I feel really disappointed by the latest version of Hunter's Mark in One D&D Playtest 6. I appreciate the designers need to make sure that it's not overpowered, so I wanted to put down my suggestion for how I feel it should work (in a way that keeps in mind both balance and empowering Ranger players).
I would make it 1d6 damage but without the new upcasting stuff (2d6 and 3d6 by expending higher level slots seems pointless when Ranger spell slots are already so limited). I would also revert back to having it happen on every hit, not just once a turn. I know this is incredibly powerful and exploitable on certain builds, but I feel it's necessary to in any way keep Hunter's Mark viable and worth using at all. And if you're going to tie a bunch a Ranger class and subclass features specifically into using Hunter's Mark, the spell needs to be a viable pick otherwise you are forced to use a spell and rely on it despite it feeling bad to play.
I would then either get rid of it requiring concentration (although I know they've said that was too powerful in the last playtest) and keep the bonus action to move it to a new target, or alternatively I would get rid of any action or bonus action requirement to move it but keep it as a concentration spell.
I could also see ways of maybe balancing the only once per turn stuff by maybe making the damage 1d6 pus your Wisdom modifier or Proficiency Bonus, possibly even make the number of d6 equal to your Proficiency Bonus (since it's only once per turn and that would scale quite nicely rather than waiting on Ranger's slow spell slot progression).
If it’s going to be 1d6 once per turn and concentration it can at least scale properly with an additional d6 for each spell level above 1st. As of now the 2d6 for 3rd and 4th and 3d6 at 5th is trash and too much of a nerf.
There are only two features that have anything to do with Hunter's Mark. The feature that allows you to cast it and the capstone. I don't really care about the capstone, since nobody really plays that except 20th-level one-shots. Can't say I really like the changes, though.
The requirement to move it with BA is fine. It should have some cost to move the ability, otherwise, it's just a damage boost. Even for Dual-Wielding Rangers, since they can take the Nick weapon mastery, it is still viable. I think the damage reduction is fine. For a 1st level spell, 1d6 once per turn is a good amount that builds over time. The ability to use this without a spell slot as many times as your Wisdom modifier is also good at low levels.
The problem starts when you reach level ~5. Until then, you only had one attack, maybe two with dual-wielding, you had only a few spell slots and they were all 1st level spells anyway. The ability to cast HM for free really helped you. But now, you have more attacks, monsters have more HP and you have more spell slots, as well as more spells, including 2nd-level spells. Holding concentration for 1d6 per turn means your other spell slots will see little to no use, as most of them require concentration. The effectiveness of this damage goes down, however.
So they have a problem. They either: 1. Make HM strong without concentration. That will be overpowered. 2. Make HM strong with concentration. Other spells will never get cast and your spell slots are all unused until you can upcast HM to get it even stronger. Sure, you might lose concentration, but you can easily recast the spell. 3. Make HM weak without concentration. Just a small damage boost which you have to keep moving around. A little annoying, but I think this is the best option. The damage will build up over time if you have long encounters/multiple encounters per adventuring day. 4. Make HM weak with concentration. Obviously, a bad choice, as it will see very little use, only at levels 1-4, or maybe only 1-3. This is what we currently have, as I think at levels 5-8 I have better things to concentrate on than 1d6 per turn, and from levels 9+ if I really want HM I'd rather upcast it. So free castings of 1st level? Never will they see use.
I'd want to keep it as is but remove the concentration. Alternatively, making upcasted HM require no concentration.
And if we're already on the Ranger topic, wtf happened to Zephyr Strike? And why was Gloom Stalker made better than it was already, while Hunter became extremely boring? Also very weak? The Retaliator was improved and is now pretty nice. Other than that, Rogue is infinitely better at doing the exact same things, faster. In fact, that reaction might trigger Sneak Attack which is huge. Take 3 levels in Ranger and then Rogue all the way. You'll get the same features earlier anyway. No seriously, 12 more levels to get what a Rogue gets in 7? And everything competes for reactions, too. At least Beastmaster is pretty cool.
I think the change to Hunter's Mark is definitely more consistent and there were some very broken builds in the last UA due to how it was, I do think it needs more but I don't think it needs more damage. I think it needs more utility, something like instead of the 1st attack roll that hits it, it should be the first time you inflict damage to the target on your turn, so it works with AoE spells like Conjurer barrage and add a bonus action that if the target is hidden or invisible, you can use your bonus action to make it shred light (10 foot) until the start of your next turn.
If it’s going to be 1d6 once per turn and concentration it can at least scale properly with an additional d6 for each spell level above 1st. As of now the 2d6 for 3rd and 4th and 3d6 at 5th is trash and too much of a nerf.
I think that's doing the reverse, it's adding way too much damage to hunter's mark, far too quickly. For a spell that can last up to 24-hours... if it were 1d4s then I think it'd be fine but 1d6 is adding too much in my opinion.
Should work just like Hex for the new Warlock but in a Ranger way. So looking at it (previous to testing) seems correct.
Also, the damage never be again per hit, but per turn based. It's time to finally ban from the game that concept that always is better to have greater number of attacks to add those sticky damages many times.
Lots of elements to Hunter's Mark that we need to look at to come up with my ideal mix:
How it's applied - While I appreciated the Favored Foe option from Tasha's that let you apply it on a hit, I also like the RP aspect of marking your chosen prey before you strike, so I think I'm ok leaving it as a Bonus Action to apply AND move. I would keep that part as-is, but I would allow the Ranger to move it on the same turn they kill someone if they haven't already used their Bonus Action that turn(and I would allow them to do so between their first & second attacks)
Damage Type - They've changed it to be Force damage, instead of just the same damage type as the attack, a change that I think gets overlooked. Later on when you're likely to have magic weapons that's a less impactful change, but it's still worth noting. I'd keep this. Though making it more distinct from the weapon's damage does make me wonder. Have they specified whether Hunter's Mark damage is supposed to crit in this new version?
Damage Amount - I think there's less of an issue of scaling than there is with Hex, since Rangers aren't eventually going to be firing off 4 Eldritch Blast beams doing 1d10+Cha+1d6 over and over. I'd prefer it stay per-hit, but I do think that COULD get a little crazy when upcasting the spell. Also worth noting that the new Beast Master reaches 11th level, the pet's damage bonus has its own per-turn limit separate from the Ranger's(seriously, I love the new Beast Master). While I prefer it being per-hit, I can live with per-turn with the upcasting potential.
Tracking Duration - Honestly, I've never used this aspect of Hunter's Mark with my Ranger, but letting it scale with spell slot level makes sense.
Spell Slot Usage - One of the BEST changes they made for this version of the Ranger was giving them a limited number of free castings per day. That was one of my biggest gripes in the last revision when they made Favored Enemy dependent on a spell when Rangers already have a very limited number of spell slots, especially in early levels. I think Wismod number per Long Rest is ok, I'd also be fine with 1 free casting per Short Rest.
Concentration - THIS is the big hangup for me. Hunter's Mark being a concentration spell causes the same problem Hex does for Warlocks. It blocks usage of so many other good spells available to the class. And it's even more of an issue when you upcast to keep it going for 8 hours or more. I think that's a problem, especially when Hunter's Mark is the focus of the Ranger's core class features. But I also think just removing the Concentration requirement might be going too far. I would allow you to maintain Concentration on both Hunter's Mark AND one other of your prepared Ranger spells(to limit multiclass power-gaming) at the same time, but if you fail a Concentration save you lose both spells. I would do something similar for Warlocks and Hex.
One other thing I would love to see added, some kind of boost to attacks made against your marked target. It could be as simple as a +1(upped to +2 or +3 at the same rate as the damage scaling), or if you want to get fancy I'd say something like "when you deal this Force damage to your marked target, the next attack you make against this target while Hunter's Mark is still active is made with Advantage"
Honestly, I REALLY like this latest revision to the new Ranger. If they can do something about the Hunter's Mark concentration requirement, and give the Ranger back some cantrips(I loved that in the last rev), I think it's ready to go. Hunter's Mark says it procs on an "attack roll", not a "weapon attack", so a magic-focused Ranger hitting people with things like Thorn Whip or Primal Savagery could still make use of Hunter's Mark.
Maybe removing the cantrips is not bad by itself. Now we can get a feat with any character via Backgrounds. So the Ranger starts more martial, and if you want your cantrips back, you can get the feat Magic Initiate, if you prefer instead being more martial, you can get Tough or another fighting style. So you start in the middle then decide your way from there.
I've got a real issue with this Hunter's Mark and Hex. Mainly from the laziness in how they're employed and lack of understanding of the scaling of features. Core features need to be usable consistently and have other (subclass) features tie into them.
Free castings of these spells are good, especially for the limited spell slots of half-casters. At low levels you can justify not using other concentration spells because you don't have many and the damage works out alright. However, as the free castings don't scale, as soon as you start getting more powerful concentration spells, 1d6 per turn stops being worth it. So it becomes a wasted feature, as does the capstone. And no one is ever going to upcast it in its current iteration.
What I want to see is it scale better with attacks (original procs each hit but stays at 1d6) or better yet be persistently viable (no concentration 1d6/turn) and have subclasses tie their effects off it like Hunter and Beast Master do.
In fact, scrap that. Make it distinct from Hex and fit thematically by adding a bonus to the attack rather than damage.
Start with a +2 (or +1d4) and automatically scale at certain points with Ranger progression. Wisdom number of uses per day.
Rangers then aren't the most damage dealing, but the most consistent to hit and proc other. Subclasses can add damage boosts or status effects to hits on Marked targets.
Maybe removing the cantrips is not bad by itself. Now we can get a feat with any character via Backgrounds. So the Ranger starts more martial, and if you want your cantrips back, you can get the feat Magic Initiate, if you prefer instead being more martial, you can get Tough or another fighting style. So you start in the middle then decide your way from there.
I like having many choices in character creation, but do realize this might make things more complicated for new players. The cleric now gets to chose a divine order Protector or Thaumaturge.
Maybe the ranger should have a similar choice, where you chose between taking weapon mastery or cantrips.
It also creates more design space in case they later come up with new ideas. For example adding a additional cleric choice focused on Channel Divinity , where you can Channel Divinity a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus + 1 instead of the normaladvancement.
I just wanted to say to the person who thought that Hunter's Mark wasn't actually a core/important mechanic to the new Ranger, I'd have to say I disagree. I will happily admit that it is nowhere near as fundamental to the class as say Sneak Attack is on the new Rogue (with it spending the dice as a resource) or how most of the Druid's abilities tie back into Wild Shape, it still does feel like it's being set up as a pretty big part of the class.
You are right that it does only show up in the level 2 feature and the capstone, but that's leaving out a lot of context. It's mentioned in a couple of the subclass features too, and if it's something you can just ignore then it's pretty bad to have whole features in subclasses that do nothing if you don't use it. Secondly, a spell that you get to cast for free multiple times a day is clearly going to be attractive to anyone playing a half-caster with limited spell slots. It is certainly intended by the designers as something Rangers will use heavily (and that's not even mentioning the fact that it was made a Ranger-specific spell).
Making it Concentration again just means that Rangers won't be casting anything else. The last version made our playtester actually enjoy playing a Ranger again. He got to think about doing more than just keeping his Mark on and up. Now, not so much.
Hunters mark was one of the few ways to make dual wielding a Build option. (Note I said option) it really rewarded and reinforced trying for that third attack but in turn limited your other spell casting. It then became a build choice. I know so many ranger players that dont even use hunters Mark with the PHB because one type of ranger build is not the same as another type. In stories some rangers have one or two large attacks ... others have a lot. even in the same 'ranger corps' stories can really take advantage of the differences in masters or training based on unique styles but those styles are often tied personally to the character.
So having a mechanic that prefers one style significantly more than another really disrupts a persons individual interpretation of a ranger. so how to make ranger damage stable while rewarding the fantasy or ranger weapons becomes a really complex issue.
I toyed with several ideas in my head but none seem to stick well. I thought for a bit about ignoring concentration on Hunters mark for a number of rounds equal to your ranger level but that might be too complex and end up not fitting a large enough group of desires.
I also toyed with just making hunters mark a 'feature pool' to spend but that seems flawed too.
In the end sticking closer to the original spell design seems the least disruptive to game concepts. I also think a little resource, BA and/or concentration conflict can be good in distinguishing rangers but too much goes over the top.
Hunters mark was one of the few ways to make dual wielding a Build option. (Note I said option) it really rewarded and reinforced trying for that third attack but in turn limited your other spell casting. It then became a build choice. I know so many ranger players that dont even use hunters Mark with the PHB because one type of ranger build is not the same as another type. In stories some rangers have one or two large attacks ... others have a lot. even in the same 'ranger corps' stories can really take advantage of the differences in masters or training based on unique styles but those styles are often tied personally to the character.
So having a mechanic that prefers one style significantly more than another really disrupts a persons individual interpretation of a ranger. so how to make ranger damage stable while rewarding the fantasy or ranger weapons becomes a really complex issue.
I toyed with several ideas in my head but none seem to stick well. I thought for a bit about ignoring concentration on Hunters mark for a number of rounds equal to your ranger level but that might be too complex and end up not fitting a large enough group of desires.
I also toyed with just making hunters mark a 'feature pool' to spend but that seems flawed too.
In the end sticking closer to the original spell design seems the least disruptive to game concepts. I also think a little resource, BA and/or concentration conflict can be good in distinguishing rangers but too much goes over the top.
What if you got one concentration-free casting (per long rest) of Hunter's Mark that lasted for a number of rounds equal to your Proficiency Bonus? That means it only lasts like 2 or 3 rounds early game, which seems fine, and doesn't get out of hand late game (like your example of making it last for number of rounds equal to Ranger level). I think it would be a good way of promoting Hunter's Mark without making it a must-use, and also allowing you to use other concentration spells. And if your specific build really relies on HM, there's nothing stopping you re-casting it after those initial rounds (or just not using the feature and casting it with concentration to begin with so you don't have to re-cast it later).
Hunters mark was one of the few ways to make dual wielding a Build option. (Note I said option) it really rewarded and reinforced trying for that third attack but in turn limited your other spell casting. It then became a build choice. I know so many ranger players that dont even use hunters Mark with the PHB because one type of ranger build is not the same as another type. In stories some rangers have one or two large attacks ... others have a lot. even in the same 'ranger corps' stories can really take advantage of the differences in masters or training based on unique styles but those styles are often tied personally to the character.
So having a mechanic that prefers one style significantly more than another really disrupts a persons individual interpretation of a ranger. so how to make ranger damage stable while rewarding the fantasy or ranger weapons becomes a really complex issue.
I toyed with several ideas in my head but none seem to stick well. I thought for a bit about ignoring concentration on Hunters mark for a number of rounds equal to your ranger level but that might be too complex and end up not fitting a large enough group of desires.
I also toyed with just making hunters mark a 'feature pool' to spend but that seems flawed too.
In the end sticking closer to the original spell design seems the least disruptive to game concepts. I also think a little resource, BA and/or concentration conflict can be good in distinguishing rangers but too much goes over the top.
What if you got one concentration-free casting (per long rest) of Hunter's Mark that lasted for a number of rounds equal to your Proficiency Bonus? That means it only lasts like 2 or 3 rounds early game, which seems fine, and doesn't get out of hand late game (like your example of making it last for number of rounds equal to Ranger level). I think it would be a good way of promoting Hunter's Mark without making it a must-use, and also allowing you to use other concentration spells. And if your specific build really relies on HM, there's nothing stopping you re-casting it after those initial rounds (or just not using the feature and casting it with concentration to begin with so you don't have to re-cast it later).
You definitely don't want it scaling with character level. (So not prof uses)I believe the main complaint was multi-class abuse. Specifically dips making fighters or monks better at HM than a full ranger.
But synergies are still an important part so mc should get some benefits just not be better.
I've got a real issue with this Hunter's Mark and Hex. Mainly from the laziness in how they're employed and lack of understanding of the scaling of features. Core features need to be usable consistently and have other (subclass) features tie into them.
Free castings of these spells are good, especially for the limited spell slots of half-casters. At low levels you can justify not using other concentration spells because you don't have many and the damage works out alright. However, as the free castings don't scale, as soon as you start getting more powerful concentration spells, 1d6 per turn stops being worth it. So it becomes a wasted feature, as does the capstone. And no one is ever going to upcast it in its current iteration.
What I want to see is it scale better with attacks (original procs each hit but stays at 1d6) or better yet be persistently viable (no concentration 1d6/turn) and have subclasses tie their effects off it like Hunter and Beast Master do.
Because I think that those free uses for that kind of features should use the class max level spell slot available (no need to have it not consumed), not consuming it. But attached to the class level spell progression table (just like the new Warlock features), to avoid dips with full-casters taking huge advantage.
Then a 9th level Ranger could use the free usages as level 3 spell slot casting.
Aye, the additional sentence of, "Your free casting of Hunter's Mark is made at the highest level Ranger spell slot you have access to" would go a long way to making this playable.
I still don't like a core feature that monopolises your Concentration on a (half) spellcasting class though. As others have also experienced, my ranger player has loved being able to use spells they otherwise never would have because of Hunter's Mark.
Imagine if paladins' Radiant Strikes required concentration to work. The sheer blasphemy of this thought would make half of WotC dev staff faint. But for rangers, it's just day-to-day reality.
Imagine if paladins' Radiant Strikes required concentration to work. The sheer blasphemy of this thought would make half of WotC dev staff faint. But for rangers, it's just day-to-day reality.
Radiant Strikes is an 11th level feature. I'd be totally fine with Rangers getting an 11th level feature that makes Hunter's Mark not require concentration. The problem is having it require no concentration in Tier 1, and partially in Tier 2 play.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I feel really disappointed by the latest version of Hunter's Mark in One D&D Playtest 6. I appreciate the designers need to make sure that it's not overpowered, so I wanted to put down my suggestion for how I feel it should work (in a way that keeps in mind both balance and empowering Ranger players).
I would make it 1d6 damage but without the new upcasting stuff (2d6 and 3d6 by expending higher level slots seems pointless when Ranger spell slots are already so limited). I would also revert back to having it happen on every hit, not just once a turn. I know this is incredibly powerful and exploitable on certain builds, but I feel it's necessary to in any way keep Hunter's Mark viable and worth using at all. And if you're going to tie a bunch a Ranger class and subclass features specifically into using Hunter's Mark, the spell needs to be a viable pick otherwise you are forced to use a spell and rely on it despite it feeling bad to play.
I would then either get rid of it requiring concentration (although I know they've said that was too powerful in the last playtest) and keep the bonus action to move it to a new target, or alternatively I would get rid of any action or bonus action requirement to move it but keep it as a concentration spell.
I could also see ways of maybe balancing the only once per turn stuff by maybe making the damage 1d6 pus your Wisdom modifier or Proficiency Bonus, possibly even make the number of d6 equal to your Proficiency Bonus (since it's only once per turn and that would scale quite nicely rather than waiting on Ranger's slow spell slot progression).
If it’s going to be 1d6 once per turn and concentration it can at least scale properly with an additional d6 for each spell level above 1st. As of now the 2d6 for 3rd and 4th and 3d6 at 5th is trash and too much of a nerf.
There are only two features that have anything to do with Hunter's Mark. The feature that allows you to cast it and the capstone. I don't really care about the capstone, since nobody really plays that except 20th-level one-shots. Can't say I really like the changes, though.
The requirement to move it with BA is fine. It should have some cost to move the ability, otherwise, it's just a damage boost. Even for Dual-Wielding Rangers, since they can take the Nick weapon mastery, it is still viable. I think the damage reduction is fine. For a 1st level spell, 1d6 once per turn is a good amount that builds over time. The ability to use this without a spell slot as many times as your Wisdom modifier is also good at low levels.
The problem starts when you reach level ~5. Until then, you only had one attack, maybe two with dual-wielding, you had only a few spell slots and they were all 1st level spells anyway. The ability to cast HM for free really helped you. But now, you have more attacks, monsters have more HP and you have more spell slots, as well as more spells, including 2nd-level spells. Holding concentration for 1d6 per turn means your other spell slots will see little to no use, as most of them require concentration. The effectiveness of this damage goes down, however.
So they have a problem. They either:
1. Make HM strong without concentration. That will be overpowered.
2. Make HM strong with concentration. Other spells will never get cast and your spell slots are all unused until you can upcast HM to get it even stronger. Sure, you might lose concentration, but you can easily recast the spell.
3. Make HM weak without concentration. Just a small damage boost which you have to keep moving around. A little annoying, but I think this is the best option. The damage will build up over time if you have long encounters/multiple encounters per adventuring day.
4. Make HM weak with concentration. Obviously, a bad choice, as it will see very little use, only at levels 1-4, or maybe only 1-3. This is what we currently have, as I think at levels 5-8 I have better things to concentrate on than 1d6 per turn, and from levels 9+ if I really want HM I'd rather upcast it. So free castings of 1st level? Never will they see use.
I'd want to keep it as is but remove the concentration. Alternatively, making upcasted HM require no concentration.
And if we're already on the Ranger topic, wtf happened to Zephyr Strike? And why was Gloom Stalker made better than it was already, while Hunter became extremely boring? Also very weak? The Retaliator was improved and is now pretty nice. Other than that, Rogue is infinitely better at doing the exact same things, faster. In fact, that reaction might trigger Sneak Attack which is huge. Take 3 levels in Ranger and then Rogue all the way. You'll get the same features earlier anyway. No seriously, 12 more levels to get what a Rogue gets in 7? And everything competes for reactions, too. At least Beastmaster is pretty cool.
Varielky | Emma
I think the change to Hunter's Mark is definitely more consistent and there were some very broken builds in the last UA due to how it was, I do think it needs more but I don't think it needs more damage. I think it needs more utility, something like instead of the 1st attack roll that hits it, it should be the first time you inflict damage to the target on your turn, so it works with AoE spells like Conjurer barrage and add a bonus action that if the target is hidden or invisible, you can use your bonus action to make it shred light (10 foot) until the start of your next turn.
I think that's doing the reverse, it's adding way too much damage to hunter's mark, far too quickly. For a spell that can last up to 24-hours... if it were 1d4s then I think it'd be fine but 1d6 is adding too much in my opinion.
Should work just like Hex for the new Warlock but in a Ranger way. So looking at it (previous to testing) seems correct.
Also, the damage never be again per hit, but per turn based. It's time to finally ban from the game that concept that always is better to have greater number of attacks to add those sticky damages many times.
Lots of elements to Hunter's Mark that we need to look at to come up with my ideal mix:
How it's applied - While I appreciated the Favored Foe option from Tasha's that let you apply it on a hit, I also like the RP aspect of marking your chosen prey before you strike, so I think I'm ok leaving it as a Bonus Action to apply AND move. I would keep that part as-is, but I would allow the Ranger to move it on the same turn they kill someone if they haven't already used their Bonus Action that turn(and I would allow them to do so between their first & second attacks)
Damage Type - They've changed it to be Force damage, instead of just the same damage type as the attack, a change that I think gets overlooked. Later on when you're likely to have magic weapons that's a less impactful change, but it's still worth noting. I'd keep this. Though making it more distinct from the weapon's damage does make me wonder. Have they specified whether Hunter's Mark damage is supposed to crit in this new version?
Damage Amount - I think there's less of an issue of scaling than there is with Hex, since Rangers aren't eventually going to be firing off 4 Eldritch Blast beams doing 1d10+Cha+1d6 over and over. I'd prefer it stay per-hit, but I do think that COULD get a little crazy when upcasting the spell. Also worth noting that the new Beast Master reaches 11th level, the pet's damage bonus has its own per-turn limit separate from the Ranger's(seriously, I love the new Beast Master). While I prefer it being per-hit, I can live with per-turn with the upcasting potential.
Tracking Duration - Honestly, I've never used this aspect of Hunter's Mark with my Ranger, but letting it scale with spell slot level makes sense.
Spell Slot Usage - One of the BEST changes they made for this version of the Ranger was giving them a limited number of free castings per day. That was one of my biggest gripes in the last revision when they made Favored Enemy dependent on a spell when Rangers already have a very limited number of spell slots, especially in early levels. I think Wismod number per Long Rest is ok, I'd also be fine with 1 free casting per Short Rest.
Concentration - THIS is the big hangup for me. Hunter's Mark being a concentration spell causes the same problem Hex does for Warlocks. It blocks usage of so many other good spells available to the class. And it's even more of an issue when you upcast to keep it going for 8 hours or more. I think that's a problem, especially when Hunter's Mark is the focus of the Ranger's core class features. But I also think just removing the Concentration requirement might be going too far. I would allow you to maintain Concentration on both Hunter's Mark AND one other of your prepared Ranger spells(to limit multiclass power-gaming) at the same time, but if you fail a Concentration save you lose both spells. I would do something similar for Warlocks and Hex.
One other thing I would love to see added, some kind of boost to attacks made against your marked target. It could be as simple as a +1(upped to +2 or +3 at the same rate as the damage scaling), or if you want to get fancy I'd say something like "when you deal this Force damage to your marked target, the next attack you make against this target while Hunter's Mark is still active is made with Advantage"
Honestly, I REALLY like this latest revision to the new Ranger. If they can do something about the Hunter's Mark concentration requirement, and give the Ranger back some cantrips(I loved that in the last rev), I think it's ready to go. Hunter's Mark says it procs on an "attack roll", not a "weapon attack", so a magic-focused Ranger hitting people with things like Thorn Whip or Primal Savagery could still make use of Hunter's Mark.
Maybe removing the cantrips is not bad by itself. Now we can get a feat with any character via Backgrounds. So the Ranger starts more martial, and if you want your cantrips back, you can get the feat Magic Initiate, if you prefer instead being more martial, you can get Tough or another fighting style. So you start in the middle then decide your way from there.
I've got a real issue with this Hunter's Mark and Hex. Mainly from the laziness in how they're employed and lack of understanding of the scaling of features. Core features need to be usable consistently and have other (subclass) features tie into them.
Free castings of these spells are good, especially for the limited spell slots of half-casters. At low levels you can justify not using other concentration spells because you don't have many and the damage works out alright. However, as the free castings don't scale, as soon as you start getting more powerful concentration spells, 1d6 per turn stops being worth it. So it becomes a wasted feature, as does the capstone. And no one is ever going to upcast it in its current iteration.
What I want to see is it scale better with attacks (original procs each hit but stays at 1d6) or better yet be persistently viable (no concentration 1d6/turn) and have subclasses tie their effects off it like Hunter and Beast Master do.
In fact, scrap that. Make it distinct from Hex and fit thematically by adding a bonus to the attack rather than damage.
Start with a +2 (or +1d4) and automatically scale at certain points with Ranger progression. Wisdom number of uses per day.
Rangers then aren't the most damage dealing, but the most consistent to hit and proc other. Subclasses can add damage boosts or status effects to hits on Marked targets.
I like having many choices in character creation, but do realize this might make things more complicated for new players.
The cleric now gets to chose a divine order Protector or Thaumaturge.
Maybe the ranger should have a similar choice, where you chose between taking weapon mastery or cantrips.
It also creates more design space in case they later come up with new ideas.
For example adding a additional cleric choice focused on Channel Divinity , where you can Channel Divinity a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus + 1 instead of the normaladvancement.
I just wanted to say to the person who thought that Hunter's Mark wasn't actually a core/important mechanic to the new Ranger, I'd have to say I disagree. I will happily admit that it is nowhere near as fundamental to the class as say Sneak Attack is on the new Rogue (with it spending the dice as a resource) or how most of the Druid's abilities tie back into Wild Shape, it still does feel like it's being set up as a pretty big part of the class.
You are right that it does only show up in the level 2 feature and the capstone, but that's leaving out a lot of context. It's mentioned in a couple of the subclass features too, and if it's something you can just ignore then it's pretty bad to have whole features in subclasses that do nothing if you don't use it. Secondly, a spell that you get to cast for free multiple times a day is clearly going to be attractive to anyone playing a half-caster with limited spell slots. It is certainly intended by the designers as something Rangers will use heavily (and that's not even mentioning the fact that it was made a Ranger-specific spell).
I said this when they did hex, so saying again. First level spell using concentration isn't bad, it is a cheap slot and shouldn't be as valuable.
My opinion. 1d6 per hit at first level using concentration and then higher level upcasts remove the concentration and increase duration.
Making it Concentration again just means that Rangers won't be casting anything else. The last version made our playtester actually enjoy playing a Ranger again. He got to think about doing more than just keeping his Mark on and up. Now, not so much.
Hunters mark was one of the few ways to make dual wielding a Build option. (Note I said option) it really rewarded and reinforced trying for that third attack but in turn limited your other spell casting. It then became a build choice. I know so many ranger players that dont even use hunters Mark with the PHB because one type of ranger build is not the same as another type. In stories some rangers have one or two large attacks ... others have a lot. even in the same 'ranger corps' stories can really take advantage of the differences in masters or training based on unique styles but those styles are often tied personally to the character.
So having a mechanic that prefers one style significantly more than another really disrupts a persons individual interpretation of a ranger. so how to make ranger damage stable while rewarding the fantasy or ranger weapons becomes a really complex issue.
I toyed with several ideas in my head but none seem to stick well. I thought for a bit about ignoring concentration on Hunters mark for a number of rounds equal to your ranger level but that might be too complex and end up not fitting a large enough group of desires.
I also toyed with just making hunters mark a 'feature pool' to spend but that seems flawed too.
In the end sticking closer to the original spell design seems the least disruptive to game concepts. I also think a little resource, BA and/or concentration conflict can be good in distinguishing rangers but too much goes over the top.
What if you got one concentration-free casting (per long rest) of Hunter's Mark that lasted for a number of rounds equal to your Proficiency Bonus? That means it only lasts like 2 or 3 rounds early game, which seems fine, and doesn't get out of hand late game (like your example of making it last for number of rounds equal to Ranger level). I think it would be a good way of promoting Hunter's Mark without making it a must-use, and also allowing you to use other concentration spells. And if your specific build really relies on HM, there's nothing stopping you re-casting it after those initial rounds (or just not using the feature and casting it with concentration to begin with so you don't have to re-cast it later).
You definitely don't want it scaling with character level. (So not prof uses)I believe the main complaint was multi-class abuse. Specifically dips making fighters or monks better at HM than a full ranger.
But synergies are still an important part so mc should get some benefits just not be better.
Because I think that those free uses for that kind of features should use the class max level spell slot available (no need to have it not consumed), not consuming it. But attached to the class level spell progression table (just like the new Warlock features), to avoid dips with full-casters taking huge advantage.
Then a 9th level Ranger could use the free usages as level 3 spell slot casting.
Aye, the additional sentence of, "Your free casting of Hunter's Mark is made at the highest level Ranger spell slot you have access to" would go a long way to making this playable.
I still don't like a core feature that monopolises your Concentration on a (half) spellcasting class though. As others have also experienced, my ranger player has loved being able to use spells they otherwise never would have because of Hunter's Mark.
Imagine if paladins' Radiant Strikes required concentration to work. The sheer blasphemy of this thought would make half of WotC dev staff faint. But for rangers, it's just day-to-day reality.
Radiant Strikes is an 11th level feature. I'd be totally fine with Rangers getting an 11th level feature that makes Hunter's Mark not require concentration. The problem is having it require no concentration in Tier 1, and partially in Tier 2 play.