One D&D UA 9/29/22 - Expert Classes

Quote from ECMO3 >>

Quote from Yurei1453>>

.  Most non-Expert characters cannot trust their skills - the d20 is so swingy and weird that even a character at the height of their talents flubs completely routine checks 'bout ten, fifteen percent of the time - more than often enough to feel humiliating and disrespectful. 

 

This is so true and it does screwy things, we were trying to open a chest with a crowbar and our 18 strength half-orc failed.  I pushed him aside and opened it with my 8 strength Cleric-Wizard.  

Nearly every example I read on the forums (perhaps EVERY example) is just like this and highlights not an issue with DCs but rather an issue with how it seems most DMs use checks.

Characters opening a locked chest in a room empty of threats would only require a check if the DM needs a sense of how long it takes. The DM should not just ask for a check for no reason, and they certainly shouldn't say, "Ok, the first person couldn't open it, who else wants to try?" as if the chest was a pickle jar. The strong character doesn't just say, "Well, it didn't open when I tried once...I'm all out of ideas." A failed check in this case just means it took more time, or was particularly noisy.

The main time checks like this are important is during an encounter, when timing is critical. You have one action on your turn, so you better roll high enough to open that chest.

With that mindset, I think Experts should definitely be more reliable, but they should not negate the need to roll 100% of the time. I'd like to see things like Reliable Talent be limited to a certain number of uses per Short or Long rest, much like the Lucky Feat. A character with that feat isn't lucky ALL the time. Though I admit I might be in the minority here (based on a number of comments in other threads) I find it boring as a player if I have 0 chance of failure. A game where every attack hits and auto kills the enemy is boring. A game where every spell automatically works and overcomes any obstacle is boring. And a game where any ability check succeeds is boring. Where the rules currently fail is in the extreme binary nature of most rolls. I'd much rather see abilities that mitigate failure and give partial success (or success with a complication) than abilities that just make rolling pointless. 

Quote from Aquilontune >>

Ok so ya you have no idea what T4 of play is supposed to represent or what that skill level is supposed to represent +you are now multiclassing instead of single class + multiple magic items.

My example is a single class character with no magic items, just class features.

Quote from Arithezoo >>

...
With that mindset, I think Experts should definitely be more reliable, but they should not negate the need to roll 100% of the time. I'd like to see things like Reliable Talent be limited to a certain number of uses per Short or Long rest, much like the Lucky Feat. A character with that feat isn't lucky ALL the time. Though I admit I might be in the minority here (based on a number of comments in other threads) I find it boring as a player if I have 0 chance of failure. A game where every attack hits and auto kills the enemy is boring. A game where every spell automatically works and overcomes any obstacle is boring. And a game where any ability check succeeds is boring. Where the rules currently fail is in the extreme binary nature of most rolls. I'd much rather see abilities that mitigate failure and give partial success (or success with a complication) than abilities that just make rolling pointless. 

 
This is indeed worth clarifying.

I want rolls to matter.  I intensely dislike D&D where the DM calls for a check every thirteen and a third seconds and mandates everybody roll something to accomplish anything, or where the DM is clearly fishing for nat 1s to punish with "hilarious" Critical Fumble idiocy.  As an Expert player, when I roll for something I want that something to be an immediate issue, and for failure on that issue to be a capital-P Problem.  Failing to open the door to my inn room for twenty minutes because I'm having a bad run of the dice is not 'funny', it's not 'hilarious', it's not 'lighthearted', it's not 'whimsical' - it's ******* infuriating and frankly insulting.  Don't make me roll for junk that doesn't matter, and when I have a big number for something it's because I'm not prepared to accept "you flub like a rank amateur" as an excuse. 

I am perfectly willing to bollix a roll when bollixing that roll makes the game better.  But too many DMs have no freaking idea how to call for checks, and that might be the issue that needs the most attention in 1DD.

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

Quote from Arithezoo >>

...
With that mindset, I think Experts should definitely be more reliable, but they should not negate the need to roll 100% of the time. I'd like to see things like Reliable Talent be limited to a certain number of uses per Short or Long rest, much like the Lucky Feat. A character with that feat isn't lucky ALL the time. Though I admit I might be in the minority here (based on a number of comments in other threads) I find it boring as a player if I have 0 chance of failure. A game where every attack hits and auto kills the enemy is boring. A game where every spell automatically works and overcomes any obstacle is boring. And a game where any ability check succeeds is boring. Where the rules currently fail is in the extreme binary nature of most rolls. I'd much rather see abilities that mitigate failure and give partial success (or success with a complication) than abilities that just make rolling pointless. 

 
This is indeed worth clarifying.

I want rolls to matter.  I intensely dislike D&D where the DM calls for a check every thirteen and a third seconds and mandates everybody roll something to accomplish anything, or where the DM is clearly fishing for nat 1s to punish with "hilarious" Critical Fumble idiocy.  As an Expert player, when I roll for something I want that something to be an immediate issue, and for failure on that issue to be a capital-P Problem.  Failing to open the door to my inn room for twenty minutes because I'm having a bad run of the dice is not 'funny', it's not 'hilarious', it's not 'lighthearted', it's not 'whimsical' - it's ****ing infuriating and frankly insulting.  Don't make me roll for junk that doesn't matter, and when I have a big number for something it's because I'm not prepared to accept "you flub like a rank amateur" as an excuse. 

I am perfectly willing to bollix a roll when bollixing that roll makes the game better.  But too many DMs have no freaking idea how to call for checks, and that might be the issue that needs the most attention in 1DD.

 How do you feel about DM's who, are not fishing for a 1 but run a scaled success system. As a DM I hate the Binary pass fail of DnD, it is possibly my least fav  TTRPG dice system but in many ways it is my fav fantasy setting so I live with it, but, when I set a DC that is my basic success number there is a scale either side of that and how far away from that set DC determines anything from How long the action takes, to how much chance there is of someone interrupting, or what the odds are that after the event the effect will be seen.  I don't run a critical fail (but nat ones do auto fail regardless of skills or abilities), now that may well mean you succeed at the thing your doing but it takes much much longer, or it might mean that lock can't be picked and so you better find an alternative way in (If I set a roll and I know a failure means no there will always be alternative options I can provide in game incase the party don't think of anything). 

However I do agree that those moments have to feel like they have meant something and are not just me wanting to break a lockpick.  

I'm not opposed to scaled success, or the idea that a check can be used to see how a task proceeds whether than if it proceeds.  Some tests can cover a lot of ground and/or time; "you're spending the day casing the town for leads on work?  Okay, gimme...let's call it a Charisma (Investigation) roll to see what sort of options you can milk from the town" is one roll handling an entire day's efforts and can easily yield different benefits depending on the result.  But both the player and the DM have to know how to do that, and a lot of DMs simply don't.  Hell, a majority of players I've encountered have no idea that the action from Declaring Your Action can take longer than one six-second combat action to accomplish, and a lot of DMs falter on resolving stuff like that.  When it works it's great, but it's not a natural or RAW use of the skill system and it cane take people some practice and getting-used-to before they're doing it properly.

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

Quote from Arithezoo >>

...
With that mindset, I think Experts should definitely be more reliable, but they should not negate the need to roll 100% of the time. I'd like to see things like Reliable Talent be limited to a certain number of uses per Short or Long rest, much like the Lucky Feat. A character with that feat isn't lucky ALL the time. Though I admit I might be in the minority here (based on a number of comments in other threads) I find it boring as a player if I have 0 chance of failure. A game where every attack hits and auto kills the enemy is boring. A game where every spell automatically works and overcomes any obstacle is boring. And a game where any ability check succeeds is boring. Where the rules currently fail is in the extreme binary nature of most rolls. I'd much rather see abilities that mitigate failure and give partial success (or success with a complication) than abilities that just make rolling pointless. 

 
This is indeed worth clarifying.

I want rolls to matter.  I intensely dislike D&D where the DM calls for a check every thirteen and a third seconds and mandates everybody roll something to accomplish anything, or where the DM is clearly fishing for nat 1s to punish with "hilarious" Critical Fumble idiocy.  As an Expert player, when I roll for something I want that something to be an immediate issue, and for failure on that issue to be a capital-P Problem.  Failing to open the door to my inn room for twenty minutes because I'm having a bad run of the dice is not 'funny', it's not 'hilarious', it's not 'lighthearted', it's not 'whimsical' - it's ****ing infuriating and frankly insulting.  Don't make me roll for junk that doesn't matter, and when I have a big number for something it's because I'm not prepared to accept "you flub like a rank amateur" as an excuse. 

I am perfectly willing to bollix a roll when bollixing that roll makes the game better.  But too many DMs have no freaking idea how to call for checks, and that might be the issue that needs the most attention in 1DD.

 All of this is exactly right. 'Nuff said.

If anything, WotC needs to focus the most attention on advice in the DMG. And then DMs need to actually sit down and read it.

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

I'm not opposed to scaled success, or the idea that a check can be used to see how a task proceeds whether than if it proceeds.  Some tests can cover a lot of ground and/or time; "you're spending the day casing the town for leads on work?  Okay, gimme...let's call it a Charisma (Investigation) roll to see what sort of options you can milk from the town" is one roll handling an entire day's efforts and can easily yield different benefits depending on the result.  But both the player and the DM have to know how to do that, and a lot of DMs simply don't.  Hell, a majority of players I've encountered have no idea that the action from Declaring Your Action can take longer than one six-second combat action to accomplish, and a lot of DMs falter on resolving stuff like that.  When it works it's great, but it's not a natural or RAW use of the skill system and it cane take people some practice and getting-used-to before they're doing it properly.

 ahh ok you're making sense now, I only DM so assume people do stuff like that and understand that not every action just takes 6 seconds. It is why I am worried about the Search, Influence and Study actions, are new players going to assume that Studying in a library is a 6 second action and a single roll to find out all they want to know for that thing. 

Quote from Arithezoo >>

If anything, WotC needs to focus the most attention on advice in the DMG. And then DMs need to actually sit down and read it.

 Anything that relies on players/DMs changing their behavior is kinda doomed. The DMG can provide good advice, but that doesn't mean people are going to follow it.

That said, introducing degrees of success/failure (yes and, yes, yes but, no but, no, no and) would be a good thing but means that abilities that trigger on succeeding or failing a roll (e.g. the new guidance) need to decide exactly what success or fail means.

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

Query: three balrog balors in succession, or three balrog  balors all at once?  Because even with every-turn Sneak Attack (tip: 5e's math assumes rogues will find a way to sneak attack every round), at 12th level that's 7d6 sneak attack damage or a rough average of about 25 points.  The rogue's first attack is a shove to prone and thus deals no damage, which means their off-hand Sneak Attack only adds 1d6 maximum with no modifier.  8d6 damage a turn, for 'bout 30 or so if we're being a migfht generous.  Nine turns to fresh-to-dead a 262-HP Balor.  The rogue is furthermore taking an additional 9d6 fire damage every turn (3d6 for being close to the balor, and 3d6 for each of the melee attacks the rogue lands per turn), on top of the balor's rather dire Multiattack.  A balor can also use its action to teleport 120 feet instead, gaining enough distance to be unreachable by the rogue.  A balor being pressed in melee combat can also take to the skies, using its Whip to lash at pesky enemies and drag them into the air to add an extra 2d6 falling damage to the whip's already commanding (for a basic attack) 5d6+8.

Expertise on Athletics to Prone enemies for Sneak-generating Advantage is a cool idea.  I've played rogues though, and I can safely say that taking on even one balor 'all by myself' would be an absolutely horrifying proposition at 12th level, or even 20th.  I'm not necessarily discounting your story, but I don't think Expertise with Athletics to knock a balor prone multiple times is quite as powerful a way to win that fight as one might think.  Against regular mooks?  Absolutely, that's a neat play and it should be rewarded.  But Sneak Attack is nowhere near as 'massive damage' as people make it out to be, and the rogue doesn't get a giant mess of Extra Attacks to shove with.  Unless this rogue was beyond overloaded with Vestige-level gear, I would feel pretty confident as a DM that I could flatten any single given 12th-level rogue with a balor.

 The game I am talking about was a DnD 5e self made LOTR  setting and I did not use Balor stats because I was trying to keep the CR of my creatures in the 12-15 range. I was using the DMG to help and I made a lot of mistakes. I could have saved a lot of grief if I had made my balrogs huge instead of large. If I had gone with Balor stats the Rogue could not have knocked them prone. I did have an aura of fire but the Rogue had the mobile feat and would run in, attack and run out. Honestly, the game was not my finest work.    It was the first time I had DMed a mid level Rogue. Since, then I have not been a big fan of Reliable Talent. In my defense I was trying to create a game 12-15 level for the first time and I did not realize how powerful characters of those levels could be. Still Reliable talent needs an official tweak in my opinion.

The Rogue had expertise in stealth, athletics, thieves tools, and perception. She was also very good at charisma stuff.  I had a very hard time with regular DnD modules and the modules I made myself I had to change to give some challenge. The Rogue had a automatic 21 with charisma based skills and her four expertise skills had automatic 27. So any trap, lock, ambush, etc. had to have a Difficulty of over 25. All she had to roll was a 13 to get difficulty level 30 stuff done with her expertise skills.  So she was a face, warrior, scout, and engineer. I feel that is pretty over powered.

Quote from Scarloc_Stormcall >>

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

I'm not opposed to scaled success, or the idea that a check can be used to see how a task proceeds whether than if it proceeds.  Some tests can cover a lot of ground and/or time; "you're spending the day casing the town for leads on work?  Okay, gimme...let's call it a Charisma (Investigation) roll to see what sort of options you can milk from the town" is one roll handling an entire day's efforts and can easily yield different benefits depending on the result.  But both the player and the DM have to know how to do that, and a lot of DMs simply don't.  Hell, a majority of players I've encountered have no idea that the action from Declaring Your Action can take longer than one six-second combat action to accomplish, and a lot of DMs falter on resolving stuff like that.  When it works it's great, but it's not a natural or RAW use of the skill system and it cane take people some practice and getting-used-to before they're doing it properly.

 ahh ok you're making sense now, I only DM so assume people do stuff like that and understand that not every action just takes 6 seconds. It is why I am worried about the Search, Influence and Study actions, are new players going to assume that Studying in a library is a 6 second action and a single roll to find out all they want to know for that thing. 

 Search, Study, and influence are great actions and are only being added so that people understand what needs to be given up to use them during a combat encounter. No one tracks actions or bonus actions or the 6 second round outside of an encounter. Even if some player tried to studying the library in 6 seconds they couldn’t according to the rules. You can only interact with one object for free per turn. So you could study one book in the library in 6 seconds. That’s not reading the book. That’s getting the title, and skimming over the table of contents or index if it has one.

Quote from Spy_Number_5 >>

The Rogue had expertise in stealth, athletics, thieves tools, and perception. She was also very good at charisma stuff.  I had a very hard time with regular DnD modules and the modules I made myself I had to change to give some challenge. The Rogue had a automatic 21 with charisma based skills and her four expertise skills had automatic 27. So any trap, lock, ambush, etc. had to have a Difficulty of over 25. All she had to roll was a 13 to get difficulty level 30 stuff done with her expertise skills.  So she was a face, warrior, scout, and engineer. I feel that is pretty over powered.

 You had a level 12-15 rogue, with +6 proficiency & a 20 in Charisma, Dexterity, Strength, & Wisdom?   I believe there may be another issue other than Reliable Talent.

Quote from Jaeken >>

Quote from Spy_Number_5 >>

The Rogue had expertise in stealth, athletics, thieves tools, and perception. She was also very good at charisma stuff.  I had a very hard time with regular DnD modules and the modules I made myself I had to change to give some challenge. The Rogue had a automatic 21 with charisma based skills and her four expertise skills had automatic 27. So any trap, lock, ambush, etc. had to have a Difficulty of over 25. All she had to roll was a 13 to get difficulty level 30 stuff done with her expertise skills.  So she was a face, warrior, scout, and engineer. I feel that is pretty over powered.

 You had a level 12-15 rogue, with +6 proficiency & a 20 in Charisma, Dexterity, Strength, & Wisdom?   I believe there may be another issue other than Reliable Talent.

Not a lot better of a situation but a different possible reason for such crazy high checks.
Ioun Stone of Mastery +1 Prof bonus
Luck Stone +1 all ability checks
6 prof  +10 reliable talent +1 luck stone + 4 charisma = 21
6 prof + 6 expertise + 10 reliable + 1 luck stone + 4 str/dex/wis=27

I mean, still crazy high stats but just a little lower thanks to an uncommon magic item. But just wanted to point that out as a possibility. 

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

Expertise on Athletics to Prone enemies for Sneak-generating Advantage is a cool idea.  I've played rogues though, and I can safely say that taking on even one balor 'all by myself' would be an absolutely horrifying proposition at 12th level, or even 20th.  I'm not necessarily discounting your story, but I don't think Expertise with Athletics to knock a balor prone multiple times is quite as powerful a way to win that fight as one might think.  Against regular mooks?  Absolutely, that's a neat play and it should be rewarded.  But Sneak Attack is nowhere near as 'massive damage' as people make it out to be, and the rogue doesn't get a giant mess of Extra Attacks to shove with.  Unless this rogue was beyond overloaded with Vestige-level gear, I would feel pretty confident as a DM that I could flatten any single given 12th-level rogue with a balor.

 For this to work well you need to combine it with a high strength, extra attack and a bonus action grapple from tavern brawler.

I've seen this work very well with shove - unarmed strike- grapple, action surge sneak attack, attack.  Subsequent turns either pull out a Raiper and stab away with advantage or if he breaks the grapple you go unarmed strike, bonus action grapple, shove.

Quote from ECMO3 >>

This does not work against enemoes that teleport, but against other enemies up to huge size it is pretty effective.  You also wear them down on action economy since they need an entire action to break a grapple and you only need an attack or bonus action to land it.

 The normal solution to that is to just not break the grapple. The balor is kinda underwhelming for its CR, but it still has a substantial pile of hit points, an auto-hit aura that's probably hitting multiple times per round (once because you're next to it, once because you have to touch it to trip or grapple), and a +14 to hit, sufficient to have a good chance even with disadvantage.

Quote from Spy_Number_5 >>

Quote from Ain_Undos >>

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from kamchatmonk >>

A player chooses to excel at one thing and the DM auto-scales the world to challenge him exclusively. That's TES: Oblivion on a tabletop.

 It's the way every game everywhere works. DMs are predisposed to make games interesting, and automatic success is not interesting. It's also a side effect of 5e apparently not having a real numbers person to make sure that the design intent is actually followed.

 Technically DMs aren’t suppose to be setting DCs higher than 30. Honestly they should rarely be set at 25 or higher. DCs are suppose to be set by the task difficulty not the player skill in the task.

 The Rogue I was talking about had Reliable Talent so ever role was a 10, 20 Dex and expertise. They took expertise in Athletics for auto-prone sneak attack advantage, Stealth, Thieves Tools, and Perception. If they rolled a 1 on a D20 they added up their bonuses and it was 27. They were annihilating combat opponents with massive sneak attack damage. The Rogue took out 3 Balrogs all by themselves at 12 level. Yeah, I tried to step up my game as DM so that everyone was having fun but a lot of the modules that you can buy just could not challenge that Rogue. Even the player got bored and rolled a different character with a different class. We even talked about homebrewing a rule that nerfed reliable talent.

 How did the Rogue overcome the fact that a... what the heck is a Balrog?  Assuming you mean Balor, the Rogue would be too short to shove the Balor prone.  Did someone use magic to make them bigger?  Or do you mean a pit fiend, which is vulnerable to Shove from a Medium PC?

A "standard" Rogue at level 12 can't roll a 27 on Athletics on a 1.  That absolutely requires a level 17 Rogue: Strength 20 (really?) + Expertise in Athletics with a base +6 so net +12 gets you 27 base on the roll.  At level 12, the same "base" roll with Strength 20 (which is really high and implies the Rogue has no feats at all and dump-statted Wisdom, Charisma, and Intelligence) is 23, not 27.  That means the fiend stays upright on a 15 or less, regardless of whether it's a Balrog against an enlarged PC or a Pit Fiend against a normal-sized one.

Neither a Balor nor a Pit Fiend should just be "hanging out" 5' from a Rogue.  Both have a fly speed and are dangerous from farther away than that (a Pit Fiend at 150', a Balor at 30').  I call shenanigans.

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from ECMO3 >>

This does not work against enemoes that teleport, but against other enemies up to huge size it is pretty effective.  You also wear them down on action economy since they need an entire action to break a grapple and you only need an attack or bonus action to land it.

 The normal solution to that is to just not break the grapple. The balor is kinda underwhelming for its CR, but it still has a substantial pile of hit points, an auto-hit aura that's probably hitting multiple times per round (once because you're next to it, once because you have to touch it to trip or grapple), and a +14 to hit, sufficient to have a good chance even with disadvantage.

 Like many monsters, a Balor is more dangerous once you fix WOTC's inability to write rules:

• The equivalent of +14 to hit (PB +6, stat mod +8) is a DC 22 save, so the save to avoid being moved by the whip should be 22, not 20.  You can raise the Balor's Charisma if you want this DC to remain Charisma-based, not Strength-based - raising the Charisma won't modify the CR, but will also raise the DC on the Death Throes.
  • That means, in general, a failed save should deal an additional +2d6 damage from being pulled up and then falling.
  • WOTC has never clarified how rules based on "touch" work.  If the forced pull pulls the target into the Balor (e.g. from 20 feet away, so there's 5' of movement available to try and fail to move the target into the Balor's space), presumably they touch the Balor and bounce off - which would inflict another 3d6 fire damage.
  • Assuming it whips first from 20-30' up, 80' of movement is often plenty to follow up with a longsword, which the Balor will have advantage with due to the target being Prone from falling.
• The whip is simply incorrect for a Huge wielder's whip.  Fixing it from 2d6 to 3d4 slightly raises its average damage.
• You can replace the 50% summoning chance with a 100% chance of summoning 2 vrocks or 1 nalfeshnee without changing the CR.  Reducing the Balor's variance will make it far more functional in a fight.
  • Likewise, you can give the 1 nalfeshnee a 100% chance of summoning 1 hezrou and the hezroue a 100% chance of summoning 2 dretches.  Action economy is what a BBEG needs most, and this lets you give your Big Bad minions with a statistically nearly identical shape (technically it's a slight nerf in terms of the number of dretches, on average).
• Like with most monsters, and relevant to this discussion, WOTC just forgot to give it any skill proficiencies while pretending they're not relevant to practical CR on the field.  I like to assign Expertise in 1 skill appropriate to the relevant attribute for each Save a monster is proficient in.  This won't impact the CR at all but make the monster far more functional.  For a Balor, that's:
  • Strength: Athletics (+20)
  • Constitution: For this one I pick any 1 skill I think is appropriate to the monster based on its stats - in this case probably Investigation (+17), since Balors are military generals.
  • Wisdom: Perception (+15, PP 25)
  • Charisma: Deception (+18)

Rangers need a nerf to Favored Enemy. Being able to deal 6d6+mod is broken compared to rogues being able to sneak attack twice a round and it gets more broken at level 4 & 5.

Change the wording from "don't have to concentrate on hunter's mark" to "gain advantage on concentration checks when concentrating on hunter's mark."

Quote from Hadesisle >>

Rangers need a nerf to Favored Enemy. Being able to deal 6d6+mod is broken compared to rogues being able to sneak attack twice a round and it gets more broken at level 4 & 5.

Change the wording from "don't have to concentrate on hunter's mark" to "gain advantage on concentration checks when concentrating on hunter's mark."

 Except: 
1) the rogue only gets 1 sneak attack a round under the 1dnd test. So even running a TWF rogue to at least get a second attack and hopefully it’s damage your way behind no matter what. Max damage all attacks hitting the L1/2 rogue gets 2 hits with a light weapon for 2d6 + 1d6 for the sneak attack + stat bonus damage. The L1/2 TWF ranger with hunter’s mark up gets 2 attacks  each getting hunters mark damage for a total of 4d6 + stat bonus. At L3/4 the rogue adds a D6 to sneak attack and the the ranger adds a D8 for hunter’s prey so the rogue falls even further behind. At L5 the rogue adds a D6 to sneak attack for 5d6 + stat bonus while the ranger adds an extra attack  for 6d6 +1d8 + stat bonus  but the ranger basically stalls out there. 

Quote from Wi1dBi11 >>

Quote from Hadesisle >>

Rangers need a nerf to Favored Enemy. Being able to deal 6d6+mod is broken compared to rogues being able to sneak attack twice a round and it gets more broken at level 4 & 5.

Change the wording from "don't have to concentrate on hunter's mark" to "gain advantage on concentration checks when concentrating on hunter's mark."

 Except: 
1) the rogue only gets 1 sneak attack a round under the 1dnd test. So even running a TWF rogue to at least get a second attack and hopefully it’s damage your way behind no matter what. Max damage all attacks hitting the L1/2 rogue gets 2 hits with a light weapon for 2d6 + 1d6 for the sneak attack + stat bonus damage. The L1/2 TWF ranger with hunter’s mark up gets 2 attacks  each getting hunters mark damage for a total of 4d6 + stat bonus. At L3/4 the rogue adds a D6 to sneak attack and the the ranger adds a D8 for hunter’s prey so the rogue falls even further behind. At L5 the rogue adds a D6 to sneak attack for 5d6 + stat bonus while the ranger adds an extra attack  for 6d6 +1d8 + stat bonus  but the ranger basically stalls out there. 

So being able to deal 6d6+mod at level 1 is broken beyond measure. 

All you need to do is take the background that gives you magic initiate (arcane) like Cultist or Sage for Hex. Lets say the ranger's dex mod is a 4 and dual wields two crossbows

Cast both Hex and Hunter's Mark on a creature which will give you 2d6 a swing. With dual wielding hand cross bows that is 3d6 per hit which 6d6+4 in a round. At level 2 you take fighting style two weapon fighting which now you can add you ability mod to your off-hand crossbow which is now 6d6+8. Hunter's Prey at level 3 will add an extra 1d8 to one attack so that is now 6d6+1d8+8. At level 4 you take the charger feat which ironically works with range weapons and all you need to do is move 10ft per attack which adds a d8. Now that is 6d6+3d8+8 in a round at level 4. With extra attack at level 5 that is now 9d6+4d8+12 a round.

You still still think a ranger can only stall out at 6d6+1d8+mod at level 5? There are loopholes in favored enemy that need to go as those are broken and they should be able to do that kind of damage as they are supposed to be a skill monkey class like rogue now. My suggested change to favored enemy would make it balanced and would get rid of the loophole. Also charge feat charge attack needs to only work on melee attacks. 

Landing both Hex and Hunter’s Mark on a creature requires two rounds to pull off. Most combat encounters last 3.5 rounds. It literally takes more than half the combat to set up.