I think you are incorrect about Hunter's Mark, it has a range of 90', not self, and so does have to target the creature. It has no save, though, so I do not know how that might affect immunity, or it might depend on how the immunity is described.
You’re right. I was blatantly wrong and it’s even clear how the lack of a save on hunters mark would affect immunity. It wouldn’t affect it at all. The Rakshasa immunity is a feature that states the spell wouldn’t work on them at all. Even if it was regular damage immunity against 6th level or lower spells the additional damage portion wouldn’t work making the spell mostly useless. Still Hunter’s Mark should remain a spell and not a feature. Rangers are half casters and if they come across a creature that is good against casters they should feel that as well.
Before I rip into the problems I will say what I like. The Bard is is good imo. I have a maybe change for the College. The new feats are mostly fine.
College of Lore problem: It doesn’t feel like the 5e Lore Bard. Honestly that might be okay but I have a fix for that if we want to push it back into something more familiar.
6th Lvl Feature change- Songs of Lore- You may choose one Cantrip and one spell of 1st level or above from any spell list. That spell must be of a level you can prepapre with Bard spell slots. It is always prepared and doesn’t count against the number of spells you can prepare. You may change this cantrip and spell whenever you complete a long rest.
This feels more inline with 5e Bard, but we would be giving up an excellent 6th level feature in cunning inspiration.
Ranger problem: there is a lot to unpack. Doesn’t have the feel of a Ranger. Steps on the Rogues toes too much now. Hunter’s Mark is too strong early doesn’t really fulfill Favored Enemy for the entire game. Favored Foe is weak.
‘Favored Enemy- scales, 1st level grants HM always prepared and doesn’t count against spells prepared. 3rd level HM no longer requires concentration. 7th level you can use study and search actions as a bonus action against marked targets. You have advantage on the roll. 11th HM damage is a d8.17th HM damage is a d10
1st Lvl Expertise becomes Natural Explorer- You gain proficiency and expertise in Nature and Survival skills. If you already have proficiency in the skill choose another Ranger skill to gain proficiency in. If you already have expertise in the skill choose any skill you have proficiency and gain expertise in that skill. You also gain proficiency in cartographer tools or navigators tools.
Foe Slayer- either make the damage static Wis mod increase that it is in 5e or Proficiency bonus to marked target.
This allows HM to not be too strong a lvl 1, and worth staying for all the perks beyond 3rd level. I originally thought steal hunters lore from the subclass and put it here for the 7th level HM boon for all rangers but saw an opportunity to work with the new codified search and study actions. Natural Explore instead of straight expertise because sadly I’m seeing if the mechanics don’t force you toward the flavor people will just optimize. Also the Ranger was feeling too Rogue like with open expertise.
Rogue problem: Can’t sneak attack on opportunity attacks or in special occasions on other people’s turns. Their expertise doesn’t feel special any more (partially fixed with Ranger change) Thief needs a little boost also.
Expertise- allow rogues to also choose tools for expertise from this list if they have proficiency in the tool- Disguise Kit, Forgery Kit, Jeweler’s tools, and Thieves tools
Sneak attack returns to once per turn when you attack with a finesse or ranged weapon.
Thief fast hands- return interact with an object as part of fast hands cunning action.
Movement problem- it’s clunky and I just don’t like it. Jump as an action is bot good and bad.
Any movement consumes all speed types up to your highest speed. So if you have 30 speed, 10 climb, 40 swim. You can’t walk 10ft to a wall then climb it with your climb speed because it’s already been used while walking. But you could climb a 10ft wall, walk 20ft to some water, and swim 10ft. Taking the Dash action gives you second block of movement that is subtracted from separately. So you could walk 20ft to a wall. Take the dash action. Climb 10ft up the wall. At this moment you have 2 blocks of movement to account for that are separate. One has 10ft speed or 20 swim remaining and the other has 20 speed or 30 walk remaining. Now I need to figure out how to say that plainly so it’s easily understood.
Jump becomes its own special action but can be used in place of an action, a bonus action or movement if you haven’t used any this turn. If used as a bonus action you only clear a distance equal to half the roll. You may only use Jump once per turn no matter if you replaced an action, bonus action or movement.
Feat problem- Crossbow expert is broken and Ritual Caster is bad.
Crossbow expert should return to its 5e version and a new feat introduced to handle two crossbows and sword and crossbow. Which is what the UA version does right now and not very well unless you are an artificer with repeating shot or Thri-keen. Otherwise once you fire you can’t get ammunition because your hands are full.
Ritual Caster drop quick ritual and return the book and ability to learn more rituals. Even if it means it’s limited it to 1 ritual when you first get the book and you have to seek out the others.
That’s all I got. I’m sure as everyone keeps playtesting and talking about this more problems will come up. Most can be fixed and I’m sure we will end up with a product we all will enjoy. Even if we don’t all get exactly what we want.
NO!! crossbow expert is on par with the great weapon master of 5e it should be untouched. If anything, they should keep it and revert pole arm master and sentinel to synergizing.
Main issue with Ranger Hunters mark should not be a spell. Their are monsters in dnd that are immune to spells of 5th level and bellow now your key future is useless. Bad design.
That I would say is an issue with creature design rather than class design. Having creatures which have immunity that flat out invalidate a character's abilities in combat is bad design, Rakshasa for example, they are just a big feck you to all spell casters. They are CR13, so full casters only have a single 7th level spell slot, you get a single spell which the Rakshasa has advantage on any saving throws if you try anything that requires one. At least with say a Beholder, it has to maintain sight to stop you casting spells and it can't attack you with it's other eyes while maintaining that sight on you, so you're still doing something if you can't cast a spell, against a Rakshasa a spell caster does a single spell and then is pretty much useless, unless you can somehow affect the terrain, like burning a wooden bridge the Rakshasa might be standing on.
I am not against immunity in general, just only when it gets to a point where characters in combat are basically entirely invalidated. If a creature needs such immunity then there should be a way to disable or bypass it, such as say throwing silver dust or holy water on it, or that the immunity requires the creature's reaction. So if you have two casters it can only resist one of those spell casters. Or perhaps there is some type of puzzle the party is meant to do first to unlock some ancient relic that when held, ignores the effect of that creature's immunity. There is no decent reason for basically making a character completely useless in battle and it feels bad when it happens.
If it's because you yourself only took a longsword and greatsword when the creature is immune to slashing damage tho, that's on the player, since you could have also had a club, a hammer, a spear, etc, so single damage types like that, I am also okay with. Two may also be okay as long as the two aren't Piercing and Slashing (you invalidate rogues with both of those).
what you call an issue with creature design I call an issue with game design. We have a 6th level class feature that is now useless and a bunch of useless spells for the half caster unless they took some utility spells. They have already made a 1st level spell a cantrip and now what is the next rule exception you need to add to fix the issue. Oh immune to spells of 3rd level and bellow except hunter mark and Eldrige blast why?
The damage doesn't even scale well and if you have a second combat encounter within the active timespan of Hunters mark you don't even need to cast it again just change the target one of the new enemies in this new encounter doesn't that seem a bit odd. You don't need to use a spell slot but if you spend a third level spell slot it will last for 8 hours but provide no other benefit. Oh that is if you don't run it an enemy that is invisible and thus you can't mark oh, but we need another exception for invisible stalkers or displacer beasts.
Plus hear is my big issue with it being a spell now every caster can have hunters mark, but you don't see the same thing with sneak attack on rouges. The only difference is that spell casters have to spend a spell slot to us it oh wait no a high enough level wizard can cast it for free to and a sorcerer can twin spell it so they can get the benefit on two targets heck a high enough level warlock can cast the spell and have it last all day with a single spell slot that they will recover with a short rest.
So, what makes hunters mark unique to rangers and why doesn't it benefit anyone other than the hunter themselves? Oh, we need to add that to a subclass. I also have issues with the fact that only hunters mark can be cast for free, but the spray of arrows spell is only allowed to be down cast. Why allow other caster to take the spell if it is supposed to be class specific but if it is supposed to be a core class specific spell why make it a first level spell and not a cantrip oh yah sorcery twin spell hunters mark twin spell can trip. Now Sorcerers are better at using hunters mark then hunter.
Oh, and you can't cast two spells in the same turn so you can't cast true sight and then cast hunters mark in the same turn against an invisible enemy or an enemy that has the benefits of greater invisibility. OfCourse if it wasn't a spell, you could have cast true sight and used hunter mark in the same turn.
Yes, they are half casters I just feel like wizards is half assign it by saying oh hear is this spell rather than hear is a could mystical thing you can do that can still affect enemies that are immune to magic because it is magical only for the sake of doing damage because we have already seen this change made to monsters so they can't be counter spelled but not for the player classes. Plus, there are light bulging weapons that a Rouge can use. You just won't get to add your Dex to them.
I just want don't want monks and rangers to end up being trash classes do to pore game design. Like hunter's mark being a spell and then having to make all these exceptions so this class spell remains relevant throughout the game.
I think you are incorrect about Hunter's Mark, it has a range of 90', not self, and so does have to target the creature. It has no save, though, so I do not know how that might affect immunity, or it might depend on how the immunity is described.
You’re right. I was blatantly wrong and it’s even clear how the lack of a save on hunters mark would affect immunity. It wouldn’t affect it at all. The Rakshasa immunity is a feature that states the spell wouldn’t work on them at all. Even if it was regular damage immunity against 6th level or lower spells the additional damage portion wouldn’t work making the spell mostly useless. Still Hunter’s Mark should remain a spell and not a feature. Rangers are half casters and if they come across a creature that is good against casters they should feel that as well.
Why should it remain a spell. Yah, they are half casters that means they should get can trips question is smite a spell no, is the artificer's ability to make trinkets a spell no, so why dose hunters mark half to be a spell if the other half casters don't have spells for their core features.
I can even say should bardic inspiration be a spell because bards are full casters? I ask because you said hunters mark should be a spell because Rangers are half casters.
Word to the wise: Wizards doesn't pay attention to your write-in answers. At best they have a keyword scraper look for things that get said a lot and use that aggregate data. If you want to be effective in your feedback, be ruthless with your numeric ratings - use the 'Dissatisfied' buttons a lot more. Leave short messages in the wrrite-ins that speak to your play experience, rather than trying to foist design suggestions. Things like "Sneak Attack is a lot less fun", "miss lore flavor on Favored Enemy", "Lore subclass too focused on a rare resource", and the like. Don't suggest design ideas, Wizards won't read them and won't care about/implement them if they do. Talk about what you liked and what you didn't like.
Yes, but if 50 people all said the same thing wizards would notice this their word search a see that they may need to make a change like making it so hunters mark scales and is not a spell!! Smite is not a spell, bardic inspiration is not a spell, wilds shape is not a spell, so why dose hunter's mark need to be a spell bad design.
Before I rip into the problems I will say what I like. The Bard is is good imo. I have a maybe change for the College. The new feats are mostly fine.
College of Lore problem: It doesn’t feel like the 5e Lore Bard. Honestly that might be okay but I have a fix for that if we want to push it back into something more familiar.
6th Lvl Feature change- Songs of Lore- You may choose one Cantrip and one spell of 1st level or above from any spell list. That spell must be of a level you can prepapre with Bard spell slots. It is always prepared and doesn’t count against the number of spells you can prepare. You may change this cantrip and spell whenever you complete a long rest.
This feels more inline with 5e Bard, but we would be giving up an excellent 6th level feature in cunning inspiration.
Ranger problem: there is a lot to unpack. Doesn’t have the feel of a Ranger. Steps on the Rogues toes too much now. Hunter’s Mark is too strong early doesn’t really fulfill Favored Enemy for the entire game. Favored Foe is weak.
‘Favored Enemy- scales, 1st level grants HM always prepared and doesn’t count against spells prepared. 3rd level HM no longer requires concentration. 7th level you can use study and search actions as a bonus action against marked targets. You have advantage on the roll. 11th HM damage is a d8.17th HM damage is a d10
1st Lvl Expertise becomes Natural Explorer- You gain proficiency and expertise in Nature and Survival skills. If you already have proficiency in the skill choose another Ranger skill to gain proficiency in. If you already have expertise in the skill choose any skill you have proficiency and gain expertise in that skill. You also gain proficiency in cartographer tools or navigators tools.
Foe Slayer- either make the damage static Wis mod increase that it is in 5e or Proficiency bonus to marked target.
This allows HM to not be too strong a lvl 1, and worth staying for all the perks beyond 3rd level. I originally thought steal hunters lore from the subclass and put it here for the 7th level HM boon for all rangers but saw an opportunity to work with the new codified search and study actions. Natural Explore instead of straight expertise because sadly I’m seeing if the mechanics don’t force you toward the flavor people will just optimize. Also the Ranger was feeling too Rogue like with open expertise.
Rogue problem: Can’t sneak attack on opportunity attacks or in special occasions on other people’s turns. Their expertise doesn’t feel special any more (partially fixed with Ranger change) Thief needs a little boost also.
Expertise- allow rogues to also choose tools for expertise from this list if they have proficiency in the tool- Disguise Kit, Forgery Kit, Jeweler’s tools, and Thieves tools
Sneak attack returns to once per turn when you attack with a finesse or ranged weapon.
Thief fast hands- return interact with an object as part of fast hands cunning action.
Movement problem- it’s clunky and I just don’t like it. Jump as an action is bot good and bad.
Any movement consumes all speed types up to your highest speed. So if you have 30 speed, 10 climb, 40 swim. You can’t walk 10ft to a wall then climb it with your climb speed because it’s already been used while walking. But you could climb a 10ft wall, walk 20ft to some water, and swim 10ft. Taking the Dash action gives you second block of movement that is subtracted from separately. So you could walk 20ft to a wall. Take the dash action. Climb 10ft up the wall. At this moment you have 2 blocks of movement to account for that are separate. One has 10ft speed or 20 swim remaining and the other has 20 speed or 30 walk remaining. Now I need to figure out how to say that plainly so it’s easily understood.
Jump becomes its own special action but can be used in place of an action, a bonus action or movement if you haven’t used any this turn. If used as a bonus action you only clear a distance equal to half the roll. You may only use Jump once per turn no matter if you replaced an action, bonus action or movement.
Feat problem- Crossbow expert is broken and Ritual Caster is bad.
Crossbow expert should return to its 5e version and a new feat introduced to handle two crossbows and sword and crossbow. Which is what the UA version does right now and not very well unless you are an artificer with repeating shot or Thri-keen. Otherwise once you fire you can’t get ammunition because your hands are full.
Ritual Caster drop quick ritual and return the book and ability to learn more rituals. Even if it means it’s limited it to 1 ritual when you first get the book and you have to seek out the others.
That’s all I got. I’m sure as everyone keeps playtesting and talking about this more problems will come up. Most can be fixed and I’m sure we will end up with a product we all will enjoy. Even if we don’t all get exactly what we want.
NO!! crossbow expert is on par with the great weapon master of 5e it should be untouched. If anything, they should keep it and revert pole arm master and sentinel to synergizing.
Main issue with Ranger Hunters mark should not be a spell. Their are monsters in dnd that are immune to spells of 5th level and bellow now your key future is useless. Bad design.
That I would say is an issue with creature design rather than class design. Having creatures which have immunity that flat out invalidate a character's abilities in combat is bad design, Rakshasa for example, they are just a big feck you to all spell casters. They are CR13, so full casters only have a single 7th level spell slot, you get a single spell which the Rakshasa has advantage on any saving throws if you try anything that requires one. At least with say a Beholder, it has to maintain sight to stop you casting spells and it can't attack you with it's other eyes while maintaining that sight on you, so you're still doing something if you can't cast a spell, against a Rakshasa a spell caster does a single spell and then is pretty much useless, unless you can somehow affect the terrain, like burning a wooden bridge the Rakshasa might be standing on.
I am not against immunity in general, just only when it gets to a point where characters in combat are basically entirely invalidated. If a creature needs such immunity then there should be a way to disable or bypass it, such as say throwing silver dust or holy water on it, or that the immunity requires the creature's reaction. So if you have two casters it can only resist one of those spell casters. Or perhaps there is some type of puzzle the party is meant to do first to unlock some ancient relic that when held, ignores the effect of that creature's immunity. There is no decent reason for basically making a character completely useless in battle and it feels bad when it happens.
If it's because you yourself only took a longsword and greatsword when the creature is immune to slashing damage tho, that's on the player, since you could have also had a club, a hammer, a spear, etc, so single damage types like that, I am also okay with. Two may also be okay as long as the two aren't Piercing and Slashing (you invalidate rogues with both of those).
what you call an issue with creature design I call an issue with game design. We have a 6th level class feature that is now useless and a bunch of useless spells for the half caster unless they took some utility spells. They have already made a 1st level spell a cantrip and now what is the next rule exception you need to add to fix the issue. Oh immune to spells of 3rd level and bellow except hunter mark and Eldrige blast why?
The damage doesn't even scale well and if you have a second combat encounter within the active timespan of Hunters mark you don't even need to cast it again just change the target one of the new enemies in this new encounter doesn't that seem a bit odd. You don't need to use a spell slot but if you spend a third level spell slot it will last for 8 hours but provide no other benefit. Oh that is if you don't run it an enemy that is invisible and thus you can't mark oh, but we need another exception for invisible stalkers or displacer beasts.
Plus hear is my big issue with it being a spell now every caster can have hunters mark, but you don't see the same thing with sneak attack on rouges. The only difference is that spell casters have to spend a spell slot to us it oh wait no a high enough level wizard can cast it for free to and a sorcerer can twin spell it so they can get the benefit on two targets heck a high enough level warlock can cast the spell and have it last all day with a single spell slot that they will recover with a short rest.
So, what makes hunters mark unique to rangers and why doesn't it benefit anyone other than the hunter themselves? Oh, we need to add that to a subclass. I also have issues with the fact that only hunters mark can be cast for free, but the spray of arrows spell is only allowed to be down cast. Why allow other caster to take the spell if it is supposed to be class specific but if it is supposed to be a core class specific spell why make it a first level spell and not a cantrip oh yah sorcery twin spell hunters mark twin spell can trip. Now Sorcerers are better at using hunters mark then hunter.
Oh, and you can't cast two spells in the same turn so you can't cast true sight and then cast hunters mark in the same turn against an invisible enemy or an enemy that has the benefits of greater invisibility. OfCourse if it wasn't a spell, you could have cast true sight and used hunter mark in the same turn.
Yes, they are half casters I just feel like wizards is half assign it by saying oh hear is this spell rather than hear is a could mystical thing you can do that can still affect enemies that are immune to magic because it is magical only for the sake of doing damage because we have already seen this change made to monsters so they can't be counter spelled but not for the player classes. Plus, there are light bulging weapons that a Rouge can use. You just won't get to add your Dex to them.
I just want don't want monks and rangers to end up being trash classes do to pore game design. Like hunter's mark being a spell and then having to make all these exceptions so this class spell remains relevant throughout the game.
I would call that intentional game design. It’s not a lot of creatures that have this ability. It’s meant to be an oh crap moment for spellcasters. Rangers being half casters aren’t as affected by it compared to full casters.
Still Hunter’s Mark should remain a spell and not a feature. Rangers are half casters and if they come across a creature that is good against casters they should feel that as well.
Rangers should always be measured against paladins. And paladin wouldn't care that much if an enemy would be resistant to magic or anything, because paladin just buffs himself up and breaks faces. Half-casters don't use magic to deal damage, as their magic is only half as effective as the level demands in terms of damage. Half-casters use buffs and go martial.
That and Hunter's Mark is, practically speaking, one of those "must-have" spells, which doesn't sit right with me from a choice perspective.
If you have a spell that most people who play the class feel the need to take, and I suspect that's the case or they wouldn't have made it a feature, then it probably shouldn't be an optional spell to begin with.
Agreed it should never have been a chioce. In this UA it’s not a choice, it’s given to the class. They are addressing the problem. The only real flaw is the no concentration coming online to early.
Still Hunter’s Mark should remain a spell and not a feature. Rangers are half casters and if they come across a creature that is good against casters they should feel that as well.
Rangers should always be measured against paladins. And paladin wouldn't care that much if an enemy would be resistant to magic or anything, because paladin just buffs himself up and breaks faces. Half-casters don't use magic to deal damage, as their magic is only half as effective as the level demands in terms of damage. Half-casters use buffs and go martial.
Rangers should not be measured against Paladins. I use to think that way too and it’s silly. Rangers are suppose to be something extremely different than Paladins. The only real thing they have in common is being half casters. Next you’ll try to compare artificers to paladins. Paladins have their own major short comings. Paladins lack range and mobility (some sub classes cover this). They also don’t do well against creatures with resistance or immunity to radiant damage. You can say those are rare but it’s similarly as rare as immunity to 5th level spells and lower. Rangers were meant to cover the environmental exploration leg of the game, but that leg never really developed in 5e. Still comparing them to Paladins is wrong and you won’t end up with something that feels like a Ranger.
Rangers should not be measured against Paladins. I use to think that way too and it’s silly. Rangers are suppose to be something extremely different than Paladins. The only real thing they have in common is being half casters. Next you’ll try to compare artificers to paladins. Paladins have their own major short comings. Paladins lack range and mobility (some sub classes cover this). They also don’t do well against creatures with resistance or immunity to radiant damage. You can say those are rare but it’s similarly as rare as immunity to 5th level spells and lower. Rangers were meant to cover the environmental exploration leg of the game, but that leg never really developed in 5e. Still comparing them to Paladins is wrong and you won’t end up with something that feels like a Ranger.
Being half-casters defines how these classes - and the artificer too - use their spells. This prioritizes utility and buffs over damage. So how they use spells is similar, though ranger leans into utility and control while paladin leans into healing and buffs.
Paladin is by far the most powerful melee combatant, and if anything, this makes paladin a benchmark for other non-spell combatants to compare with. If a class has as much damage, survivability, and utility as the paladin, then the class is probably in a good spot. Rangers were way below this mark in raw power, now they're much closer, though still not there yet. Flavor or not, without raw power the class is doomed to feel underwhelming.
Rangers "covering" exploration is a trope and a fallacy. How do you imagine that? Should ranger get back the features that trivialize all exploration, taking the function of a survival skill, but always succeeding? Where's the fun in that? Like I always say, take a look at the bard in comparison. Bard is supposed to be the king of social pillar of the game, yet how many features does the bard have that actually have a direct impact on the social pillar? None, in fact. Expertise, high charisma, and the fantasy of a charming character that makes people always take persuasion when playing a bard, that's what makes bard the conqueror of social pillar. And ranger has access to all the same. Increase wisdom, take expertise in survival, voila - you're an expert survivor and tracker. Druidic spells just add the flavor, just like bard's selection of illusions and enchantments reinforce their role as the beguiling, charming class.
Rangers should not be measured against Paladins. I use to think that way too and it’s silly. Rangers are suppose to be something extremely different than Paladins. The only real thing they have in common is being half casters. Next you’ll try to compare artificers to paladins. Paladins have their own major short comings. Paladins lack range and mobility (some sub classes cover this). They also don’t do well against creatures with resistance or immunity to radiant damage. You can say those are rare but it’s similarly as rare as immunity to 5th level spells and lower. Rangers were meant to cover the environmental exploration leg of the game, but that leg never really developed in 5e. Still comparing them to Paladins is wrong and you won’t end up with something that feels like a Ranger.
Being half-casters defines how these classes - and the artificer too - use their spells. This prioritizes utility and buffs over damage. So how they use spells is similar, though ranger leans into utility and control while paladin leans into healing and buffs.
Paladin is by far the most powerful melee combatant, and if anything, this makes paladin a benchmark for other non-spell combatants to compare with. If a class has as much damage, survivability, and utility as the paladin, then the class is probably in a good spot. Rangers were way below this mark in raw power, now they're much closer, though still not there yet. Flavor or not, without raw power the class is doomed to feel underwhelming.
Rangers "covering" exploration is a trope and a fallacy. How do you imagine that? Should ranger get back the features that trivialize all exploration, taking the function of a survival skill, but always succeeding? Where's the fun in that? Like I always say, take a look at the bard in comparison. Bard is supposed to be the king of social pillar of the game, yet how many features does the bard have that actually have a direct impact on the social pillar? None, in fact. Expertise, high charisma, and the fantasy of a charming character that makes people always take persuasion when playing a bard, that's what makes bard the conqueror of social pillar. And ranger has access to all the same. Increase wisdom, take expertise in survival, voila - you're an expert survivor and tracker. Druidic spells just add the flavor, just like bard's selection of illusions and enchantments reinforce their role as the beguiling, charming class.
1. Yes being a half caster defines them, but an artificer has a completely different feel than a Paladin, and a Ranger should as well.
2. Paladins are the best burst damage melee combatants in the game. When playing with groups that have minimal combats between long rest Paladins appear to be overwhelmingly strong. In normal groups they are strong, but still suck against flying enemies or in combats were the enemy is mobile. So there is still balance. Rangers sucked because anything they could do you would be better off doing with a fighter or rogue. They have been greatly improved since Tasha’s and this UA. As of right now in this UA their sustained per round damage out paces any Paladin. While divine smite is far superior burst damage hunters mark gives more damage for the spell slot in most situations. Sadly Burst is often more important because of how many people DM. Killing the one enemy quickly is usually the goal for most combats and if it’s the only combat burst damage is king.
3.5e Ranger did cover exploration it’s not imagined and it worked within the game mechanics. The flaw was it was too situational. Favored Terrain essentially gave Rangers expertise in skills while in that terrain. They still had to roll. They still could fail. The flaw was the feature became useless outside of a very specific terrain. It’s easier to give the expertise in Nature and Survival and cover most of what Natural Explorer did with favored terrains. Your bard comparison is wrong because Bards primary stat builds into social pillar. If you build a low charisma Bard you will also have a bad Bard in combat. You can build a low Wisdom Ranger and still be effective in combat. Dex and sometimes Str are a rangers primary combat stat, so the class had features to bolster its ability to the handle the exploration pillar. The Bard doesn’t need much help in the social pillar as high Cha was built into the class, but many bard sub classes do have social pillar features as well. The other problem is over land exploration is the least used pillar. Dungeon exploration is usually better achieved by a wizard with find familiar or arcane eye.
Short version: Don’t compare Rangers to Paladins. They are meant to be their own class with their own feel. WotC has to make travel and exploration a part of the game or that feel doesn’t matter. Or they have to redefine the Ranger. The Hunter’s Lore feature almost does that for the Hunter Ranger. It is now the sub class that can find out enemy strengths and weaknesses. That lives up to Ranger fantasy archetype.
Short version: Don’t compare Rangers to Paladins. They are meant to be their own class with their own feel. WotC has to make travel and exploration a part of the game or that feel doesn’t matter. Or they have to redefine the Ranger. The Hunter’s Lore feature almost does that for the Hunter Ranger. It is now the sub class that can find out enemy strengths and weaknesses. That lives up to Ranger fantasy archetype.
Something can have a different feel but it still can be compared against other items. While some features are totally different, combat and doing damage is universal to them. Does a ranger have more out of combat/damage features than a paladin or are they just different. Is exploration bigger than the social elements a paladin will bring, its healing its buffs. I can compare a rangers mechanics that have a different feel to a paladins as they have a similar mechanical design in both being 1/2 casting martial combatants, the paladin is delivering more in the combat area, are the other features a ranger brings making up for that or are they falling short there as well. Slapping the term expert on ranger does not change the fact they are supposed to be good at fighting, so we just ignore that and not make comparisons. Heck we can compare rangers vs wizards despite almost nothing being similar. How they get there and what the feel is matters a lot less than what they actually deliver in each sphere, and that is what we can compare no matter how few similarities they have. Vs paladin is just one of the easier comparisons due to the similarities in mechanical design. Though I'll point out we have no idea how the paladin will change in 1D&D so any comparisons should be taken with a grain of salt. Heck until we see the spells we have no idea where the ranger is in 1d&d, i suspect more than just guidance and bark skin are getting changed when it comes to spells.
Short version: Don’t compare Rangers to Paladins. They are meant to be their own class with their own feel. WotC has to make travel and exploration a part of the game or that feel doesn’t matter. Or they have to redefine the Ranger. The Hunter’s Lore feature almost does that for the Hunter Ranger. It is now the sub class that can find out enemy strengths and weaknesses. That lives up to Ranger fantasy archetype.
Something can have a different feel but it still can be compared against other items. While some features are totally different, combat and doing damage is universal to them. Does a ranger have more out of combat/damage features than a paladin or are they just different. Is exploration bigger than the social elements a paladin will bring, its healing its buffs. I can compare a rangers mechanics that have a different feel to a paladins as they have a similar mechanical design in both being 1/2 casting martial combatants, the paladin is delivering more in the combat area, are the other features a ranger brings making up for that or are they falling short there as well. Slapping the term expert on ranger does not change the fact they are supposed to be good at fighting, so we just ignore that and not make comparisons. Heck we can compare rangers vs wizards despite almost nothing being similar. How they get there and what the feel is matters a lot less than what they actually deliver in each sphere, and that is what we can compare no matter how few similarities they have. Vs paladin is just one of the easier comparisons due to the similarities in mechanical design. Though I'll point out we have no idea how the paladin will change in 1D&D so any comparisons should be taken with a grain of salt. Heck until we see the spells we have no idea where the ranger is in 1d&d, i suspect more than just guidance and bark skin are getting changed when it comes to spells.
Hmmm now I’m really confused. Please explain how the 5e Ranger overall is worse at fighting than the 5e Paladin overall. Paladins only outclass the 5e Ranger in burst damage. Paladins don’t have viable ranged builds without forfeiting the feature everyone loves about them. Also what a 5e Ranger brings to the environmental pillar is way better than what a 5e Paladin brings to social pillar. Well if you’re in it’s favored terrain it has expertise in any intelligence and wisdom skills. The problem most people have with the Ranger is that the favored terrain thing almost doesn’t matter because most DMs and written adventures don’t include a lot of travel exploration in the game. Since travel exploration doesn’t matter often people would prefer to be archer fighters or Scout Rouges to fulfill their Ranger fantasy. Especially since the two weapon fighting Ranger of older editions was dead because of bonus action tax. This UA has already taken a step toward correcting that. What’s funny is most people who love the Paladin actually loved to multi class the Paladin. Divine smite plus more spell slots is really strong unless you are fighting celestials or those things from Wildemount’s Aeor. As far as 1D&D paladin I can see them playtesting that Divine smite can only be used once per turn. Maybe even only on your turn. I don’t think it’s a necessary change because I’ve watch a Paladin burn through all their spell slots thinking it was the last fight before a long rest. All they got was a short rest and this was before Tasha’s convert a Channel Divinity to get a spell slot back. No smites for them for that whole combat. Any spellcaster can run out of spells, but Paladins run out faster and have cool spells they almost never cast because the potential power of Divine Smite.
1. Yes being a half caster defines them, but an artificer has a completely different feel than a Paladin, and a Ranger should as well.
2. Paladins are the best burst damage melee combatants in the game. When playing with groups that have minimal combats between long rest Paladins appear to be overwhelmingly strong. In normal groups they are strong, but still suck against flying enemies or in combats were the enemy is mobile. So there is still balance. Rangers sucked because anything they could do you would be better off doing with a fighter or rogue. They have been greatly improved since Tasha’s and this UA. As of right now in this UA their sustained per round damage out paces any Paladin. While divine smite is far superior burst damage hunters mark gives more damage for the spell slot in most situations. Sadly Burst is often more important because of how many people DM. Killing the one enemy quickly is usually the goal for most combats and if it’s the only combat burst damage is king.
3.5e Ranger did cover exploration it’s not imagined and it worked within the game mechanics. The flaw was it was too situational. Favored Terrain essentially gave Rangers expertise in skills while in that terrain. They still had to roll. They still could fail. The flaw was the feature became useless outside of a very specific terrain. It’s easier to give the expertise in Nature and Survival and cover most of what Natural Explorer did with favored terrains. Your bard comparison is wrong because Bards primary stat builds into social pillar. If you build a low charisma Bard you will also have a bad Bard in combat. You can build a low Wisdom Ranger and still be effective in combat. Dex and sometimes Str are a rangers primary combat stat, so the class had features to bolster its ability to the handle the exploration pillar. The Bard doesn’t need much help in the social pillar as high Cha was built into the class, but many bard sub classes do have social pillar features as well. The other problem is over land exploration is the least used pillar. Dungeon exploration is usually better achieved by a wizard with find familiar or arcane eye.
Short version: Don’t compare Rangers to Paladins. They are meant to be their own class with their own feel. WotC has to make travel and exploration a part of the game or that feel doesn’t matter. Or they have to redefine the Ranger. The Hunter’s Lore feature almost does that for the Hunter Ranger. It is now the sub class that can find out enemy strengths and weaknesses. That lives up to Ranger fantasy archetype.
1. Artificer is a very strange class in that it doesn't have a core source of damage to rely on, instead the subclesses define whether they're melee combatants or weird pseudo-spellcasters. Still, Battle Smith and Armorer feel pretty close to paladin, with a little more emphasis on utility.
2. It's a tactical thing, taking out one enemy is just better than spreading damage over several enemies, because the former would change the flow of combat and deny the foes one unit. Enemies in 5e don't usually have that much HP.
3. Yes, I agree about the stat issue. Bards are SAD while rangers are MAD. Yet expertise alone buffs rangers' exploration ability beyond the original feature while having flavor as opposed to purely combat features from Tasha's and being universal in case you want a non-wilderness kind of ranger. Frankly, I cannot imagine a feature that would "boost exploration" in a way that is better than expertise, without trivializing exploration altogether. A ranger in the party shouldn't mean an auto-win in survival scenarios.
And frankly, I'm all for redefiinng the ranger into hunter, a broader class that isn't shackled to wilderness and survival. Monster hunter, bounty hunter, witch hunter, etc.
I tend to agree with most of kamchatmonk's points, particularly 1 and 2. On number 3, what mechanically can be done that is useful but doesn't trivialize abilities? It seems to me that there are (at least) three major aspects of traditional Ranger exploration/survival skills that could be dealt with: foraging/resource management, navigation/orienteering, and tracking/sensing enemies.
I suspect that the train has left the station on making foraging for survival a significant part of the game, since it can so easily be bypassed with spells and very few tables seem to find tracking resources to be an important and interesting part of the game. Due to this, I'd guess that this will remain something that will not be dealt with seriously in 1DD.
People getting lost also does not seem to be something that too many people may be interested in, but I've seen some fairly simple systems for this that could be employed that could provide interest from this aspect if tables are interested in it. As with foraging/resource management, some sort of system would have to be defined to be able to provide Rangers with an extra ability to affect this aspect of play.
I think that the most interesting and useful abilities could be added in terms of tracking/sensing certain creature types. I would favor having the abilities tied to entire creature groups (humanoids, beasts, monstrosities, etc.) instead of creatures that are too specific (orcs, goblins, etc.) or limited to only in one certain environment. This could possibly start with one type of creature, which can be added to later on (I guess similar to some Ranger abilities in 5e). I would think that these abilities could be made more useful with an ability to sense the presence of these creatures within a certain radius. Obviously this is similar to the Paladin's Divine Sense, but probably should be always on, have a much larger radius, and maybe provide more specific benefits (perhaps effective blindsight for sensing the specific chosen creature types in a certain radius) at higher levels. I would say that abilities like this can also be enhanced by the "Locate..." spells as well.
Do these seem reasonable? What other aspects of being a Ranger should be covered to provide a tangible benefit to gameplay without creating an automatic win button?
(Copying my comments from another forum discussion on the same topic)
1) "Known" spellcasters were fine; even easier for beginners. Put a sidebar that says DMs should be lenient in allowing spell change if player unsatisfied with a known choice. But Warlock or Sorcerers as Prepared spellcasters? Hope not!
2) College of Lore: missing the "lore" aspect in subclass features ;
3) Don't like the Jump action, at least as currently written. Should be part of Cunning Action if they keep it as an action for rogues or rogue thieves... (Speaking of thieves, their Story Work feature steps on the toes of the Athlete feat and vice versa. I would love my thief to pick up Athlete for Hop Up, but rest of the feat I would already get, so not very appealing.)
4) I also hate grappling as part of Unarmed Strike, especially vs AC rather than Opposed ability check. Don't like the nerf to combining speed too. Don't like the fixed DCs. Don't like the change to Hide action (bring back contests!). Don't like the full HD restore on long rest, but new Exhaustion rules do allow some "weariness" to carry from one day to the other...
5) Hate Guidance as a ranged reaction. The problem was the way the spell was used by name players/DMs, not the spell itself. But if you have to nerf it, 1 minute casting time Touch-range guidance is actually a great idea.
6) Way too much Inspiration granted with natural 1s (playtested it with our group). There should be a hard limit of 1 or 2 per long rest. (I also think Inspiration is a lackluster game mechanic as there are already so many abilities/features/spells in the game that grant advantage)...
7) Influence "action" seems clunky/unrealistic for 6-second combat turns. Also, DCs way too low.
8) Dual Wielding, no bonus action: might be too good at low levels of play. Equip/Unequip needs to be clarifed (wording); seems unrealistic.
(Copying my comments from another forum discussion on the same topic)
1) "Known" spellcasters were fine; even easier for beginners. Put a sidebar that says DMs should be lenient in allowing spell change if player unsatisfied with a known choice. But Warlock or Sorcerers as Prepared spellcasters. Hope not!
The only class where I think known is a better fit than prepared is sorcerer. Warlock should be prepared it fits them better.
That and Hunter's Mark is, practically speaking, one of those "must-have" spells, which doesn't sit right with me from a choice perspective.
If you have a spell that most people who play the class feel the need to take, and I suspect that's the case or they wouldn't have made it a feature, then it probably shouldn't be an optional spell to begin with.
Agreed it should never have been a chioce. In this UA it’s not a choice, it’s given to the class. They are addressing the problem. The only real flaw is the no concentration coming online to early.
Still Hunter’s Mark should remain a spell and not a feature. Rangers are half casters and if they come across a creature that is good against casters they should feel that as well.
Rangers should always be measured against paladins. And paladin wouldn't care that much if an enemy would be resistant to magic or anything, because paladin just buffs himself up and breaks faces. Half-casters don't use magic to deal damage, as their magic is only half as effective as the level demands in terms of damage. Half-casters use buffs and go martial.
Rangers should not be measured against Paladins. I use to think that way too and it’s silly. Rangers are suppose to be something extremely different than Paladins. The only real thing they have in common is being half casters. Next you’ll try to compare artificers to paladins. Paladins have their own major short comings. Paladins lack range and mobility (some sub classes cover this). They also don’t do well against creatures with resistance or immunity to radiant damage. You can say those are rare but it’s similarly as rare as immunity to 5th level spells and lower. Rangers were meant to cover the environmental exploration leg of the game, but that leg never really developed in 5e. Still comparing them to Paladins is wrong and you won’t end up with something that feels like a Ranger.
Okay that is like saying you can't compare monks to barbarians because they are two different even though they are both martial classes. So yes comparing ranger to paladin is good choice.
The issue is you chose to ignore the fact that smite is not a spell and you did not justify why? Then you have the artificer main class feature why should it be a spell like the half caster Ranger?
Plus, what is this low movement speed a 5th level paladin can cast summon stead to have a movement speed of 50ft. In addition, what is the difference between a ranger and a paladin that to the magic adapt feat to use hunters mark?
Do you see the issue having your core class feature being a spell. At least in the Worlocks case they have many class abilities to augment Eldrige blast so even when other classes take the spell it is always better when used by a Warlock can't sat the same thing with hunter's mark.
Look they basically made it a cantrip in the expertise play test. Just make it a class feature and give it scaling like third edition and call it a day. I also don't like their design philosophy instead of giving you more options like pick two of three you instead just took away choices leaving the best once and didn't improve anything.
Plus, many Paiden sub classes can change the damage type for the smite so your point with smite being ineffective is still mute and the fact that I can smite an enemy through a Globe of Invulnerability but you can't cast hunter's mark through that spell.
(Copying my comments from another forum discussion on the same topic)
1) "Known" spellcasters were fine; even easier for beginners. Put a sidebar that says DMs should be lenient in allowing spell change if player unsatisfied with a known choice. But Warlock or Sorcerers as Prepared spellcasters? Hope not!
2) College of Lore: missing the "lore" aspect in subclass features ;
3) Don't like the Jump action, at least as currently written. Should be part of Cunning Action if they keep it as an action for rogues or rogue thieves... (Speaking of thieves, their Story Work feature steps on the toes of the Athlete feat and vice versa. I would love my thief to pick up Athlete for Hop Up, but rest of the feat I would already get, so not very appealing.)
4) I also hate grappling as part of Unarmed Strike, especially vs AC rather than Opposed ability check. Don't like the nerf to combining speed too. Don't like the fixed DCs. Don't like the change to Hide action (bring back contests!). Don't like the full HD restore on long rest, but new Exhaustion rules do allow some "weariness" to carry from one day to the other...
5) Hate Guidance as a ranged reaction. The problem was the way the spell was used by name players/DMs, not the spell itself. But if you have to nerf it, 1 minute casting time Touch-range guidance is actually a great idea.
6) Way too much Inspiration granted with natural 1s (playtested it with our group). There should be a hard limit of 1 or 2 per long rest. (I also think Inspiration is a lackluster game mechanic as there are already so many abilities/features/spells in the game that grant advantage)...
7) Influence "action" seems clunky/unrealistic for 6-second combat turns. Also, DCs way too low.
8) Dual Wielding, no bonus action: might be too good at low levels of play. Equip/Unequip needs to be clarifed (wording); seems unrealistic.
Okay the low-level issue with dule wielding we are looking at 2d6 the same damage as a great sword unless you have the feat and monks get an extra 1d4 as a bonus action so I don't see the issue especially since you can't take the feat till level 4, and it is a down grade from 5e no ac bonus and no wielding two long swords.
I like the idea of influence for I want to negotiate in the middle of combat but, I do think it is a bit clunky.
I think the other abilities that grant inspiration are different so they can all stack plus were you really rolling the bad for it to help that much are you sure you don't like it on a one. I mean a 1 is already an instant failure with possible added downside getting a boon sounds nice.
I do why can't we have both options with unarmed strike one for half casters and martials that is a strength or Dex check and the other a benefit for making and unarmed strike. I also have issues with how this take away from monks unarmed strike. Making an unarmed strike in most cases should have disadvantage that is offset by a free grapple or push. I see the issue you have with the fact that you can't get around high ac by grappling or high Dex by grappling.
Now I will quote one of my posts for the two-weapon fighting. I would like some creative criticism if anyone one would please.
"First rule change:
When welding two weapons one that have the light you can make an additional attack with the light weapon in your off had when you take the attack action on your turn. This additional attack does not get the benefits of your damage modifiers. You can draw and stow both weapons at the same time. While wielding two weapons you can add +1 to your Ac. If any weapons have the thrown property, you can through them. The additional attack can be made against any enemy in range and does not need to be the same target as your first attack.
Three feats
Two Weapon fighting
requirement must be proficient with martial weapons
level 1 background feat. You dedication to fighting with two weapons has giving you greater skill then others at using two weapons. You can wield weapons that do not have the light property so long as they do not require to hands (unless they have the versatile property) one of the two weapons that you wield must be light and you can add your bonus damage to your additional attack. You may also make an additional attack whenever you take the extra attack action or attack of opportunity.
Dual Wielder
requirement must be proficient with martial weapons, level 4
+1 to Strength/dex,
You can now us dual wield any two weapons that are not two-handed weapons (unless they have the versatile property). Your additional attacks do not trigger effects of the enemy for being attacked or taking damage. in addition, you gain two fighting tactics guarding blade and blitzing barrage.
Guarding Blade
As a bonus action you can gain choose to lose the benefit of the additional attack to gain an additional +3 to your ac till the start of your next turn and the ability to make a free attack against any enemy that makes an attack agent an ally that is within range of your weapon (only once till your next turn) and When hit or missed by a melee weapon attack from an attacker within 5ft of you, you can use your reaction to immediately make one melee weapon attack against the attacker.
Blitzing Barrage
As a bonus action you gain -1 to AC and the following benefits +2 on all attack made on your turn +2 to attack role for each missed attack, additional attack, or extra attack till your next turn and -1 to crit chance (if you miss three attacks your next attack would crit on a 20-17 if you would usually on crit on a 20). When you crit or deal damage to a single enemy with both of your weapons on your turn you can make another additional attack agents an enemy within range.
Perfected Two Weapon fighting
+1 to strength, dex, or con.
requirement must be proficient with martial weapons, Dual Wielder feat, Two Weapon fighting feat, level 8
If you hit and enemy with both of your weapons you get the one following benefit based on the weapon damage after a failed save of 8 plus your proficiency plus your dex/strength. You can only apply one effect against a single enemy till your next turn. When you use Garding blade you gain additional uses equal to your proficiency when defending your allies and Blitzing Barrage now give all of your additional attacks advantage if they did not already have advantage.
Slashing (make single additional attack combining the damage dice of the two weapons)
Bludgeoning (knock the enemy prone) movement speed is reduced by half regardless of save.
Piercing (make single additional attack) till your next turn all attack and spell save are increased by half of the damage of the additional attack to the target.
any disrupting blow - enemy loses concentration and one of their attacks on their turn if they lack multi attack or extra attack then they cannot take the attack action on their nest turn. "
(Copying my comments from another forum discussion on the same topic)
1) "Known" spellcasters were fine; even easier for beginners. Put a sidebar that says DMs should be lenient in allowing spell change if player unsatisfied with a known choice. But Warlock or Sorcerers as Prepared spellcasters? Hope not!
2) College of Lore: missing the "lore" aspect in subclass features ;
3) Don't like the Jump action, at least as currently written. Should be part of Cunning Action if they keep it as an action for rogues or rogue thieves... (Speaking of thieves, their Story Work feature steps on the toes of the Athlete feat and vice versa. I would love my thief to pick up Athlete for Hop Up, but rest of the feat I would already get, so not very appealing.)
4) I also hate grappling as part of Unarmed Strike, especially vs AC rather than Opposed ability check. Don't like the nerf to combining speed too. Don't like the fixed DCs. Don't like the change to Hide action (bring back contests!). Don't like the full HD restore on long rest, but new Exhaustion rules do allow some "weariness" to carry from one day to the other...
5) Hate Guidance as a ranged reaction. The problem was the way the spell was used by name players/DMs, not the spell itself. But if you have to nerf it, 1 minute casting time Touch-range guidance is actually a great idea.
6) Way too much Inspiration granted with natural 1s (playtested it with our group). There should be a hard limit of 1 or 2 per long rest. (I also think Inspiration is a lackluster game mechanic as there are already so many abilities/features/spells in the game that grant advantage)...
7) Influence "action" seems clunky/unrealistic for 6-second combat turns. Also, DCs way too low.
8) Dual Wielding, no bonus action: might be too good at low levels of play. Equip/Unequip needs to be clarifed (wording); seems unrealistic.
Okay the low-level issue with dule wielding we are looking at 2d6 the same damage as a great sword unless you have the feat and monks get an extra 1d4 as a bonus action so I don't see the issue especially since you can't take the feat till level 4, and it is a down grade from 5e no ac bonus and no wielding two long swords.
I like the idea of influence for I want to negotiate in the middle of combat but, I do think it is a bit clunky.
I think the other abilities that grant inspiration are different so they can all stack plus were you really rolling the bad for it to help that much are you sure you don't like it on a one. I mean a 1 is already an instant failure with possible added downside getting a boon sounds nice.
I do why can't we have both options with unarmed strike one for half casters and martials that is a strength or Dex check and the other a benefit for making and unarmed strike. I also have issues with how this take away from monks unarmed strike. Making an unarmed strike in most cases should have disadvantage that is offset by a free grapple or push. I see the issue you have with the fact that you can't get around high ac by grappling or high Dex by grappling.
Now I will quote one of my posts for the two-weapon fighting. I would like some creative criticism if anyone one would please.
"First rule change:
When welding two weapons one that have the light you can make an additional attack with the light weapon in your off had when you take the attack action on your turn. This additional attack does not get the benefits of your damage modifiers. You can draw and stow both weapons at the same time. While wielding two weapons you can add +1 to your Ac. If any weapons have the thrown property, you can through them. The additional attack can be made against any enemy in range and does not need to be the same target as your first attack.
Three feats
Two Weapon fighting
requirement must be proficient with martial weapons
level 1 background feat. You dedication to fighting with two weapons has giving you greater skill then others at using two weapons. You can wield weapons that do not have the light property so long as they do not require to hands (unless they have the versatile property) one of the two weapons that you wield must be light and you can add your bonus damage to your additional attack. You may also make an additional attack whenever you take the extra attack action or attack of opportunity.
Dual Wielder
requirement must be proficient with martial weapons, level 4
+1 to Strength/dex,
You can now us dual wield any two weapons that are not two-handed weapons (unless they have the versatile property). Your additional attacks do not trigger effects of the enemy for being attacked or taking damage. in addition, you gain two fighting tactics guarding blade and blitzing barrage.
Guarding Blade
As a bonus action you can gain choose to lose the benefit of the additional attack to gain an additional +3 to your ac till the start of your next turn and the ability to make a free attack against any enemy that makes an attack agent an ally that is within range of your weapon (only once till your next turn) and When hit or missed by a melee weapon attack from an attacker within 5ft of you, you can use your reaction to immediately make one melee weapon attack against the attacker.
Blitzing Barrage
As a bonus action you gain -1 to AC and the following benefits +2 on all attack made on your turn +2 to attack role for each missed attack, additional attack, or extra attack till your next turn and -1 to crit chance (if you miss three attacks your next attack would crit on a 20-17 if you would usually on crit on a 20). When you crit or deal damage to a single enemy with both of your weapons on your turn you can make another additional attack agents an enemy within range.
Perfected Two Weapon fighting
+1 to strength, dex, or con.
requirement must be proficient with martial weapons, Dual Wielder feat, Two Weapon fighting feat, level 8
If you hit and enemy with both of your weapons you get the one following benefit based on the weapon damage after a failed save of 8 plus your proficiency plus your dex/strength. You can only apply one effect against a single enemy till your next turn. When you use Garding blade you gain additional uses equal to your proficiency when defending your allies and Blitzing Barrage now give all of your additional attacks advantage if they did not already have advantage.
Slashing (make single additional attack combining the damage dice of the two weapons)
Bludgeoning (knock the enemy prone) movement speed is reduced by half regardless of save.
Piercing (make single additional attack) till your next turn all attack and spell save are increased by half of the damage of the additional attack to the target.
any disrupting blow - enemy loses concentration and one of their attacks on their turn if they lack multi attack or extra attack then they cannot take the attack action on their nest turn. "
Chill.
We dont need MORE feat tax. Two weapon fighting style works just fine. You dont need to gut it and make it worse. Monks can now have access to it at level 1 thanks to being part of the warrior group and it being a first level fighting style feat. Duel wielder feat is the weak one that needs help. Not the rest of the fighting style.
I suggested that instead of having 3 spell lists and modifying them for each spellcaster class, just have each class have its own spell list. Keep the Magic Initiate feat from the other UA as is, and just define the "Divine Spell list" as Paladin and Cleric, etc. All of the problems with the Bard spell list, IMO, come down to squeezing all of the spells in the game into one or more of 3 lists.
I suggested that instead of having 3 spell lists and modifying them for each spellcaster class, just have each class have its own spell list. Keep the Magic Initiate feat from the other UA as is, and just define the "Divine Spell list" as Paladin and Cleric, etc. All of the problems with the Bard spell list, IMO, come down to squeezing all of the spells in the game into one or more of 3 lists.
The issue with this is it doesn't solve the future class problems that the developers want to solve. They want to be able to make new classes and new spells without having to reprint a spell list every time, or without having to make new feats so that people can get access to the new spells from the new class. They are trying to make it easier for themselves to expand design in the future. The issue with the bard spell list is they went to restrictive with it. Making it Enchantment, Illusion, Divination and transmutation from the arcane list as well as Abjuration and necromancy from the primal list would also solve their bard spell list issue instead of using songs of restoration.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You’re right. I was blatantly wrong and it’s even clear how the lack of a save on hunters mark would affect immunity. It wouldn’t affect it at all. The Rakshasa immunity is a feature that states the spell wouldn’t work on them at all. Even if it was regular damage immunity against 6th level or lower spells the additional damage portion wouldn’t work making the spell mostly useless.
Still Hunter’s Mark should remain a spell and not a feature. Rangers are half casters and if they come across a creature that is good against casters they should feel that as well.
what you call an issue with creature design I call an issue with game design. We have a 6th level class feature that is now useless and a bunch of useless spells for the half caster unless they took some utility spells. They have already made a 1st level spell a cantrip and now what is the next rule exception you need to add to fix the issue. Oh immune to spells of 3rd level and bellow except hunter mark and Eldrige blast why?
The damage doesn't even scale well and if you have a second combat encounter within the active timespan of Hunters mark you don't even need to cast it again just change the target one of the new enemies in this new encounter doesn't that seem a bit odd. You don't need to use a spell slot but if you spend a third level spell slot it will last for 8 hours but provide no other benefit. Oh that is if you don't run it an enemy that is invisible and thus you can't mark oh, but we need another exception for invisible stalkers or displacer beasts.
Plus hear is my big issue with it being a spell now every caster can have hunters mark, but you don't see the same thing with sneak attack on rouges. The only difference is that spell casters have to spend a spell slot to us it oh wait no a high enough level wizard can cast it for free to and a sorcerer can twin spell it so they can get the benefit on two targets heck a high enough level warlock can cast the spell and have it last all day with a single spell slot that they will recover with a short rest.
So, what makes hunters mark unique to rangers and why doesn't it benefit anyone other than the hunter themselves? Oh, we need to add that to a subclass. I also have issues with the fact that only hunters mark can be cast for free, but the spray of arrows spell is only allowed to be down cast. Why allow other caster to take the spell if it is supposed to be class specific but if it is supposed to be a core class specific spell why make it a first level spell and not a cantrip oh yah sorcery twin spell hunters mark twin spell can trip. Now Sorcerers are better at using hunters mark then hunter.
Oh, and you can't cast two spells in the same turn so you can't cast true sight and then cast hunters mark in the same turn against an invisible enemy or an enemy that has the benefits of greater invisibility. OfCourse if it wasn't a spell, you could have cast true sight and used hunter mark in the same turn.
Yes, they are half casters I just feel like wizards is half assign it by saying oh hear is this spell rather than hear is a could mystical thing you can do that can still affect enemies that are immune to magic because it is magical only for the sake of doing damage because we have already seen this change made to monsters so they can't be counter spelled but not for the player classes. Plus, there are light bulging weapons that a Rouge can use. You just won't get to add your Dex to them.
I just want don't want monks and rangers to end up being trash classes do to pore game design. Like hunter's mark being a spell and then having to make all these exceptions so this class spell remains relevant throughout the game.
Why should it remain a spell. Yah, they are half casters that means they should get can trips question is smite a spell no, is the artificer's ability to make trinkets a spell no, so why dose hunters mark half to be a spell if the other half casters don't have spells for their core features.
I can even say should bardic inspiration be a spell because bards are full casters? I ask because you said hunters mark should be a spell because Rangers are half casters.
Yes, but if 50 people all said the same thing wizards would notice this their word search a see that they may need to make a change like making it so hunters mark scales and is not a spell!! Smite is not a spell, bardic inspiration is not a spell, wilds shape is not a spell, so why dose hunter's mark need to be a spell bad design.
I would call that intentional game design. It’s not a lot of creatures that have this ability. It’s meant to be an oh crap moment for spellcasters. Rangers being half casters aren’t as affected by it compared to full casters.
Rangers should always be measured against paladins. And paladin wouldn't care that much if an enemy would be resistant to magic or anything, because paladin just buffs himself up and breaks faces. Half-casters don't use magic to deal damage, as their magic is only half as effective as the level demands in terms of damage. Half-casters use buffs and go martial.
Agreed it should never have been a chioce. In this UA it’s not a choice, it’s given to the class. They are addressing the problem. The only real flaw is the no concentration coming online to early.
Rangers should not be measured against Paladins. I use to think that way too and it’s silly. Rangers are suppose to be something extremely different than Paladins. The only real thing they have in common is being half casters. Next you’ll try to compare artificers to paladins. Paladins have their own major short comings. Paladins lack range and mobility (some sub classes cover this). They also don’t do well against creatures with resistance or immunity to radiant damage. You can say those are rare but it’s similarly as rare as immunity to 5th level spells and lower. Rangers were meant to cover the environmental exploration leg of the game, but that leg never really developed in 5e. Still comparing them to Paladins is wrong and you won’t end up with something that feels like a Ranger.
1. Yes being a half caster defines them, but an artificer has a completely different feel than a Paladin, and a Ranger should as well.
2. Paladins are the best burst damage melee combatants in the game. When playing with groups that have minimal combats between long rest Paladins appear to be overwhelmingly strong. In normal groups they are strong, but still suck against flying enemies or in combats were the enemy is mobile. So there is still balance. Rangers sucked because anything they could do you would be better off doing with a fighter or rogue. They have been greatly improved since Tasha’s and this UA. As of right now in this UA their sustained per round damage out paces any Paladin. While divine smite is far superior burst damage hunters mark gives more damage for the spell slot in most situations. Sadly Burst is often more important because of how many people DM. Killing the one enemy quickly is usually the goal for most combats and if it’s the only combat burst damage is king.
3.5e Ranger did cover exploration it’s not imagined and it worked within the game mechanics. The flaw was it was too situational. Favored Terrain essentially gave Rangers expertise in skills while in that terrain. They still had to roll. They still could fail. The flaw was the feature became useless outside of a very specific terrain. It’s easier to give the expertise in Nature and Survival and cover most of what Natural Explorer did with favored terrains. Your bard comparison is wrong because Bards primary stat builds into social pillar. If you build a low charisma Bard you will also have a bad Bard in combat. You can build a low Wisdom Ranger and still be effective in combat. Dex and sometimes Str are a rangers primary combat stat, so the class had features to bolster its ability to the handle the exploration pillar. The Bard doesn’t need much help in the social pillar as high Cha was built into the class, but many bard sub classes do have social pillar features as well. The other problem is over land exploration is the least used pillar. Dungeon exploration is usually better achieved by a wizard with find familiar or arcane eye.
Short version: Don’t compare Rangers to Paladins. They are meant to be their own class with their own feel. WotC has to make travel and exploration a part of the game or that feel doesn’t matter. Or they have to redefine the Ranger. The Hunter’s Lore feature almost does that for the Hunter Ranger. It is now the sub class that can find out enemy strengths and weaknesses. That lives up to Ranger fantasy archetype.
Something can have a different feel but it still can be compared against other items. While some features are totally different, combat and doing damage is universal to them. Does a ranger have more out of combat/damage features than a paladin or are they just different. Is exploration bigger than the social elements a paladin will bring, its healing its buffs. I can compare a rangers mechanics that have a different feel to a paladins as they have a similar mechanical design in both being 1/2 casting martial combatants, the paladin is delivering more in the combat area, are the other features a ranger brings making up for that or are they falling short there as well. Slapping the term expert on ranger does not change the fact they are supposed to be good at fighting, so we just ignore that and not make comparisons. Heck we can compare rangers vs wizards despite almost nothing being similar. How they get there and what the feel is matters a lot less than what they actually deliver in each sphere, and that is what we can compare no matter how few similarities they have. Vs paladin is just one of the easier comparisons due to the similarities in mechanical design. Though I'll point out we have no idea how the paladin will change in 1D&D so any comparisons should be taken with a grain of salt. Heck until we see the spells we have no idea where the ranger is in 1d&d, i suspect more than just guidance and bark skin are getting changed when it comes to spells.
Hmmm now I’m really confused. Please explain how the 5e Ranger overall is worse at fighting than the 5e Paladin overall. Paladins only outclass the 5e Ranger in burst damage. Paladins don’t have viable ranged builds without forfeiting the feature everyone loves about them. Also what a 5e Ranger brings to the environmental pillar is way better than what a 5e Paladin brings to social pillar. Well if you’re in it’s favored terrain it has expertise in any intelligence and wisdom skills. The problem most people have with the Ranger is that the favored terrain thing almost doesn’t matter because most DMs and written adventures don’t include a lot of travel exploration in the game. Since travel exploration doesn’t matter often people would prefer to be archer fighters or Scout Rouges to fulfill their Ranger fantasy. Especially since the two weapon fighting Ranger of older editions was dead because of bonus action tax. This UA has already taken a step toward correcting that. What’s funny is most people who love the Paladin actually loved to multi class the Paladin. Divine smite plus more spell slots is really strong unless you are fighting celestials or those things from Wildemount’s Aeor. As far as 1D&D paladin I can see them playtesting that Divine smite can only be used once per turn. Maybe even only on your turn. I don’t think it’s a necessary change because I’ve watch a Paladin burn through all their spell slots thinking it was the last fight before a long rest. All they got was a short rest and this was before Tasha’s convert a Channel Divinity to get a spell slot back. No smites for them for that whole combat. Any spellcaster can run out of spells, but Paladins run out faster and have cool spells they almost never cast because the potential power of Divine Smite.
1. Artificer is a very strange class in that it doesn't have a core source of damage to rely on, instead the subclesses define whether they're melee combatants or weird pseudo-spellcasters. Still, Battle Smith and Armorer feel pretty close to paladin, with a little more emphasis on utility.
2. It's a tactical thing, taking out one enemy is just better than spreading damage over several enemies, because the former would change the flow of combat and deny the foes one unit. Enemies in 5e don't usually have that much HP.
3. Yes, I agree about the stat issue. Bards are SAD while rangers are MAD. Yet expertise alone buffs rangers' exploration ability beyond the original feature while having flavor as opposed to purely combat features from Tasha's and being universal in case you want a non-wilderness kind of ranger. Frankly, I cannot imagine a feature that would "boost exploration" in a way that is better than expertise, without trivializing exploration altogether. A ranger in the party shouldn't mean an auto-win in survival scenarios.
And frankly, I'm all for redefiinng the ranger into hunter, a broader class that isn't shackled to wilderness and survival. Monster hunter, bounty hunter, witch hunter, etc.
I tend to agree with most of kamchatmonk's points, particularly 1 and 2. On number 3, what mechanically can be done that is useful but doesn't trivialize abilities? It seems to me that there are (at least) three major aspects of traditional Ranger exploration/survival skills that could be dealt with: foraging/resource management, navigation/orienteering, and tracking/sensing enemies.
I suspect that the train has left the station on making foraging for survival a significant part of the game, since it can so easily be bypassed with spells and very few tables seem to find tracking resources to be an important and interesting part of the game. Due to this, I'd guess that this will remain something that will not be dealt with seriously in 1DD.
People getting lost also does not seem to be something that too many people may be interested in, but I've seen some fairly simple systems for this that could be employed that could provide interest from this aspect if tables are interested in it. As with foraging/resource management, some sort of system would have to be defined to be able to provide Rangers with an extra ability to affect this aspect of play.
I think that the most interesting and useful abilities could be added in terms of tracking/sensing certain creature types. I would favor having the abilities tied to entire creature groups (humanoids, beasts, monstrosities, etc.) instead of creatures that are too specific (orcs, goblins, etc.) or limited to only in one certain environment. This could possibly start with one type of creature, which can be added to later on (I guess similar to some Ranger abilities in 5e). I would think that these abilities could be made more useful with an ability to sense the presence of these creatures within a certain radius. Obviously this is similar to the Paladin's Divine Sense, but probably should be always on, have a much larger radius, and maybe provide more specific benefits (perhaps effective blindsight for sensing the specific chosen creature types in a certain radius) at higher levels. I would say that abilities like this can also be enhanced by the "Locate..." spells as well.
Do these seem reasonable? What other aspects of being a Ranger should be covered to provide a tangible benefit to gameplay without creating an automatic win button?
(Copying my comments from another forum discussion on the same topic)
1) "Known" spellcasters were fine; even easier for beginners. Put a sidebar that says DMs should be lenient in allowing spell change if player unsatisfied with a known choice. But Warlock or Sorcerers as Prepared spellcasters? Hope not!
2) College of Lore: missing the "lore" aspect in subclass features ;
3) Don't like the Jump action, at least as currently written. Should be part of Cunning Action if they keep it as an action for rogues or rogue thieves... (Speaking of thieves, their Story Work feature steps on the toes of the Athlete feat and vice versa. I would love my thief to pick up Athlete for Hop Up, but rest of the feat I would already get, so not very appealing.)
4) I also hate grappling as part of Unarmed Strike, especially vs AC rather than Opposed ability check. Don't like the nerf to combining speed too. Don't like the fixed DCs. Don't like the change to Hide action (bring back contests!). Don't like the full HD restore on long rest, but new Exhaustion rules do allow some "weariness" to carry from one day to the other...
5) Hate Guidance as a ranged reaction. The problem was the way the spell was used by name players/DMs, not the spell itself. But if you have to nerf it, 1 minute casting time Touch-range guidance is actually a great idea.
6) Way too much Inspiration granted with natural 1s (playtested it with our group). There should be a hard limit of 1 or 2 per long rest. (I also think Inspiration is a lackluster game mechanic as there are already so many abilities/features/spells in the game that grant advantage)...
7) Influence "action" seems clunky/unrealistic for 6-second combat turns. Also, DCs way too low.
8) Dual Wielding, no bonus action: might be too good at low levels of play. Equip/Unequip needs to be clarifed (wording); seems unrealistic.
My Homebrew: Magic Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | My house rules
Currently playing: Fai'zal - CN Githyanki Rogue (Candlekeep Mysteries, Forgotten Realms) ; Zeena - LN Elf Sorcerer (Dragonlance)
Playing D&D since 1st edition. DMs Guild Author: B.A. Morrier (4-5⭐products! Please check them out.) Twitter: @benmorrier he/him
The only class where I think known is a better fit than prepared is sorcerer. Warlock should be prepared it fits them better.
Okay that is like saying you can't compare monks to barbarians because they are two different even though they are both martial classes. So yes comparing ranger to paladin is good choice.
The issue is you chose to ignore the fact that smite is not a spell and you did not justify why? Then you have the artificer main class feature why should it be a spell like the half caster Ranger?
Plus, what is this low movement speed a 5th level paladin can cast summon stead to have a movement speed of 50ft. In addition, what is the difference between a ranger and a paladin that to the magic adapt feat to use hunters mark?
Do you see the issue having your core class feature being a spell. At least in the Worlocks case they have many class abilities to augment Eldrige blast so even when other classes take the spell it is always better when used by a Warlock can't sat the same thing with hunter's mark.
Look they basically made it a cantrip in the expertise play test. Just make it a class feature and give it scaling like third edition and call it a day. I also don't like their design philosophy instead of giving you more options like pick two of three you instead just took away choices leaving the best once and didn't improve anything.
Plus, many Paiden sub classes can change the damage type for the smite so your point with smite being ineffective is still mute and the fact that I can smite an enemy through a Globe of Invulnerability but you can't cast hunter's mark through that spell.
Okay the low-level issue with dule wielding we are looking at 2d6 the same damage as a great sword unless you have the feat and monks get an extra 1d4 as a bonus action so I don't see the issue especially since you can't take the feat till level 4, and it is a down grade from 5e no ac bonus and no wielding two long swords.
I like the idea of influence for I want to negotiate in the middle of combat but, I do think it is a bit clunky.
I think the other abilities that grant inspiration are different so they can all stack plus were you really rolling the bad for it to help that much are you sure you don't like it on a one. I mean a 1 is already an instant failure with possible added downside getting a boon sounds nice.
I do why can't we have both options with unarmed strike one for half casters and martials that is a strength or Dex check and the other a benefit for making and unarmed strike. I also have issues with how this take away from monks unarmed strike. Making an unarmed strike in most cases should have disadvantage that is offset by a free grapple or push. I see the issue you have with the fact that you can't get around high ac by grappling or high Dex by grappling.
Now I will quote one of my posts for the two-weapon fighting. I would like some creative criticism if anyone one would please.
"First rule change:
When welding two weapons one that have the light you can make an additional attack with the light weapon in your off had when you take the attack action on your turn. This additional attack does not get the benefits of your damage modifiers. You can draw and stow both weapons at the same time. While wielding two weapons you can add +1 to your Ac. If any weapons have the thrown property, you can through them. The additional attack can be made against any enemy in range and does not need to be the same target as your first attack.
Three feats
Two Weapon fighting
requirement must be proficient with martial weapons
level 1 background feat. You dedication to fighting with two weapons has giving you greater skill then others at using two weapons. You can wield weapons that do not have the light property so long as they do not require to hands (unless they have the versatile property) one of the two weapons that you wield must be light and you can add your bonus damage to your additional attack. You may also make an additional attack whenever you take the extra attack action or attack of opportunity.
Dual Wielder
requirement must be proficient with martial weapons, level 4
+1 to Strength/dex,
You can now us dual wield any two weapons that are not two-handed weapons (unless they have the versatile property). Your additional attacks do not trigger effects of the enemy for being attacked or taking damage. in addition, you gain two fighting tactics guarding blade and blitzing barrage.
Guarding Blade
As a bonus action you can gain choose to lose the benefit of the additional attack to gain an additional +3 to your ac till the start of your next turn and the ability to make a free attack against any enemy that makes an attack agent an ally that is within range of your weapon (only once till your next turn) and When hit or missed by a melee weapon attack from an attacker within 5ft of you, you can use your reaction to immediately make one melee weapon attack against the attacker.
Blitzing Barrage
As a bonus action you gain -1 to AC and the following benefits +2 on all attack made on your turn +2 to attack role for each missed attack, additional attack, or extra attack till your next turn and -1 to crit chance (if you miss three attacks your next attack would crit on a 20-17 if you would usually on crit on a 20). When you crit or deal damage to a single enemy with both of your weapons on your turn you can make another additional attack agents an enemy within range.
Perfected Two Weapon fighting
+1 to strength, dex, or con.
requirement must be proficient with martial weapons, Dual Wielder feat, Two Weapon fighting feat, level 8
If you hit and enemy with both of your weapons you get the one following benefit based on the weapon damage after a failed save of 8 plus your proficiency plus your dex/strength. You can only apply one effect against a single enemy till your next turn. When you use Garding blade you gain additional uses equal to your proficiency when defending your allies and Blitzing Barrage now give all of your additional attacks advantage if they did not already have advantage.
Slashing (make single additional attack combining the damage dice of the two weapons)
Bludgeoning (knock the enemy prone) movement speed is reduced by half regardless of save.
Piercing (make single additional attack) till your next turn all attack and spell save are increased by half of the damage of the additional attack to the target.
any disrupting blow - enemy loses concentration and one of their attacks on their turn if they lack multi attack or extra attack then they cannot take the attack action on their nest turn. "
Chill.
We dont need MORE feat tax. Two weapon fighting style works just fine. You dont need to gut it and make it worse. Monks can now have access to it at level 1 thanks to being part of the warrior group and it being a first level fighting style feat. Duel wielder feat is the weak one that needs help. Not the rest of the fighting style.
I suggested that instead of having 3 spell lists and modifying them for each spellcaster class, just have each class have its own spell list. Keep the Magic Initiate feat from the other UA as is, and just define the "Divine Spell list" as Paladin and Cleric, etc. All of the problems with the Bard spell list, IMO, come down to squeezing all of the spells in the game into one or more of 3 lists.
The issue with this is it doesn't solve the future class problems that the developers want to solve. They want to be able to make new classes and new spells without having to reprint a spell list every time, or without having to make new feats so that people can get access to the new spells from the new class. They are trying to make it easier for themselves to expand design in the future. The issue with the bard spell list is they went to restrictive with it. Making it Enchantment, Illusion, Divination and transmutation from the arcane list as well as Abjuration and necromancy from the primal list would also solve their bard spell list issue instead of using songs of restoration.