers without a bonus action, with no range limit, and can stack on top of some other concentration effects (Favoured Foe triggering as they end), all without costing a spell slot, so you can save those for later.
The silliest part about all the whining about the feature is that it proves it's at about the right level; it's given as an optional feature so it shouldn't be a no-brainer, you need to think about what your build needs; if limited spells and concentration competition are going to be a problem, then Favoured Foe helps with both (you're not losing a spell slot if you end it early, or bring it up after something else ends). And ultimately Rangers don't need to take Hunter's Mark; if they don't do so they have an extra spell (and spell slots) for other things, which can end up doing more damage overall, especially in the case of AoE spells and traps, used properly.
And the other silly things is this ignores everything else Rangers are getting; the additional spell list is really good (beast masters with a companion beast and a summoned one?), Deft Explorer and Primal Awareness are both really good, new fighting styles make for some interesting new builds (Fog Cloud and Blind Fighting for example), and Nature's Veil (single turn invisibility) gives a defensive option that can replace Hide in Plain Sight, leaving the latter for more trap oriented/ambusher play. All in all the Rangers get a lot of fun stuff in this book.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
My copy of Tasha's is due to arrive next week. Quick question in the interim, how is this supposed to work in terms of giving commands? What kind of action, if any, is used to command them, can they both receive a command via the same, single, action and if so, can they each get a different command from that same action? This is looking kind of similar to Battle Smiths with both a Steel Defender and a Homunculus Servant.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Hmm.. I think I would've prefered something that didn't require concentration but wasn't a direct damage boost either.. I think I suggested sort of a snare effect.. taking 10ft of movement from the first target hit.. something like that...
I think you do make some fair points.. .Even if I can't make myself agree with you on the feature being good design.. One thing though.. perhaps calling the opposing opinion "whining" isn't super great for a constructive discussion.. it sort of sets a dismissive tone to the whole thing.. I wouldn't wanna say that people of your perspective are "simping" or "white knighting" for WoTC either.. I dunno.. I can see why you'd get frustrated from constantly having to deal with an opinion you disagree with.. but yea.. I just know how quickly these talks can turn sour..
I'm totally with you on the other changes... I actually think the ranger had some great improvements made.. I just happen to really dislike the direction they went with favored foe... It sort of reads like they painted themselves into a corner by wanting to make it a lvl 1 damaging feature.
Personally I'm also a big fan of the swarmkeeper concept.. having a swarm of cute colorful bird peck your enemies to death is just glorious.
The summoned creatures share your initiative but take their turn immediately afterwards, and all you need to do is issue a command verbally (no lost bonus action or attack), so as long as you can speak it will use its full turn (otherwise it just uses Dodge).
I'm a bit disappointed they removed Summon Fey from the Bard spell list though; I have a Bard character that's been using the UA version and it's been a lot of fun, as my character is (intentionally) quite flimsy and heavily support oriented, so being able to summon a creature when more front-line fighters are needed was huge. My DM's going to let me keep it without swapping for a magical secret, but it seems weird to make it magical secrets only, as it felt like a great fit for certain types of Bard (especially if you also nab the Fey Touched feat), especially when every other pure caster gets at least one of the new summon spells.
But yeah, mechanically they work really well; it means all Rangers have a new option for temporary companion creatures, meanwhile Beast Masters can not only take the same, but also have much improved companion beast options available, meaning you can have a small pack putting out some serious damage and/or interference (and Beast Masters actually did pretty good damage already).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
In itself, a design flaw.
It's the worse book to date and won't be used at my table.
That feels like an overexaggerating. I mean, it's certainly disappointing, but in my book it is nowhere as bad as the SCAG.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Overall I think it's a good book.
I'm only disappointed as it demonstrates clearly that 5e is not moving in the direction which I'd like it to.
To be honest, that is not a high bar to cross.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
It isn't. These subclasses are way better balanced than the stupid Purple Dragon Knight or Battlerager.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I'm probably the one guy that liked SCAG. Great setting book.
Not in comparison to any other 5e setting book.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Sadly nowhere close to 3rd edition's quality. You could say much about 3e as a D&D system but the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting was top tier.
I think Tasha is a thought book, like Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes or a setting book, rather than a crunch mechanics-heavy book, such as Xanathar's Guide to Everything.
It's made as a discussion with the D&D community. Sure, it may not be what you want to see (I love crunchy mechanics too), but it's a book that allows your imagination and creative juices to start to flow. It's a conversation about equality, experience, friendship and creativity, rather than crunchy crunchy stat blocks and mechanics. It's not what you want, it's closer to what you need.
And that doesn't hurt Tasha's; It merely makes it different, something new.
Sure, it's not tough, rules-heavy and all that kind of greasy, finger-licking goodness, but I'd stand by Tasha's any day when it comes to getting new ideas. Because that's the spirit of the book - a talk with the community, for the community, helped by the community. And that is what makes Tasha's worthwhile and special.
I stand with Tasha on this one. So, do you stand with her too? (For you mechanics lovers, roll a d20 - an even roll means you stand with Tasha, and an odd roll means you're being stood on by Tasha. You're welcome.)
5
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
I'm a fan of Tasha the suggestion on ability score is awesome and I'm stoked to be a Swarmkeeper Ranger
It isn't really though, most of us DM's have been doing most of this books content for a long time already, that's what being a DM is all about. We certainly don't need WoTC to write a lecture to 'Be good to each other'. Bill and Ted and E.T. told us that in the 80's, and again California Man told us in the 90's. It was just their attempt to pad out the book and distract us from how badly they nerfed some of the subclasses. There is nothing in the book at all that is really exciting - from a story telling perspective, not a mechanics one.
In fairness, that's because it's the Rules and Mechanics section, not the Homebrew section. Although I agree, that is something that should have been more explicit and detailed to begin with.
Really, the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced TCoE's real name should have been "Afterthought: The Book"...
I really hope that many discussions in Rules & Mechanics are more thought experiments for intellectual stimulation than really arguments out of conviction. Right now there is one developing where there is some doubt whether or not Bigby's Hand allows you to do exactly what is written in the spell description or anything that encompasses "mimicking the movements of your own hand".
And yeah, you can have that discussion all day and argue different points but at the end of the day if a player who cast it asks whether or not they can use the hand to show a rude gesture towards the enemy, are you really going to disallow it?
God I hope not.
As a DM, I absolutely would allow it. As far as RAI however, WotC is very, very, veeeeeeeery strict about what features can and cannot do...
EDIT: In regards to your specific example Lathlear, that would fall under flavor rather than crunch, which WotC is (usually) more flexible on. However, that is a topic for a different thread...
(WARNING: Opinion, not fact.)
For DMs who already adjust the rules for their players' enjoyment, TCoE doesn't really add anything they didn't already know - that optional rules are valid if the table agrees to them. So, I can see how some DMs and players find it "meh" if it's something they're already doing.
I can also see how some DMs and players find it awesome to learn that optional rules are valid if the table agrees to them (despite all I've seen in 5e suggesting that this was always the case).
I can also see how some DMs and players find it annoying when others point to TCoE options as required at all tables.
TCoE's impact will be up to you... as pretty much everything in 5e has been as far as I'm concerned.
EDIT (hours later rather than post a new response):
I can also see how some people may find TCoE to be "meh" if it doesn't give them the options they were hoping to find (again despite the fact that all I've seen in 5e suggests that people were always fully allowed and capable of coming up with their own options).
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.