Like I said. I think Ranger players want/need concentrationless Hunter's Mark on the Ranger. Is that so much stronger than Smite on a Paladin? Infusions/invocations on a artificer/warlock? As a person who loves the Ranger my goal when the survey opens up is to make clear that this HAS to be in the new version of D&D. I don't care if they delay it to 2nd level, add it as a feature later (level 1 always prepared, level 6 no concentration), but multiclassing can't be the reason it goes away.
No one would be OK with the Paladin losing smite because of multiclassing. This should be the same thing.
So I'm basically finished changing my Tasha's Ranger Beastmaster to a 5.ONE ranger to start playing tonight.
I had to move the character from half elf to elf and from Archaeologist to 'Guide' for the background.
So what changed?
I essentially gained the Wood Elf Magic Feat, the Magic Initiate (druid) feat, the Fighting Initiate feat (defense style) and the Druidic Warrior Fighting style (to give me the two cantrips the class now gets. I also gained 2 additional spells prepared.I gained an additional Expertise but lost 1 proficiency and a bunch of languages (I was quite the cunning linguist if I do say so myself) The overall changes also allowed me to take the Warcaster feat at 4. because I now needed a +1 wisdom feat and that fit the bill.
My ranger was a little unique. Druidic warrior Fighting style with Magic Initiate Druid as the level 4 feat. So these changes actually folded nicely into what I was doing and just resulted in a little bump in power in the form of +1 ac and an extra Expertise. I don't see much, if any use of the hunters mark for my character at this time due to competing Bonus Actions. My Bonus action is simply not available enough to consider HM a staple spell, but I'll be looking for any opportunity for it to see use. That being said, this is the second time that this version of Hunters Mark has appeared in a UA and it didnt survive testing last time due to multiclassing shenanigans so my doubts are high for it. I'll of course reevaluate once the Subclass document comes out since my Beast master subclass is being rewritten.
Yes hunter’s mark still competes with other spells and maybe a few activities for the bonus action. However, the biggest interaction was always with the bonus action for TWF and that is now gone thanks to the reworking of light weapons. I do have a bone to pick there sadly. Light weapons allows only a single extra attack - no matter how many attacks you get. I still have fond memories3 of 1e TWF where you got the off hand attack with every main hand attack so I thought I would look at how the two alternates compared. Initially I was worried about it affecting rogue but they (so far at least in 1D&D) only get a single attack so it doesn’t really matter. Then I realized the problem comes from fighter not rogue. What happens if a fighter takes TWF and dual wielding as they get to tier 4 and 4 attacks? So I did a few simple calculations to get a sense of comparable damages and here is what I got:
fighter- 4 attacks, strength 20, great weapon fighter: 4 D12 +20 -> 4(7) +20=48 HP /rnd
I assumed average damage and all attacks hitting. As you can see changing light weapons to allow the offhand strike with each attack is not game breaking but as is it poorer choice compared to great weapon fighting style for the fighter. I haven’t tried the math yet but my suspicion is that “sword and board” fighters and rangers are going to disappear except perhaps at low levels where the shield is needed for AC. That and animated shields just became a hot ticket magic item 😁😳🤪
The only thing I have a problem with is the lack of choices in hunter subclass. I wish it became a widespread thing, but alas. Overall, the new ranger is excellent.
I like it, but level 1 might prove to be too strong because of TWF improvements. Simply Hunters mark and you have 2 attacks with a shortsword or scimitar that deal 2d6 each one of them adds attack modifier. That’s really strong at first level. At 2nd you can take the two weapon fighting feat and you now add attack mod to both. 18th lvl Foe Slayer is weak for an 18th lvl ability. Making hunters mark a d10 instead of a D6 doesn’t really improve you damage all the time. Would be better to add a d4 making the hunters mark a d6+d4. This guarantees the feature improves your damage and allows the player to roll more dice. JC says players love to roll dice.
As for the Hunter I like it as well, but multiattack is weak. I love the concept of down casting a spell. That’s really cool, but unless you are facing a horde 1d8 everyone in the conjure barrage cone is a waste of a spell slot. It you could ad you spell casting mod to the spell damage it might be worth using.
Your math doesn’t account for magical weapons. Best believe anyone using two weapon fighting is going to have two magical weapons soon as possible. Who knows what those might do. Also doesn’t account for critical hits. Two weapon fighting has a slightly higher chance of scoring a critical hit if you allowed an off hand attack for every regular attack. Finally the most important reason to avoid this play style is game lag. Having one player rolling 8 attacks then action surging to roll 8 more attacks isn’t going to be fun for everyone else at the table.
My thoughts and a suggestion of a slightly different take on the whole Hunter's Mark issue. These are based on a homebrew I've designed for my Ranger player that largely aligned with the TCE changes (and so the ODD changes) before they were a thing (they're up to level 9 so can't comment on how it works at higher levels).
Key issues (as I see them):
Rangers don't feel like a class that specialises in navigating the wilds and hunting certain creatures. There's no longer ways they can thematically help the group (without trivialising Exploration like the PHB Ranger).
1 level dip in Ranger for Favoured Enemy/Hunter's Mark.
HM stil uses limited spell slots and constrained by time.
HM providing damage bonus instead of attack bonus feels wrong thematically (controversial personal opinion)
Foe Slayer is an underwhelming capstone.
My suggestions:
Give the level 1 feature Wilderness Explorer and move Favoured Foe to level 2 (aids point 2) and fold Land's Stride (Ignore non-magical Difficult Terrain) into Roving at level 7. Wilderness Explorer would provides the following benefits:
The PC treats travelling at a Fast pace as Normal, and Normal as Slow in terms of the effects it has on Perception, navigation, foraging, and Stealth checks.
The PC can cover the party's tracks from non-magical tracking when moving at a Slow travel pace.
The PC forages twice as much on a successful attempt.
Move Favoured Enemy from level 1 to level 2. Requires more investment of a 2 level dip. Balanced at 1st level by giving the feature Wilderness Explorer (See point 1).
Make Hunter's Mark a class feature and be "usable a number of times equal to Proficiency Bonus per Long Rest". You can actually use spell slots for spells and PB scales with level so still decent if you commit for the 2 level dip (see point 2). As a class feature you could get away with it lasting until the target dies or the feature is used again. Makes it a great tool for tracking creatures that escape.
Make Hunter's Mark a bonus to attack rather than damage. This is a personal thematic gripe, but I prefer the idea of the Ranger being the precision class, always hitting their target, at the expense of a damage boost. In this instance I'd suggest +2 (1d4) at level 2, +3 (1d6) at level 7, +4 (1d8) at level 12, and +5 (1d10) at level 18.
Choose any 2 of the following 3 (or all three, I'm not sure):
Make Hunter's Mark apply to both attack and damage bonus.
Hunter's Mark uses reset on Short and Long Rest.
Can have multiple uses of Hunter's Mark running simultaneously.
Apart from the suggestion to change Hunter's Mark from damage to attack bonus, most of these are simple easy changes to the ODD Ranger that would make it feel like a true Ranger without trivialising Exploration and wilderness travel. The ability to scout ahead or cover tracks when travelling the wilds, running over bog, ice, or slope without hindrance to surprise the enemy, and the reliability that they'll land their hits, has made them a useful asset to the party without having to be able to pump out comparative damage as the martials. The changes to TWF will only make this better.
Your math doesn’t account for magical weapons. Best believe anyone using two weapon fighting is going to have two magical weapons soon as possible. Who knows what those might do. Also doesn’t account for critical hits. Two weapon fighting has a slightly higher chance of scoring a critical hit if you allowed an off hand attack for every regular attack. Finally the most important reason to avoid this play style is game lag. Having one player rolling 8 attacks then action surging to roll 8 more attacks isn’t going to be fun for everyone else at the table.
Your quite right - my math doesn’t account for magic weapons, additional feats or abilities from other subclasses, etc. it was meant to get a solid look at how changes to light weapons and TWF play out between base fighters and rangers with the new abilities as given or as I was suggesting. Since we don’t have a fighter or magic weapons I left out as much as I could. We do know that the fighter will almost certainly get 4 attacks at tier 4 and will be able to take great weapon fighting so that was the basis for comparison. The same fighter using TWF and RAW light weapons basically loses most of an attack’s worth of damage (9 HPs). Allowing an offhand attack with each main hand brings the TWF fighter up to parity with the GWF one. The surprise was the ranger- hunter. With RAW light weapons and TWF they are roughly comparable in damage (-4 HP) and slightly superior (+2 HP) with an offhand attack with each main attack. Will high level characters have magic weapons? Of course but they won’t change the basics of damage just lift the over all value somewhat. A +3 halberd will lift the damage by 12 points to 60/R while a +3 long sword and +3 short sword will lift the fighters to 54 HP RAW and 68 HP with 4 offhand making it the superior choice. Rangers would be at 53 HP RAW and 62 modified .
I am confused, are you trying to compare TWF from the UA to an alternative where you get offhand attacks instead?
If so the first is wrong, it should be +25 as the UA two weapon fighting adds the modifier to the damage. Second off you calculated the dice rolls wrong 1d8 is ~4.5 not ~4, 1d6 is ~3.5 not ~3 and 4D12 is ~6.5 not ~7.
Here is the correct formula you should have used for great weapon fighter with greataxe/greatclub, with 65% chance to hit and 5% chance to crit. I am assuming level 20 for the 4 attacks.
This would equate to ((11.5 * .17 + 12.5 * .83) * 0.6 + ((6.5 * .17 + 7.5 * .83) * 2 +5) * 0.05 * 4) = ~33.524
Not going indepth on all but here are the answers for the above. These aren't 100% accurate, I have rounded a few numbers but they are in a tight tolerance
Fighter 4 attacks, Great sword with Great Weapon fighting: ~36.4 (yes greatsword is better)
Fighter 5 attacks (using TWF) as per Expert Classes UA with two short swords: ~28.5
Fighter 5 attacks (using TWF) as per Expert Classes UA with Dual Wielder feat for 1 long sword and 1 short sword: ~31.3
Fighter 4 normal attacks + 4 attacks without mod as per your suggestion with two short swords: ~32.6
Fighter 4 normal attacks + 4 attacks without mod as per your suggestion with Dual Wielder feat for 1 long sword and 1 short sword: ~35.4
Ranger 2 normal Attacks TWF from UA + HM + HP with 2 short swords: ~28.8
Ranger 2 normal Attacks TWF from UA + HM + HP with Dual Wielder feat for 1 long sword and 1 short sword: ~30.2
Ranger 2 normal Attacks, TWF (2 off, no mod) + HM +HP: ~30.6
Ranger 2 normal Attacks, TWF (2 off, no mod) + HM +HP with Dual Wielder feat for 1 long sword and 1 short sword: ~32
Ranger 2 normal Attacks, TWF (4 off, no mod) + HM +HP: ~40.4
Ranger 2 normal Attacks, TWF (4 off, no mod) + HM +HP with Dual Wielder feat for 1 long sword and 1 short sword: ~41.8
Technically the numbers for Ranger are a bit lower than should be since figuring out how to calculate critical for HP is difficult... so these could be doing about 0.2~0.4 more damage
So those numbers are more accurate, but anyways, Ain_Undos' points are in my opinion the reason to avoid this, it slows down combat too much and adds way too much variance having so many attacks which makes balancing encounters and characters just way too chaotic.
To note, the light weapons change actually is also a stealth buff to haste on rogues, since rogues can now take the attack action on haste to get out their sneak attack and ready an attack to use their reaction for a 3rd attack to try and get another sneak attack on the reaction.
To note, the light weapons change actually is also a stealth buff to haste on rogues, since rogues can now take the attack action on haste to get out their sneak attack and ready an attack to use their reaction for a 3rd attack to try and get another sneak attack on the reaction.
the new sneak can happen only on your turn and only once. Haste won't help.
I was comparing the ranger with TWF and DW with light weapons (RAW) to the fighter with with the same with with the fighter with GWF and a halberd (D12) as a control. Yes the averages should be x.5 but for comparison purposes and to do the math in my head easily I rounded everything down so they are still comparable. Yes the stat bonus should be +25 x chalk it up to late night tiredness. The point of the exercise wasn’t absolute accuracy but to get some decent numbers to compare a single offhand attack vs an offhand attack with every main hand attack and to see how the UA ranger would stack up against the basic fighter - is the ranger in the ballpark or is he in the minor leagues? Also I was using 7 as the D12 average because GWF allows a reroll of a 1 or 2 this might be more like an 8 but again - as long as the same numbers are used throughout the comparisons are valid. 1) Rangers with TWF and DW are competitive with Fighters. 2) only getting 1 offhand attack instead of one with each main hand significantly lowers the damage yield of light weapons + TWF+DW
Therefore the light weapons rule should NOT. Say you only get the offhand attack once a turn and should allow it with every main hand attack you get.
18th lvl Foe Slayer is weak for an 18th lvl ability. Making hunters mark a d10 instead of a D6 doesn’t really improve you damage all the time. Would be better to add a d4 making the hunters mark a d6+d4. This guarantees the feature improves your damage and allows the player to roll more dice. JC says players love to roll dice.
Its supposed to be their end class ability, make it 3d6, it is competing against things like the barbarians +4/+4 to str/con, infinite wild shapes etc. They picked 3 classes with lame end abilities and kept them lame.
Did you notice all 3 classes subclass at the same levels now? 3, 6, 10, and 14. If that keeps up it'll completely change how we approach subclassing, since 1-dips into Warlock, Cleric, and Sorcerer won't give subclass benefits any more.
I know this probably isn't very related to the subject at hand, but I do wonder whether or not they're having what type of class you are: Experts, Mages, Priests, and Warriors, determine what level you get your subclass at. This would explain why they're changing the subclass leveling, and since both Warlocks and Sorcerers are Mages, I wonder whether or not that means that the Mages will all get their subclasses at level 1. Since clerics fall under Priests, I doubt WotC would have a second group of classes get their subclassses at level 1 if they do it this way, but anyways, this is all just me theorizing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
My thoughts and a suggestion of a slightly different take on the whole Hunter's Mark issue. These are based on a homebrew I've designed for my Ranger player that largely aligned with the TCE changes (and so the ODD changes) before they were a thing (they're up to level 9 so can't comment on how it works at higher levels).
Key issues (as I see them):
Rangers don't feel like a class that specialises in navigating the wilds and hunting certain creatures. There's no longer ways they can thematically help the group (without trivialising Exploration like the PHB Ranger).
1 level dip in Ranger for Favoured Enemy/Hunter's Mark.
HM stil uses limited spell slots and constrained by time.
HM providing damage bonus instead of attack bonus feels wrong thematically (controversial personal opinion)
Foe Slayer is an underwhelming capstone.
My suggestions:
Give the level 1 feature Wilderness Explorer and move Favoured Foe to level 2 (aids point 2) and fold Land's Stride (Ignore non-magical Difficult Terrain) into Roving at level 7. Wilderness Explorer would provides the following benefits:
The PC treats travelling at a Fast pace as Normal, and Normal as Slow in terms of the effects it has on Perception, navigation, foraging, and Stealth checks.
The PC can cover the party's tracks from non-magical tracking when moving at a Slow travel pace.
The PC forages twice as much on a successful attempt.
Move Favoured Enemy from level 1 to level 2. Requires more investment of a 2 level dip. Balanced at 1st level by giving the feature Wilderness Explorer (See point 1).
Make Hunter's Mark a class feature and be "usable a number of times equal to Proficiency Bonus per Long Rest". You can actually use spell slots for spells and PB scales with level so still decent if you commit for the 2 level dip (see point 2). As a class feature you could get away with it lasting until the target dies or the feature is used again. Makes it a great tool for tracking creatures that escape.
Make Hunter's Mark a bonus to attack rather than damage. This is a personal thematic gripe, but I prefer the idea of the Ranger being the precision class, always hitting their target, at the expense of a damage boost. In this instance I'd suggest +2 (1d4) at level 2, +3 (1d6) at level 7, +4 (1d8) at level 12, and +5 (1d10) at level 18.
Choose any 2 of the following 3 (or all three, I'm not sure):
Make Hunter's Mark apply to both attack and damage bonus.
Hunter's Mark uses reset on Short and Long Rest.
Can have multiple uses of Hunter's Mark running simultaneously.
Apart from the suggestion to change Hunter's Mark from damage to attack bonus, most of these are simple easy changes to the ODD Ranger that would make it feel like a true Ranger without trivialising Exploration and wilderness travel. The ability to scout ahead or cover tracks when travelling the wilds, running over bog, ice, or slope without hindrance to surprise the enemy, and the reliability that they'll land their hits, has made them a useful asset to the party without having to be able to pump out comparative damage as the martials. The changes to TWF will only make this better.
Most of these suggestions seem nice!
Favored enemy should just be PB times per long rest, and concentration less. There will be a bug damage spike but you get to use your spell slots for spells early on.
Love the wilderness explorer feature idea and moving favored enemy to 2nd. And landstride should not dissapear. The feature could also feature and aspect for urban rangers as an option or also keep the bonus language that they took away.
The capstone could be better, agree more extra damage dice or an additional effect once per turn.
To note, the light weapons change actually is also a stealth buff to haste on rogues, since rogues can now take the attack action on haste to get out their sneak attack and ready an attack to use their reaction for a 3rd attack to try and get another sneak attack on the reaction.
the new sneak can happen only on your turn and only once. Haste won't help.
You need to re-read then, because you missed something important in that statement, trust me you missed it.
To note, the light weapons change actually is also a stealth buff to haste on rogues, since rogues can now take the attack action on haste to get out their sneak attack and ready an attack to use their reaction for a 3rd attack to try and get another sneak attack on the reaction.
the new sneak can happen only on your turn and only once. Haste won't help.
You need to re-read then, because you missed something important in that statement, trust me you missed it.
1ST LEVEL: SNEAK ATTACK You know how to turn a subtle attack into a deadly one. Once on each of your turns when you take the Attack Action, you can deal extra damage to one creature you hit with an Attack Roll if you’re attacking with a Finesse Weapon or a Ranged Weapon and if at least one of the following requirements is met..........
To note, the light weapons change actually is also a stealth buff to haste on rogues, since rogues can now take the attack action on haste to get out their sneak attack and ready an attack to use their reaction for a 3rd attack to try and get another sneak attack on the reaction.
the new sneak can happen only on your turn and only once. Haste won't help.
You need to re-read then, because you missed something important in that statement, trust me you missed it.
Okay I'm missing it and read it a couple times. It says once on each of your turns, haste gives you another action on your turns but not another turn so I don't see how haste helps getting a 2nd sneak attack. And a readied attack is not on your turn so it wont qualify for a sneak attack either.
Edit to add wow thats a bigger nerf than I thought a rogue can't even get a sneak attack off when readying an attack in a ambush. Maybe they will change the ready action rules so its considered your turn now.
To note, the light weapons change actually is also a stealth buff to haste on rogues, since rogues can now take the attack action on haste to get out their sneak attack and ready an attack to use their reaction for a 3rd attack to try and get another sneak attack on the reaction.
the new sneak can happen only on your turn and only once. Haste won't help.
You need to re-read then, because you missed something important in that statement, trust me you missed it.
Okay I'm missing it and read it a couple times. It says once on each of your turns, haste gives you another action on your turns but not another turn so I don't see how haste helps getting a 2nd sneak attack. And a readied attack is not on your turn so it wont qualify for a sneak attack either.
Edit to add wow thats a bigger nerf than I thought a rogue can't even get a sneak attack off when readying an attack in a ambush. Maybe they will change the ready action rules so its considered your turn now.
oh right, I forgot about that, Rogue use to be able to sneak attack once per turn, now it's only on their turn... so ready action no longer helps... that is a HUGE nerf.
Your math doesn’t account for magical weapons. Best believe anyone using two weapon fighting is going to have two magical weapons soon as possible. Who knows what those might do. Also doesn’t account for critical hits. Two weapon fighting has a slightly higher chance of scoring a critical hit if you allowed an off hand attack for every regular attack. Finally the most important reason to avoid this play style is game lag. Having one player rolling 8 attacks then action surging to roll 8 more attacks isn’t going to be fun for everyone else at the table.
Your quite right - my math doesn’t account for magic weapons, additional feats or abilities from other subclasses, etc. it was meant to get a solid look at how changes to light weapons and TWF play out between base fighters and rangers with the new abilities as given or as I was suggesting. Since we don’t have a fighter or magic weapons I left out as much as I could. We do know that the fighter will almost certainly get 4 attacks at tier 4 and will be able to take great weapon fighting so that was the basis for comparison. The same fighter using TWF and RAW light weapons basically loses most of an attack’s worth of damage (9 HPs). Allowing an offhand attack with each main hand brings the TWF fighter up to parity with the GWF one. The surprise was the ranger- hunter. With RAW light weapons and TWF they are roughly comparable in damage (-4 HP) and slightly superior (+2 HP) with an offhand attack with each main attack. Will high level characters have magic weapons? Of course but they won’t change the basics of damage just lift the over all value somewhat. A +3 halberd will lift the damage by 12 points to 60/R while a +3 long sword and +3 short sword will lift the fighters to 54 HP RAW and 68 HP with 4 offhand making it the superior choice. Rangers would be at 53 HP RAW and 62 modified .
I was more worried about magic weapons that have an effect or add more variable damage. Weapons of wounding and flame tongue are examples of combos that get ridiculous if two weapon fighting allowed for multiple attacks with the off hand. Flame tongue damage would increase on crits. Also the game lag is still the biggest issue with this style of play. One player rolling lots of attack rolls while everyone else waits. Two weapon fighter with action surge is 16 attacks at level 18 in one d&d.
To note, the light weapons change actually is also a stealth buff to haste on rogues, since rogues can now take the attack action on haste to get out their sneak attack and ready an attack to use their reaction for a 3rd attack to try and get another sneak attack on the reaction.
the new sneak can happen only on your turn and only once. Haste won't help.
You need to re-read then, because you missed something important in that statement, trust me you missed it.
Okay I'm missing it and read it a couple times. It says once on each of your turns, haste gives you another action on your turns but not another turn so I don't see how haste helps getting a 2nd sneak attack. And a readied attack is not on your turn so it wont qualify for a sneak attack either.
Edit to add wow thats a bigger nerf than I thought a rogue can't even get a sneak attack off when readying an attack in a ambush. Maybe they will change the ready action rules so its considered your turn now.
oh right, I forgot about that, Rogue use to be able to sneak attack once per turn, now it's only on their turn... so ready action no longer helps... that is a HUGE nerf.
I am glad we are on the same page. Now if I can only convince people that the ranger losses are actually alot but covered by "Happy no concentration Huntersmark"
I what i would miss playing by the new rules:
possible(with growth by level choice) expertise in all your Proficent INT and wisdom skills (and tools)(3-10 skills)
Possible (with growth by level choice) advantage in all Int skills (and tools) (even if not proficent)
Loss of a possible free activity while traveling (crafting, harvesting, ect )
Loss of preparation knowledge (end of the night primeval awareness) so you know what you are fighting tomorrow or during the rest.
Loss of difficult terrain removal (F-Terrain and Land stride)
Loss of truesight, blindsight ect immune hiding ....... Also anti tracking abilities now dumped on non detection.
possible Nerfs incoming to Select build styles and spells.
The new game play loop may functionally allow such things but its so different in approach that I am not sure it will make ranger more enjoyable than monk or fighter.
Like I said. I think Ranger players want/need concentrationless Hunter's Mark on the Ranger. Is that so much stronger than Smite on a Paladin? Infusions/invocations on a artificer/warlock? As a person who loves the Ranger my goal when the survey opens up is to make clear that this HAS to be in the new version of D&D. I don't care if they delay it to 2nd level, add it as a feature later (level 1 always prepared, level 6 no concentration), but multiclassing can't be the reason it goes away.
No one would be OK with the Paladin losing smite because of multiclassing. This should be the same thing.
Yes hunter’s mark still competes with other spells and maybe a few activities for the bonus action. However, the biggest interaction was always with the bonus action for TWF and that is now gone thanks to the reworking of light weapons. I do have a bone to pick there sadly. Light weapons allows only a single extra attack - no matter how many attacks you get. I still have fond memories3 of 1e TWF where you got the off hand attack with every main hand attack so I thought I would look at how the two alternates compared. Initially I was worried about it affecting rogue but they (so far at least in 1D&D) only get a single attack so it doesn’t really matter. Then I realized the problem comes from fighter not rogue. What happens if a fighter takes TWF and dual wielding as they get to tier 4 and 4 attacks? So I did a few simple calculations to get a sense of comparable damages and here is what I got:
fighter- 4 attacks, strength 20, great weapon fighter: 4 D12 +20 -> 4(7) +20=48 HP /rnd
Fighter: 4attacks, S)20, TWF ( 1 off): 4d8+ 1d6 + 20 -> 16+3+20= 39 HP/rnd
Fighter: 4 attacks, S) 20, TWF (4off): 4d8 + 4d6 + 20 -> 16+12+20= 48 HP/rnd
Ranger: S/D 20, 2 Attacks, TWF (1off) + HM + HP: 2d8+1d6 + 1d8+ 3d6 + 20 -> 8+3+4+9 + 20= 44 HP/rnd
Ranger: S/D 20, 2Attacks, TWF (4 off) + HM +HP: 2d8 + 2d6 + 1d8 + 4d6 + 20 -> 8 + 6 + 4 + 12 + 20= 50 HP/ rnd
I assumed average damage and all attacks hitting. As you can see changing light weapons to allow the offhand strike with each attack is not game breaking but as is it poorer choice compared to great weapon fighting style for the fighter. I haven’t tried the math yet but my suspicion is that “sword and board” fighters and rangers are going to disappear except perhaps at low levels where the shield is needed for AC. That and animated shields just became a hot ticket magic item 😁😳🤪
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
The only thing I have a problem with is the lack of choices in hunter subclass. I wish it became a widespread thing, but alas. Overall, the new ranger is excellent.
The base class is good, the hunter subclass is good up to 6th level.
I like it, but level 1 might prove to be too strong because of TWF improvements. Simply Hunters mark and you have 2 attacks with a shortsword or scimitar that deal 2d6 each one of them adds attack modifier. That’s really strong at first level. At 2nd you can take the two weapon fighting feat and you now add attack mod to both.
18th lvl Foe Slayer is weak for an 18th lvl ability. Making hunters mark a d10 instead of a D6 doesn’t really improve you damage all the time. Would be better to add a d4 making the hunters mark a d6+d4. This guarantees the feature improves your damage and allows the player to roll more dice. JC says players love to roll dice.
As for the Hunter I like it as well, but multiattack is weak. I love the concept of down casting a spell. That’s really cool, but unless you are facing a horde 1d8 everyone in the conjure barrage cone is a waste of a spell slot. It you could ad you spell casting mod to the spell damage it might be worth using.
Your math doesn’t account for magical weapons. Best believe anyone using two weapon fighting is going to have two magical weapons soon as possible. Who knows what those might do. Also doesn’t account for critical hits. Two weapon fighting has a slightly higher chance of scoring a critical hit if you allowed an off hand attack for every regular attack. Finally the most important reason to avoid this play style is game lag. Having one player rolling 8 attacks then action surging to roll 8 more attacks isn’t going to be fun for everyone else at the table.
My thoughts and a suggestion of a slightly different take on the whole Hunter's Mark issue. These are based on a homebrew I've designed for my Ranger player that largely aligned with the TCE changes (and so the ODD changes) before they were a thing (they're up to level 9 so can't comment on how it works at higher levels).
Key issues (as I see them):
My suggestions:
Apart from the suggestion to change Hunter's Mark from damage to attack bonus, most of these are simple easy changes to the ODD Ranger that would make it feel like a true Ranger without trivialising Exploration and wilderness travel. The ability to scout ahead or cover tracks when travelling the wilds, running over bog, ice, or slope without hindrance to surprise the enemy, and the reliability that they'll land their hits, has made them a useful asset to the party without having to be able to pump out comparative damage as the martials. The changes to TWF will only make this better.
Your quite right - my math doesn’t account for magic weapons, additional feats or abilities from other subclasses, etc. it was meant to get a solid look at how changes to light weapons and TWF play out between base fighters and rangers with the new abilities as given or as I was suggesting. Since we don’t have a fighter or magic weapons I left out as much as I could. We do know that the fighter will almost certainly get 4 attacks at tier 4 and will be able to take great weapon fighting so that was the basis for comparison. The same fighter using TWF and RAW light weapons basically loses most of an attack’s worth of damage (9 HPs). Allowing an offhand attack with each main hand brings the TWF fighter up to parity with the GWF one. The surprise was the ranger- hunter. With RAW light weapons and TWF they are roughly comparable in damage (-4 HP) and slightly superior (+2 HP) with an offhand attack with each main attack. Will high level characters have magic weapons? Of course but they won’t change the basics of damage just lift the over all value somewhat. A +3 halberd will lift the damage by 12 points to 60/R while a +3 long sword and +3 short sword will lift the fighters to 54 HP RAW and 68 HP with 4 offhand making it the superior choice. Rangers would be at 53 HP RAW and 62 modified .
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I am confused, are you trying to compare TWF from the UA to an alternative where you get offhand attacks instead?
If so the first is wrong, it should be +25 as the UA two weapon fighting adds the modifier to the damage. Second off you calculated the dice rolls wrong 1d8 is ~4.5 not ~4, 1d6 is ~3.5 not ~3 and 4D12 is ~6.5 not ~7.
Here is the correct formula you should have used for great weapon fighter with greataxe/greatclub, with 65% chance to hit and 5% chance to crit. I am assuming level 20 for the 4 attacks.
Fighter 4 attacks, Great axe with Great Weapon Fighting GreatAxe/GreatClub: ((((1d12+5) *.17) + ((1d10+7) * .83) * 0.6) + (((((1d12) *.17) + ((1d10+2) *2) * .83) +5) * 0.05) * 4)
This would equate to ((11.5 * .17 + 12.5 * .83) * 0.6 + ((6.5 * .17 + 7.5 * .83) * 2 +5) * 0.05 * 4) = ~33.524
Not going indepth on all but here are the answers for the above. These aren't 100% accurate, I have rounded a few numbers but they are in a tight tolerance
Fighter 4 attacks, Great sword with Great Weapon fighting: ~36.4 (yes greatsword is better)
Fighter 5 attacks (using TWF) as per Expert Classes UA with two short swords: ~28.5
Fighter 5 attacks (using TWF) as per Expert Classes UA with Dual Wielder feat for 1 long sword and 1 short sword: ~31.3
Fighter 4 normal attacks + 4 attacks without mod as per your suggestion with two short swords: ~32.6
Fighter 4 normal attacks + 4 attacks without mod as per your suggestion with Dual Wielder feat for 1 long sword and 1 short sword: ~35.4
Ranger 2 normal Attacks TWF from UA + HM + HP with 2 short swords: ~28.8
Ranger 2 normal Attacks TWF from UA + HM + HP with Dual Wielder feat for 1 long sword and 1 short sword: ~30.2
Ranger 2 normal Attacks, TWF (2 off, no mod) + HM +HP: ~30.6
Ranger 2 normal Attacks, TWF (2 off, no mod) + HM +HP with Dual Wielder feat for 1 long sword and 1 short sword: ~32
Ranger 2 normal Attacks, TWF (4 off, no mod) + HM +HP: ~40.4
Ranger 2 normal Attacks, TWF (4 off, no mod) + HM +HP with Dual Wielder feat for 1 long sword and 1 short sword: ~41.8
Technically the numbers for Ranger are a bit lower than should be since figuring out how to calculate critical for HP is difficult... so these could be doing about 0.2~0.4 more damage
So those numbers are more accurate, but anyways, Ain_Undos' points are in my opinion the reason to avoid this, it slows down combat too much and adds way too much variance having so many attacks which makes balancing encounters and characters just way too chaotic.
To note, the light weapons change actually is also a stealth buff to haste on rogues, since rogues can now take the attack action on haste to get out their sneak attack and ready an attack to use their reaction for a 3rd attack to try and get another sneak attack on the reaction.
the new sneak can happen only on your turn and only once. Haste won't help.
I was comparing the ranger with TWF and DW with light weapons (RAW) to the fighter with with the same with with the fighter with GWF and a halberd (D12) as a control. Yes the averages should be x.5 but for comparison purposes and to do the math in my head easily I rounded everything down so they are still comparable. Yes the stat bonus should be +25 x chalk it up to late night tiredness. The point of the exercise wasn’t absolute accuracy but to get some decent numbers to compare a single offhand attack vs an offhand attack with every main hand attack and to see how the UA ranger would stack up against the basic fighter - is the ranger in the ballpark or is he in the minor leagues? Also I was using 7 as the D12 average because GWF allows a reroll of a 1 or 2 this might be more like an 8 but again - as long as the same numbers are used throughout the comparisons are valid.
1) Rangers with TWF and DW are competitive with Fighters.
2) only getting 1 offhand attack instead of one with each main hand significantly lowers the damage yield of light weapons + TWF+DW
Therefore the light weapons rule should NOT. Say you only get the offhand attack once a turn and should allow it with every main hand attack you get.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Its supposed to be their end class ability, make it 3d6, it is competing against things like the barbarians +4/+4 to str/con, infinite wild shapes etc. They picked 3 classes with lame end abilities and kept them lame.
I know this probably isn't very related to the subject at hand, but I do wonder whether or not they're having what type of class you are: Experts, Mages, Priests, and Warriors, determine what level you get your subclass at. This would explain why they're changing the subclass leveling, and since both Warlocks and Sorcerers are Mages, I wonder whether or not that means that the Mages will all get their subclasses at level 1. Since clerics fall under Priests, I doubt WotC would have a second group of classes get their subclassses at level 1 if they do it this way, but anyways, this is all just me theorizing.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Most of these suggestions seem nice!
Favored enemy should just be PB times per long rest, and concentration less. There will be a bug damage spike but you get to use your spell slots for spells early on.
Love the wilderness explorer feature idea and moving favored enemy to 2nd. And landstride should not dissapear. The feature could also feature and aspect for urban rangers as an option or also keep the bonus language that they took away.
The capstone could be better, agree more extra damage dice or an additional effect once per turn.
You need to re-read then, because you missed something important in that statement, trust me you missed it.
Okay I'm missing it and read it a couple times. It says once on each of your turns, haste gives you another action on your turns but not another turn so I don't see how haste helps getting a 2nd sneak attack. And a readied attack is not on your turn so it wont qualify for a sneak attack either.
Edit to add wow thats a bigger nerf than I thought a rogue can't even get a sneak attack off when readying an attack in a ambush. Maybe they will change the ready action rules so its considered your turn now.
oh right, I forgot about that, Rogue use to be able to sneak attack once per turn, now it's only on their turn... so ready action no longer helps... that is a HUGE nerf.
I was more worried about magic weapons that have an effect or add more variable damage. Weapons of wounding and flame tongue are examples of combos that get ridiculous if two weapon fighting allowed for multiple attacks with the off hand. Flame tongue damage would increase on crits. Also the game lag is still the biggest issue with this style of play. One player rolling lots of attack rolls while everyone else waits. Two weapon fighter with action surge is 16 attacks at level 18 in one d&d.
I am glad we are on the same page. Now if I can only convince people that the ranger losses are actually alot but covered by "Happy no concentration Huntersmark"
I what i would miss playing by the new rules:
The new game play loop may functionally allow such things but its so different in approach that I am not sure it will make ranger more enjoyable than monk or fighter.