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.
Divine smite is not a spell because it has zero sustain damage. The weakness of divine smite is that you have to be in melee to use it and it’s only radiant damage.
Rangers don’t get anything actually comparable to Divine smite until 3rd level with their sub class features that add damage. They are all non spells that add damage per round and unlike divine smite these don’t cost spell slots. Hunters mark a favorite for most rangers is spell because it is sustained over multiple rounds. It requires some action to activate and could be too strong if combined with other things. The reason why I said you shouldn’t compare Rangers to Paladins is because they are built differently intentionally. Dex ranges builds are clearly better than Str Melee builds. Paladins don’t have the option of a dex range build. Rangers were designed for a pillar of play that was never really that great, so in redesign the choice is to make that pillar great and meaningful or make the Ranger fulfill a different role. If you just want a Paladin clone then I would suggest they just give rangers another lvl 2 feature something like “Nature’s Smite- when you hit a creature with in 30ft with a weapon attack you can expend a spell slot and deal an additional 1d8 +1d8 per spell lvl damage. The damage type is the same as the weapon damage.” Or give them some other similar feature. HM is a spell. It’s a better spell than hex, divine favor, and zephyr strike, but everything about its design feels like a spell. Why would it be class feature? Are hex and divine favor becoming class features?
The only things that really jumped out at me were:
Bards: move the 14th level subclass of all previous subclasses to level 10, replace level 14 capstone with an epic boon or something.
Rogues: There are enough other changes to things like sentinel or Attacks of Opportunity to not mess with sneak attacking as a reaction.
Influence Rules and Hiding rules, while it's good to have both the player and the DM understand the underlying rules of the game when it comes to how the player can interact with NPCs, the way these rules are written undermine the DMs role. Basically, the player takes an Influence Action, but the DM and ONLY the DM should be calling for any roll of the dice and ONLY if the result is in question. So the Bard trying to convince the king to hand over the kingdom and reaching for the dice doesn't even get to roll if the DM properly sets the DC of the situation as 'impossible', and thus needing no roll regardless of the potential modifiers. It's not whether you CAN hit over a 30, over a 30 is a no-roll situation. Likewise hiding as an expert rogue in a dark alley at night is just something you do, that DC for you is miniscule, far less than what should be rolled. Of course the Clanking paladin isn't quite as adept.
I do think that understanding that impossible means impossible is an important distinction as it does mean that stacking expertise on skills you naturally have high bonuses in becomes less effective than using the ability on skills that don't have a starting +5 bonus due to it being your primary stat. If you can't beat a 30 no matter what, why not take advantage of that and diversify.
The only things that really jumped out at me were:
Bards: move the 14th level subclass of all previous subclasses to level 10, replace level 14 capstone with an epic boon or something.
Rogues: There are enough other changes to things like sentinel or Attacks of Opportunity to not mess with sneak attacking as a reaction.
Influence Rules and Hiding rules, while it's good to have both the player and the DM understand the underlying rules of the game when it comes to how the player can interact with NPCs, the way these rules are written undermine the DMs role. Basically, the player takes an Influence Action, but the DM and ONLY the DM should be calling for any roll of the dice and ONLY if the result is in question. So the Bard trying to convince the king to hand over the kingdom and reaching for the dice doesn't even get to roll if the DM properly sets the DC of the situation as 'impossible', and thus needing no roll regardless of the potential modifiers. It's not whether you CAN hit over a 30, over a 30 is a no-roll situation. Likewise hiding as an expert rogue in a dark alley at night is just something you do, that DC for you is miniscule, far less than what should be rolled. Of course the Clanking paladin isn't quite as adept.
I do think that understanding that impossible means impossible is an important distinction as it does mean that stacking expertise on skills you naturally have high bonuses in becomes less effective than using the ability on skills that don't have a starting +5 bonus due to it being your primary stat. If you can't beat a 30 no matter what, why not take advantage of that and diversify.
DC 30 is "NEARLY impossible" impossible is no roll at all and cannot be done with skills. Just wanted to make that distinction. DC 30 is not the impossible, it is the NEARLY impossible.
Okay just finished the survey. Phew, that was a lot to cover. I'm not going to attempt to rewrite everything here. No one wants to read that anyways. So here are the highlights:
Bard feels the most balanced of the three.
Ranger feels awesome, but a little too strong.
Rogue feels terrible
All classes have their most thematic features pushed way too high in level. I suggested one from each class that they could move down to second level. And I asked them to shift the subclass features to levels 3, 7, 11, and 15 to bring the old class features back earlier. That's my biggest class complaint.
Lore bard is odd focusing on the trash talking so much.
Hunter ranger multiattack is a cool idea but not very useful.
Thief rogue needs all their good abilities back.
Feats are mostly good, but some should be 1st level. I like the changes to the overpowered choices. No opinion on boons because if you ever get to 20th level it doesn't matter anyway.
Hiding rules at terrible.
Jump rules are bad.
Mixed movement speed rules are bad and solve nothing.
Influence needs some work.
Barkskin is good.
Guidance is much improved and doesn't really need the one per character each day limit.
Unified spell lists are fine but we need individual lists as well for ease of play.
I forgot to mention that Dual Wielder is pretty underwhelming. Oh well, I'm sure enough other people complained. People sure love that concept.
I did note that Skulker is so good for Rogues, it's almost the only obvious option. Especially combined with a Drow, or anyone else with the darkness spell. And the Hide rules make it basically mandatory, but then you get that same advantage again as a subclass feature for Thief, which weakens both of them.
Rogue needs a Fighting Style (right now their only real way to dual-wield is Crossbow Expert and that's weird.) Their damage also sucks now before Subtle Strikes comes online at 13.
I like Guidance being a reaction but 1/LR/person is too restrictive.
I prefer getting Inspiration on a 20 rather than a 1 because I like Halflings.
All the subclasses and Epic Boons in the UA sucked.
Conjure Barrage instead of Whirlwind Attack pretty much kills off my melee hunter.
You throw a nonmagical weapon or fire a piece of nonmagical ammunition into the air to create a cone of identical weapons that shoot forward and then disappear. Each creature in a 60-foot cone must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 3d8 damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. The damage type is the same as that of the weapon or ammunition used as a component.
Conjure Barrage instead of Whirlwind Attack pretty much kills off my melee hunter.
You throw a nonmagical weapon or fire a piece of nonmagical ammunition into the air to create a cone of identical weapons that shoot forward and then disappear. Each creature in a 60-foot cone must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 3d8 damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. The damage type is the same as that of the weapon or ammunition used as a component.
Conjure Barrage as a subclass feature at level 10 is pretty sad. I told them that downcasting is interesting, but not really of much value in this situation. How often is anyone going to want to do 1d8 damage at that level?
I guess nothing is stopping you from throwing a dagger to cast it. So you don't really need a bow or anything. And it still affects a lot of targets. But yeah, it's not really the same as Whirlwind Attack. The positioning is different, it uses a spell slot, and the damage is kind of apples and oranges. Maybe it's better than it looks. I haven't tried it. But hopefully this feature gets some revising by the next version.
Conjure Barrage instead of Whirlwind Attack pretty much kills off my melee hunter.
You throw a nonmagical weapon or fire a piece of nonmagical ammunition into the air to create a cone of identical weapons that shoot forward and then disappear. Each creature in a 60-foot cone must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 3d8 damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. The damage type is the same as that of the weapon or ammunition used as a component.
Conjure Barrage as a subclass feature at level 10 is pretty sad. I told them that downcasting is interesting, but not really of much value in this situation. How often is anyone going to want to do 1d8 damage at that level?
I guess nothing is stopping you from throwing a dagger to cast it. So you don't really need a bow or anything. And it still affects a lot of targets. But yeah, it's not really the same as Whirlwind Attack. The positioning is different, it uses a spell slot, and the damage is kind of apples and oranges. Maybe it's better than it looks. I haven't tried it. But hopefully this feature gets some revising by the next version.
This is one of those we don't know their plan problems. For all we know the spell now does 8d6. We can't really review the feature as we don't know for sure what is happening. If its the same spell it just sucks, like really sucks. If the spell is different I still don't think I'd like the design but it might be a solid feature.
Coming back to this problem with the Rogue. Very broken, but I have a suggestion to improve it based on a homebrew subclass I've been working on.
Rogues start with Thieves' Cant, which suggests that all Rogues start out as thieves. I created a subclass that was more Indiana Jones treasure hunter than thief, so this seemed out of place. Finally I decided that the Thieves' Cant needs to go into the Thief subclass and be exchanged for one of the other feats gained at level 3.
I also added two other "roguish" starting feats from which a player may choose at level 1. So now, when creating a character, they have the option of one of these abilities:
Treasure Hunter (add WIS modifier to all investigation rolls where there is treasure to be found).
Well-Read (gain proficiency in an additional number of Knowledge skills (Arcana, Nature, History, Religion, etc), languages, or tools. The number of additional skills gained is equal to the PCs INT modifier).
Second Story Work (as described in the PHB).
What this does is create the opportunity for players to create a Rogue who does not have to be typecast as a criminal or a lone-wolf. Having the ability to spot treasure when searching or having additional knowledge skills that may help with puzzles or disabling traps is going to help the whole party. Even if they opt for the "cat burglar" feat, this still makes them useful for scouting and solving acrobatic problems.
I came up with these rules because I needed a scholarly "Dr. Henry Jones Jr." type NPC who would accompany the party into ruins and help them understand the back story (which would be needed in order for the players to choose a side in the underlying conflict of the campaign). But I really like the idea, so I am presenting it here for others to consider.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
~not a "lazy dungeon master"
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Divine smite is not a spell because it has zero sustain damage. The weakness of divine smite is that you have to be in melee to use it and it’s only radiant damage.
Rangers don’t get anything actually comparable to Divine smite until 3rd level with their sub class features that add damage. They are all non spells that add damage per round and unlike divine smite these don’t cost spell slots. Hunters mark a favorite for most rangers is spell because it is sustained over multiple rounds. It requires some action to activate and could be too strong if combined with other things.
The reason why I said you shouldn’t compare Rangers to Paladins is because they are built differently intentionally. Dex ranges builds are clearly better than Str Melee builds. Paladins don’t have the option of a dex range build. Rangers were designed for a pillar of play that was never really that great, so in redesign the choice is to make that pillar great and meaningful or make the Ranger fulfill a different role. If you just want a Paladin clone then I would suggest they just give rangers another lvl 2 feature something like “Nature’s Smite- when you hit a creature with in 30ft with a weapon attack you can expend a spell slot and deal an additional 1d8 +1d8 per spell lvl damage. The damage type is the same as the weapon damage.” Or give them some other similar feature. HM is a spell. It’s a better spell than hex, divine favor, and zephyr strike, but everything about its design feels like a spell. Why would it be class feature? Are hex and divine favor becoming class features?
The only things that really jumped out at me were:
Bards: move the 14th level subclass of all previous subclasses to level 10, replace level 14 capstone with an epic boon or something.
Rogues: There are enough other changes to things like sentinel or Attacks of Opportunity to not mess with sneak attacking as a reaction.
Influence Rules and Hiding rules, while it's good to have both the player and the DM understand the underlying rules of the game when it comes to how the player can interact with NPCs, the way these rules are written undermine the DMs role. Basically, the player takes an Influence Action, but the DM and ONLY the DM should be calling for any roll of the dice and ONLY if the result is in question. So the Bard trying to convince the king to hand over the kingdom and reaching for the dice doesn't even get to roll if the DM properly sets the DC of the situation as 'impossible', and thus needing no roll regardless of the potential modifiers. It's not whether you CAN hit over a 30, over a 30 is a no-roll situation. Likewise hiding as an expert rogue in a dark alley at night is just something you do, that DC for you is miniscule, far less than what should be rolled. Of course the Clanking paladin isn't quite as adept.
I do think that understanding that impossible means impossible is an important distinction as it does mean that stacking expertise on skills you naturally have high bonuses in becomes less effective than using the ability on skills that don't have a starting +5 bonus due to it being your primary stat. If you can't beat a 30 no matter what, why not take advantage of that and diversify.
DC 30 is "NEARLY impossible" impossible is no roll at all and cannot be done with skills. Just wanted to make that distinction. DC 30 is not the impossible, it is the NEARLY impossible.
Okay just finished the survey. Phew, that was a lot to cover. I'm not going to attempt to rewrite everything here. No one wants to read that anyways. So here are the highlights:
Bard feels the most balanced of the three.
Ranger feels awesome, but a little too strong.
Rogue feels terrible
All classes have their most thematic features pushed way too high in level. I suggested one from each class that they could move down to second level. And I asked them to shift the subclass features to levels 3, 7, 11, and 15 to bring the old class features back earlier. That's my biggest class complaint.
Lore bard is odd focusing on the trash talking so much.
Hunter ranger multiattack is a cool idea but not very useful.
Thief rogue needs all their good abilities back.
Feats are mostly good, but some should be 1st level. I like the changes to the overpowered choices. No opinion on boons because if you ever get to 20th level it doesn't matter anyway.
Hiding rules at terrible.
Jump rules are bad.
Mixed movement speed rules are bad and solve nothing.
Influence needs some work.
Barkskin is good.
Guidance is much improved and doesn't really need the one per character each day limit.
Unified spell lists are fine but we need individual lists as well for ease of play.
I forgot to mention that Dual Wielder is pretty underwhelming. Oh well, I'm sure enough other people complained. People sure love that concept.
I did note that Skulker is so good for Rogues, it's almost the only obvious option. Especially combined with a Drow, or anyone else with the darkness spell. And the Hide rules make it basically mandatory, but then you get that same advantage again as a subclass feature for Thief, which weakens both of them.
Rogues just need more feats geared towards them.
Jump Action needs to die in a fire
Rogue needs a Fighting Style (right now their only real way to dual-wield is Crossbow Expert and that's weird.) Their damage also sucks now before Subtle Strikes comes online at 13.
I like Guidance being a reaction but 1/LR/person is too restrictive.
I prefer getting Inspiration on a 20 rather than a 1 because I like Halflings.
All the subclasses and Epic Boons in the UA sucked.
Those were the big ones I think.
Conjure Barrage instead of Whirlwind Attack pretty much kills off my melee hunter.
You throw a nonmagical weapon or fire a piece of nonmagical ammunition into the air to create a cone of identical weapons that shoot forward and then disappear. Each creature in a 60-foot cone must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 3d8 damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. The damage type is the same as that of the weapon or ammunition used as a component.
Conjure Barrage as a subclass feature at level 10 is pretty sad. I told them that downcasting is interesting, but not really of much value in this situation. How often is anyone going to want to do 1d8 damage at that level?
I guess nothing is stopping you from throwing a dagger to cast it. So you don't really need a bow or anything. And it still affects a lot of targets. But yeah, it's not really the same as Whirlwind Attack. The positioning is different, it uses a spell slot, and the damage is kind of apples and oranges. Maybe it's better than it looks. I haven't tried it. But hopefully this feature gets some revising by the next version.
This is one of those we don't know their plan problems. For all we know the spell now does 8d6. We can't really review the feature as we don't know for sure what is happening. If its the same spell it just sucks, like really sucks. If the spell is different I still don't think I'd like the design but it might be a solid feature.
Coming back to this problem with the Rogue. Very broken, but I have a suggestion to improve it based on a homebrew subclass I've been working on.
Rogues start with Thieves' Cant, which suggests that all Rogues start out as thieves. I created a subclass that was more Indiana Jones treasure hunter than thief, so this seemed out of place. Finally I decided that the Thieves' Cant needs to go into the Thief subclass and be exchanged for one of the other feats gained at level 3.
I also added two other "roguish" starting feats from which a player may choose at level 1. So now, when creating a character, they have the option of one of these abilities:
Treasure Hunter (add WIS modifier to all investigation rolls where there is treasure to be found).
Well-Read (gain proficiency in an additional number of Knowledge skills (Arcana, Nature, History, Religion, etc), languages, or tools. The number of additional skills gained is equal to the PCs INT modifier).
Second Story Work (as described in the PHB).
What this does is create the opportunity for players to create a Rogue who does not have to be typecast as a criminal or a lone-wolf. Having the ability to spot treasure when searching or having additional knowledge skills that may help with puzzles or disabling traps is going to help the whole party. Even if they opt for the "cat burglar" feat, this still makes them useful for scouting and solving acrobatic problems.
I came up with these rules because I needed a scholarly "Dr. Henry Jones Jr." type NPC who would accompany the party into ruins and help them understand the back story (which would be needed in order for the players to choose a side in the underlying conflict of the campaign). But I really like the idea, so I am presenting it here for others to consider.
~not a "lazy dungeon master"