But the vast majority of the time, the latter will be the one who gets the better results.
Again what level are we talking about? A level 1 ranger with Expertise in Survival will roll better than a commoner with an appropriate background: 70% of the time, which is less than the probability of getting at least 1 head when you flip two coins. But again, this isn't really the point of the discussion. The point is whether a skill check can do something supernatural or not? The answer is no, because a completely mundane commoner can also do it.
Or are you arguing that skill checks should not be treated equally across classes / characters? Should a barbarian that rolls a 19 Arcana check fail to disarm a magical trap but a wizard that rolls a 19 Arcana check against the same trap should succeed? Should a sorcerer that rolls a 22 Athletics fail to climb a wall, while a fighter that rolled the same should succeed? Should a druid that rolls a 18 performance make a terrible racket, but a bard that rolls the same plays a beautiful song?
Should a PC that rolls a 17 Survival manage to gather food for the party, but an NPC that rolls the same only finds a couple of berries?
If your belief is that the ranger's damage is undertuned due to that choice, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it.
I used to do those calculations, but I have learned such calculations are a waste of time because making those calculations requires a ton of assumptions so nobody ever believes you when you do calculate it, they just nitpick this assumption or that assumption and use those nitpicks to invalidate the entire calculation. So I don't waste my time anymore. List out the assumption you want to make and I'll calculate the DPR for you.
This has been made much much worse with PHB 2024 because of the Weapon Mastery System which has added a lot more assumptions that need to be made in order to calculate DPR - e.g. what's the chance the enemy is Prone because you or someone else in the party use Topple WM? how many rounds can you stack Vex on the same enemy before it dies? how often are there enemies in position such that you could activate Cleave? how much extra damage could be inflicted by Pushing the enemy into an ongoing effect?
When we consider Ranger the problem gets even worse because there are so many different builds possible with Ranger - e.g. are we talking about a Dex-based longbow-using Hunter Ranger with Collossus Slayer? or a Str-based great-weapon wielding Beastmaster Ranger? or a Two-weapon fighting Gloomstalker?
Then there is the assumption of which spell they are concentrating on? e.g. a Strength-based Ranger with PAM and using a Pike can get a maximum of 20 extra damage from combining Push with Spike Growth if the enemies line up perfectly and they hit on every attack. But probably most of the time they'll be lucky to get 5 extra damage that way in a real game.
Literally anything to back up your claim that referencing a spell as a feature makes the game harder to learn or "more convoluted." Any survey result or dev statement will do. The plural of anecdote is not data.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. No survey has ever asked that question so the data does not exist one way or the other - you can no more prove that it isn't a barrier than we can prove it is a barrier. Also why would a dev's opinion be more valid than a player's opinion? Devs (hopefully) know the game inside and out so would be a poor judge of how "easy" or "hard" it is to learn. I mean ask anyone who speaks English as a 1st language how hard it is to learn and you'll get a very different answer compared to anyone who speaks English as a 2nd or 3rd language.
The point is whether a skill check can do something supernatural or not? The answer is no, because a completely mundane commoner can also do it.
Nonsense, why is that the question? The scenarios you, AutumnalArchfey and a couple others brought up related to the previously existing Ranger abilities were things like "find out if a given type of creature is a 1 mile radius" and "learn the weaknesses of a creature." None of those things is inherently supernatural, in fact the latter has been explicitly codified into the Study Action now and therefore can provably be done with a skill check.
If your GM requires a class coupon to do these things, then fine, I can see why class coupons are important to you, but WotC isn't wrong to treat such DMs like the fringe they clearly are.
I used to do those calculations, but I have learned such calculations are a waste of time because making those calculations requires a ton of assumptions so nobody ever believes you when you do calculate it, they just nitpick this assumption or that assumption and use those nitpicks to invalidate the entire calculation. So I don't waste my time anymore. List out the assumption you want to make and I'll calculate the DPR for you.
I'm not the one declaring 2024 Ranger to be inadequate. If you didn't base that on math, surely you based it on something beyond a baseless gut reaction, so what was it?
And yeah, once we have the final text I'll be glad to do my own assumptions and calculations. But the impression I'm getting is that objective math isn't your main concern anyway, its some kind of emotional reaction. That's difficult to argue against from a rational perspective.
You can no more prove that it isn't a barrier than we can prove it is a barrier.
Yes but as above, you're the ones making the positive claim here (that spell-features are a material barrier to adopting the game) so you need to back it up with evidence. That's how a thesis works. You can't simply declare that the moon's core is made of green cheese and then require everyone else to fly up there and prove you wrong.
Yes but as above, you're the ones making the positive claim here (that spell-features are a material barrier to adopting the game)
And yet you are the one making the "positive claim" that the ranger does good damage compared to other classes, so it is you that need to back up that claim with facts & figures. Or we could skip the highschool philosophy, and take a Bayesian perspective.
Yes but as above, you're the ones making the positive claim here (that spell-features are a material barrier to adopting the game)
And yet you are the one making the "positive claim" that the ranger does good damage compared to other classes, so it is you that need to back up that claim with facts & figures. Or we could skip the highschool philosophy, and take a Bayesian perspective.
His assumption is +4d6 per round from Hunter's Mark, which the final version can easily replicate - Nick TWF for 3 attacks, +1 HM attack from the Beast. He's assuming zero, that's right, zero reaction attacks from both himself and the beast. And he's using the playtest version of Beast of the Land, which is actually going to be weaker than the final version according to Crawford. So his final DPR number is actually under what it would be in play, and it's still very good.
And asking that you back up your positive claims with support isn't "high school philosophy" it's basic debate 101.
1) Hunter's Mark by RAW only has a verbal component when it's cast; assigning an existing instance of it that you're already concentrating on to a new target has no components at all. So the whole "sneak up and mark a target unnoticed, then follow it without engaging" scenario is still viable, using the current text of the spell.
Please explain. If you precast Hunter's Mark on one of your allies before going out sneaking so you can silently move it then I'm sorry, that doesn't work either because you have to kill your ally in order to move your Mark. Otherwise you'll have to have engaged in combat relatively recently to whom you are sneaking up on and combat isn't quiet, so good luck sneaking up on someone 5 minutes after your party wizard hucked a Fireball. Current Hunter's Mark is exclusively a combat spell, the utility ribbon attached to it is essentially useless - it's why when given the choice of Hex or Hunter's Mark for Fey Touched, people universally pick Hex.
The warlock way is to cast it on a vermin and kill it. I assume that works for hunters as well. It just seems less thematically appropriate in most cases, though I could see it as some sort of ritual killing for certain rangers. But I'll just say a spell or ability is not balanced because people can create a work around to make it work. It should work well at default.
Seriously? Do your party and DM actually allow that? Cause I certainly wouldn't. In general, random vermin don't count as "creatures" in D&D so would not be viable targets of the spell. If this was not the case the Sleep would be completely useless because all it would do is put to sleep the thousands and thousands of spiders, ants, cockroaches, shrews, mice, etc... and there would be no HP pool left to affect any enemies.
Yes. Because they are as much a creature as a rabbit or deer is. I don't penalize players for using their abilities intelligently. As for your sleep example that is only if you assume they actually have anywhere near a full hit point. And there would not be thousands or even hundreds of them in the area of effect anyways outside some extreme example. And if your world is that dense with life finding a one hit point mouse, rat or bird nearby shouldn't be a problem so its a sparrow instead.
Then it's little wonder Rangers suck at your tables if they are limited to what IRL hunters can do despite having literal magic alongside their skill expertise.
Skill checks are not magic - you get skill proficiencies from racial choice and background which means non-adventurers have skill proficiencies and can make skill checks too.
At a certain point they should be. Players reach a point where they can wade through lava and then beat a 10 ton lizard to death with a stick. Their skills getting supernaturally good should be the norm in tier 3.
2) Casting the spell early and hoping you get into a fight within an hour is wild to me and requires particular DM style to be effective. Also you are heavily dependent on your party to not waste time exploring. But more importantly HM needs a target so how are you casting it early. Flame arrows can be cast early, but again that’s a wild risk in my opinion.
3)I know it’s not RAW, but this whole conversation is based on that hypothetical situation so it’s pointless for you to defend your ineffective build idea by saying well I can’t since it’s not RAW. Let me rephrase my previous post’s statement. “Even if HM did not require concentration the build you presented is not effective at dealing a lot of damage most of the time. It is a trap build that would on occasion deal a lot of damage, but in normal play would waste turns on set up.”
1) Based on what, your houserules? I'm discussing RAW.
2) By hunting a wild animal as mentioned. You know, a thing Rangers would reasonably do while traveling overland. But even if you cast it on the first round of combat, you're losing what, a single d6 worth of damage? And if you're using Nick Mastery when you cast it, not even that?
3) It's a bit rich to label mine ineffective while relying on your own houserules instead, but I'll bite. What other 1st-level spell provides 3d6 damage per round from a single slot?
1) Based on the fact that you have to have a target for HM.
2) So every time you think there is a combat coming you are going to go hunt. Yeah, that doesn’t work. Also I think you are forgetting your own original argument. You were arguing that concentration free HM is somehow overpowered. The flaw is you can’t prove that to be true. You attempted to create a scenario in which it’s true, but that scenario is not common to actual play. Your original argument has you having Flame Arrows and HM up. Which in common play means first round you deal no damage casting FA, second round you spend your BA to HM so you get to deal damage with your action. 3 round you finally can benefit from xbe and do that full juicy damage you promised. Then the fights most likely over. In most cases it was going to end around that time anyway. My point being it’s not near as powerful as you are making it out to be.
3) None, but neither does hunters mark. 3d6 isn’t from hunters mark. So please explain how you came up with those numbers. Also stop claiming that you are talking about RAW, when you are attempting to do things like hunt a deer to have your HM ready for the battle. That requires DM fiat. Clearly we are discussing hypotheticals. RAW states none of this matters because HM is concentration. No need to discuss it, WotC already decided. Your opinions don’t matter and neither do mine.
Literally anything to back up your claim that referencing a spell as a feature makes the game harder to learn or "more convoluted." Any survey result or dev statement will do. The plural of anecdote is not data.
I consider this to be a nonsensical argument, there are many areas where I'd agree that anecdotal evidence is not evidence, how hard people think something is to learn however is an area where data usually turns out to be irrelevant or misleading and opinions (such as anecdotal evidence) matter A LOT. If you were a teacher and you taught everybody via the methods which data predict are the best, but you get one student who says they are struggling, you'd be a terrible teacher to insist they continue trying to learn in that same method instead of seeing if there might be an alternative to help that student out. Ultimately to say, is this too convoluted, you need to ask people and then the people that usually respond aren't going to be the parts of the community that aren't watching every UA, or release and are happier to spend more time to learn all the updates and new material on release day.
Now in regards to survey data, which is a collection of opinions (which can easily be formed FROM anecdotal experience and experience), only WotC have those numbers and we have to rely on them feeding it back, as far as I've seen they never actually commented on the amount of people whom said moving divine smite to a spell was bad vs those that said it was good. Additionally they never even posed the idea that hunter's mark could become a feature instead of a spell, so likely no such numbers exist. Best I could do is create a poll but it seems pointless to do that, we already have seen such a poll for Divine Smite and it showed clearly that visitors to this forum prefer a class feature over a spell:
What are you even on about, "calculations." Calculations of what? DPR, DPR is highly misleading and you know it, On paper there are builds in 5E that can do 1K damage in a single round which has insane DPR but the set-ups to get there often take 3-4 rounds and are highly unreliable.
And this gets on to further in the issues, it's not just about damage, in fact I am relatively sure that via utilizing Divine Favor and Spirit Shroud, a Paladin can keep up a relatively decent DPR but that is not an obvious way of playing the class and it relies on things like always making concentration saving throws and so all that is happening with Ranger and Paladin is an increase in the skill floor, and a misdirection from the class features of how you should in fact play these classes which is then compounded by a reduction in the variety of viable builds for Ranger and Paladin since you literally need to optimize the classes to play them in a viable way for how the game is designed, the calculations you're after aren't going to show ANY of this.
You shouldn't have to spend hours researching a class after reading the book and going through optimizer blogs and websites to make a class playable, that is an utter nonsense way of designing the game. You'll always have optimizers and they will always find things to exploit in any class, heck even in monk which has been in desperate need for some TLC for a while.
Please disassemble that strawman, I never said anything about needing "hours researching / optimizer blogs and websites to make a class playable." Rangers are playable even if you never touch Hunter's Mark and you know that. Hell, a paladin who never smites is "playable."
Damage calculations are important for design whether you like that fact or not. The specific reason Crawford gave for keeping concentration on Hunter's Mark was so that the ranger couldn't also concentrate on other things that also deal damage. It's intentional. If your belief is that the ranger's damage is undertuned due to that choice, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it. Relying solely on vague sentiments and feelings isn't going to cut it, we need math. And until we have that math, you conclusions are premature.
I am not saying you ever said you need hours of researching / optimizer blogs, I am saying that is where this is all leads too. So it's not a strawman, because I'm not saying it is a point you've made, rather it is me making the point of where that (basing everything on optimizers calculations) inevitably leads on too.
I only partially agree on damage calculations, there is way more to class than just this class does X damage, else wise there would be no point in anything but the class that does literally the most damage. As far as ranger solely using hunter's mark, that was definitely undertuned in the latter tiers of play in 2014, rangers use different spells often to help improve damage. Swift Quiver or Elemental Weapon for example. Damage determines how fast the party kills various hostile targets sure, but it is not the only factor required for class balance and for interesting game play. Paladin for example has mediocre DPR due to their relatively low sustained/passive damage but what most players enjoyed was the highlight of the burst damage with smites and one of the big issues with ranger is they are generally just sustained damage that never bursts or has very limited burst options.
Instead ranger's adaptation to combat is things like crowd controls like plant growth or spike vines, it has summon beasts or summon feys, these decrease the direct DPR for Ranger and are much harder to figure out with DPR calculations but extremely powerful options when used correctly. But it also highlights that the 2024 ranger is in great danger of being a jack-of-all trades class where it can do a number of things well but excels at nothing. Spellcasting overlaps a lot with druid and druid just gets more spells, spell slots and rituals. Archery competes with Rogue, Fighter and Monk, melee competes with literally every martial, their skill checks are highly in danger of being overshadowed by a bard or a rogue. Overall, we will need to see where things go on release but it's a danger.
Perhaps I'll get something ready for it closer to the time, if my group decides to try D&D again, I'll look to actually calculate DPRs better than rough numbers based on about as many assumptions as most DPR formulas always are. But based on what I do see, ranger focusing on hunter's mark gets good tier 1 damage, ok tier 2 damage, bad tier 3 damage and recovers a bit for tier 4. As I see it, going into the later parts of tier 2 and most of tier 3, hunter's mark is little more than a fallback for when you aren't looking to cast some better spells, which really begs the question of why tier 4 then suddenly pushes hunter's mark again, there is just no need for this and it breaks the design of the class in that they have done this.
The issues thus with hunter's mark, isn't necessarily DPR, it's a reduction in class flavour as a level 1 feature is now consumed by it and then it's weird focus from class features at level 17 and 20. You don't want a 1st level spell outclassing 5th level spells like that, else why ever cast a 5th level spell? Hunter's mark should remain a 1st level spell and doesn't need anything beyond that. Give ranger some more flavour with those features instead, that just gives ranger more identity than, "I use hunter's mark."
=====
This all said, I think I'll leave this conversation now, it's already taken too much of my time. I am only keeping an eye on 2024 encase anybody else in my current group comes out of hiatus on their campaigns, the game I am running isn't using D&D.
Yes but as above, you're the ones making the positive claim here (that spell-features are a material barrier to adopting the game)
And yet you are the one making the "positive claim" that the ranger does good damage compared to other classes, so it is you that need to back up that claim with facts & figures. Or we could skip the highschool philosophy, and take a Bayesian perspective.
His assumption is +4d6 per round from Hunter's Mark, which the final version can easily replicate - Nick TWF for 3 attacks, +1 HM attack from the Beast. He's assuming zero, that's right, zero reaction attacks from both himself and the beast. And he's using the playtest version of Beast of the Land, which is actually going to be weaker than the final version according to Crawford. So his final DPR number is actually under what it would be in play, and it's still very good.
Except no it isn't. To get 4d6 from Hunter's Mark this must be the second round you are attacking one particular creature and all 4 attacks must hit. Each attack has ~60% chance to hit which means you have 13% chance for all 4 attacks to hit. It also assumes that the enemy doesn't die before you complete all 4 attacks, which is unlikely. If this is the second round of attacks against that creature (since the first round you have to use your BA to mark it) it will probably die on your 2nd or 3rd attack that hits. That's still assuming you even get a 2nd round of attacks on the same creature which IME is only the case for Boss monsters, a majority of enemies die in less than 2 rounds. So in actual play you'll looking at < 7% chance of actually getting 4d6 damage from Hunter's Mark in one round.
Ok, had time to look at the video now, so we're talking about a level 13 melee-character. So our comparators are a level 13 Fighter (Eldritch Knight), a level 13 Barbarian (Beserker), and a level 13 Pact of the Blade Warlock.
As of the UA, the Fighter and Warlock both get 3 attacks with their action, and can use Nick and PAM to get 5 attacks per round. The Warlock can use Spirit Shroud to add 2d8 damage to each attack, while the Fighter is adding 2d8 attack + possibly 3d8 secondary damage using Booming Blade for one of those attacks. The Beserker Barbarian is adding +3 Rage damage to each of 4 attacks, +3d6 Frenzy damage once per turn and the option to forgo advantage to get +1d10 damage to each of the attack. While the Ranger is adding 1d6 to 4 attacks...
Oh I forgot also a level 13 Vengeance Paladin that can also use Nick and PAM to get 4 attacks per round, a 5th attack per round from Haste, and (possibly) have their mount attack (depends what the final Find Steed spell looks like). They add 1d8 to each attack from Radiant Strikes.
Meanwhile level 13 casters can use a Tasha's Summon spell at 4th level to get 2 attacks with no action cost to themselves, and cast a full action spell like Fireball for: 8d6 area damage + 2* (2d6+7) from Summon Fey.
TLDR: Yes ranger DPR went up, but so did the DPR of all other martial characters. So the Ranger - relative to other martial characters - is no further ahead than it is in 2014.
Except no it isn't. To get 4d6 from Hunter's Mark this must be the second round you are attacking one particular creature and all 4 attacks must hit.
Okay, so it's +3d6 on the first round thanks to Nick. Wow such difference!
Also depending on the wording of HM + BM you could actually still get 4 attacks on the first round. Use your BA to cast/assign HM, then Attack action and trade your first attack to command your Beast to charge, knocks enemy prone then attacks again. With your second attack, swing once with main hand and Nick for free offhand attack. 2+1+1 = 4. So hard.
As for the 60% chance to hit, that's without advantage. In addition to the free prone from your beast above, you can also have a familiar to spam Help on their first hit, a Vex weapon, etc.
I consider this to be a nonsensical argument, there are many areas where I'd agree that anecdotal evidence is not evidence, how hard people think something is to learn however is an area where data usually turns out to be irrelevant or misleading and opinions (such as anecdotal evidence) matter A LOT. If you were a teacher and you taught everybody via the methods which data predict are the best, but you get one student who says they are struggling, you'd be a terrible teacher to insist they continue trying to learn in that same method instead of seeing if there might be an alternative to help that student out.
This is a hobby game, not a federally funded public school, "No Child Left Behind" doesn't apply. Some people will inevitably conclude this hobby isn't for them. As long as WotC makes this the most accessible the game has ever been, which they have, they're succeeding. Expecting 100% adoption rate for every rule change is ludicrous.
I am not saying you ever said you need hours of researching / optimizer blogs, I am saying that is where this is all leads too. So it's not a strawman, because I'm not saying it is a point you've made, rather it is me making the point of where that (basing everything on optimizers calculations) inevitably leads on too.
So not a strawman, a Slippery Slope instead. That's not a stronger argument, you're just trading one logical fallacy for another.
Also depending on the wording of HM + BM you could actually still get 4 attacks on the first round. Use your BA to cast/assign HM, then Attack action and trade your first attack to command your Beast to charge, knocks enemy prone then attacks again. With your second attack, swing once with main hand and Nick for free offhand attack. 2+1+1 = 4. So hard.
As for the 60% chance to hit, that's without advantage. In addition to the free prone from your beast above, you can also have a familiar to spam Help on their first hit, a Vex weapon, etc.
Enemies get a save against the Prone so on average they will only be prone 50% of the time - if they don't have another way to avoid it. Even on that 50% prone chance there's still only 84% chance to hit, so only 50% chance to hit with all 4 attacks. So overall a 25% chance at 4d6 from Hunter's Mark.
Edit: actually this is wrong, the probability is even smaller because one of those 4 attacks is the first beast attack that doesn't have Adv from prone.
If we have a familiar then: Beast attack 1: 84% chance to hit + 50% chance to prone = 42% chance prone + 84% chance of HM damage Beast attack 2: if prone then 84% chance to hit, otherwise 60% chance to hit = 76% chance of HM damage, and an additional 30% chance to prone (total prone chance = 72%) Ranger attack 1: if prone then 84% chance to hit, otherwise 60% chance to hit = 77% chance of HM damage & activate Vex Ranger attack 2: if prone then 84% chance to hit, otherwise 60% chance of Vex Adv and 40% chance of straight attack = 81% chance of HM
So average HM damage per round = 11.13 Probability of hitting with all 4 attacks = 0.84*(0.5*0.84 [prone] + 0.5*0.6 [not prone])*(0.75*0.84 [prone] + 0.25*0.6 [not prone])*(0.84 [either prone or have Vex]) = 40%
Ranger doesn't get a familiar as part of their class features so they have to spend their background feat to get one, and in the UA you can't just pop the familiar in/out of existence whenever you please so one AoE spell, ability or trap at any point in the entire adventuring day and you don't have a familiar anymore.
Vex only increases your chance to hit to 80% on average due to the chance of missing even with Adv.
Not to mention that all of the other martial classes I mentioned as comparators can equally use prone (via Topple weapons), or familiar + Vex (warlock can even get an invisible one via Pact of the Chain which they can have at the same time as Pact of the Blade). And several of them have additional ways to get Adv - Barbarian has Reckless, Vengeance Paladin has their Channel Divinity.
So how is Ranger in a better position DPR wise compared to other martial characters in UA/2024 than it is in 2014? All the other martials can make the same number of attacks (or more) and add more damage onto those attacks than Ranger can.
So how is Ranger in a better position DPR wise compared to other martial characters in UA/2024 than it is in 2014?
2014 Ranger doesn't have Nick or Vex. 2014 Ranger doesn't have 2-6 extra HM spell slots. 2014 Ranger doesn't have 5 attacks from Beastmaster, and doesn't have a single decent subclass before Gloomstalker came out.
And that's just combat - we haven't gotten to rituals, or 3x Expertise, or Long Rest spell-swapping, or Origin feats for the other two pillars.
Is it possible that 2024 Fighter and 2024 Barbarian got an even bigger boost and eat its lunch now? It's possible - we haven't seen the final versions yet, and have no DPR comparisons for the latter post-Brutal Strike. But to say 2024 Ranger is worse off than 2014 is just ridiculous on its face.
So how is Ranger in a better position DPR wise compared to other martial characters in UA/2024 than it is in 2014?
2014 Ranger doesn't have Nick or Vex. 2014 Ranger doesn't have 2-6 extra HM spell slots. 2014 Ranger doesn't have 5 attacks from Beastmaster, and doesn't have a single decent subclass before Gloomstalker came out.
Please notice the highlighted text. I agree Ranger 2024 is better in combat than 2014 Ranger, but so are ALL martials - Actually no, I don't agree. Because SS was lost, which was a massive DPR spike for 2014 Ranger. Find me Treantmonk's video of Gloomstalker DPR for current 5e, usually people can get that build into 100s of damage not just 50.
ETA: Ah yes, I found my old calculation spreadsheet. A Subclass-less Ranger with XbowXpert + SS with no extra sources of Adv and no precasting HM with current rules deals 28 DPR. If one added a pre-cast HM and Hunter for 1d8 extra damage from collossus slayer, that's 38 DPR at 13th level, if I add a familiar for Adv on the first attack.... that's 49 DPR basically the same as Treantmonk's melee ranger build for 2024.
The 2024 MM will just increase monster hit points to account for most PCs dealing more damage (though with the loss of GWM / SS I'm not convinced there is much of an increase). More attacks, Nick, and Vex are things that ALL martials get, not just Rangers so in the rat race of "which class is the most powerful?" Ranger has not moved one inch, in fact they have probably moved downwards a slightly because in 2014 ranged weapons were OP and have been nerfed in 2024. In 2024 a STR Ranger will always deal more damage than a DEX Ranger, and a STR-other martial will usually deal more damage than a STR-ranger.
Best Martial Classes by DPR 2014: Fighter / Barbarian Rogue (with access to BB) Paladin Hexblade Warlock Ranger/Rogue Monk
Best Martial Classes by DPR 2024: PoB Warlock Barbarian Fighter (EK) Monk (with Fighter-1 Dip for WM & FS) Fighter (Other) Paladin Ranger (STR) / Monk (Other) - this depends on the final decision w.r.t Stunning Strike Ranger (DEX) Rogue
Has their been a final confirmation that PoB keeps the 3rd attack. I think fairly universally people voted against that in the play test. If it lost the 3rd attack I suspect it wont be top of the charts, or particularly close to it. Which is good, it has a lot of caster in it and does not need to top the DPs charts with a blade./
No, there's no word on the final number of attacks PoB will get in 2024. I hope it goes back to a maximum of 2, and I hope they fixed Conjure Elementals so it's scaling isn't ridiculous for characters with multiple attacks. However, I saw a fair number of people defending 3 attacks for PoB as necessary so that EB+AB doesn't overshadow PoB at high levels, and Treantmonk still believes it is the most powerful class in the game and he does have access to the full 2024 PHB.
No, there's no word on the final number of attacks PoB will get in 2024. I hope it goes back to a maximum of 2, and I hope they fixed Conjure Elementals so it's scaling isn't ridiculous for characters with multiple attacks. However, I saw a fair number of people defending 3 attacks for PoB as necessary so that EB+AB doesn't overshadow PoB at high levels, and Treantmonk still believes it is the most powerful class in the game and he does have access to the full 2024 PHB.
No, he specifically said Wizard is still the most powerful class. All he said about Warlock is they and Bard are approaching the table now. It's the video he recorded with Colby.
No, there's no word on the final number of attacks PoB will get in 2024. I hope it goes back to a maximum of 2, and I hope they fixed Conjure Elementals so it's scaling isn't ridiculous for characters with multiple attacks. However, I saw a fair number of people defending 3 attacks for PoB as necessary so that EB+AB doesn't overshadow PoB at high levels, and Treantmonk still believes it is the most powerful class in the game and he does have access to the full 2024 PHB.
I guess we will see. I am not that impressed with Treantmonk. A lot of his stuff seems extreme white room which never really pans out in play.
No, there's no word on the final number of attacks PoB will get in 2024. I hope it goes back to a maximum of 2, and I hope they fixed Conjure Elementals so it's scaling isn't ridiculous for characters with multiple attacks. However, I saw a fair number of people defending 3 attacks for PoB as necessary so that EB+AB doesn't overshadow PoB at high levels, and Treantmonk still believes it is the most powerful class in the game and he does have access to the full 2024 PHB.
I guess we will see. I am not that impressed with Treantmonk. A lot of his stuff seems extreme white room which never really pans out in play.
Agreed, he's better than Colby these days, but still everything is quite white-room, combat oriented, and individualistic. Which are all my issues with 'build' creators. You'll never see them make Bards or Druids because those classes are support-oriented not selfish DPR oriented yet both are often MVPs of a party.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Again what level are we talking about? A level 1 ranger with Expertise in Survival will roll better than a commoner with an appropriate background: 70% of the time, which is less than the probability of getting at least 1 head when you flip two coins. But again, this isn't really the point of the discussion. The point is whether a skill check can do something supernatural or not? The answer is no, because a completely mundane commoner can also do it.
Or are you arguing that skill checks should not be treated equally across classes / characters? Should a barbarian that rolls a 19 Arcana check fail to disarm a magical trap but a wizard that rolls a 19 Arcana check against the same trap should succeed? Should a sorcerer that rolls a 22 Athletics fail to climb a wall, while a fighter that rolled the same should succeed? Should a druid that rolls a 18 performance make a terrible racket, but a bard that rolls the same plays a beautiful song?
Should a PC that rolls a 17 Survival manage to gather food for the party, but an NPC that rolls the same only finds a couple of berries?
I used to do those calculations, but I have learned such calculations are a waste of time because making those calculations requires a ton of assumptions so nobody ever believes you when you do calculate it, they just nitpick this assumption or that assumption and use those nitpicks to invalidate the entire calculation. So I don't waste my time anymore. List out the assumption you want to make and I'll calculate the DPR for you.
This has been made much much worse with PHB 2024 because of the Weapon Mastery System which has added a lot more assumptions that need to be made in order to calculate DPR - e.g. what's the chance the enemy is Prone because you or someone else in the party use Topple WM? how many rounds can you stack Vex on the same enemy before it dies? how often are there enemies in position such that you could activate Cleave? how much extra damage could be inflicted by Pushing the enemy into an ongoing effect?
When we consider Ranger the problem gets even worse because there are so many different builds possible with Ranger - e.g. are we talking about a Dex-based longbow-using Hunter Ranger with Collossus Slayer? or a Str-based great-weapon wielding Beastmaster Ranger? or a Two-weapon fighting Gloomstalker?
Then there is the assumption of which spell they are concentrating on? e.g. a Strength-based Ranger with PAM and using a Pike can get a maximum of 20 extra damage from combining Push with Spike Growth if the enemies line up perfectly and they hit on every attack. But probably most of the time they'll be lucky to get 5 extra damage that way in a real game.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. No survey has ever asked that question so the data does not exist one way or the other - you can no more prove that it isn't a barrier than we can prove it is a barrier. Also why would a dev's opinion be more valid than a player's opinion? Devs (hopefully) know the game inside and out so would be a poor judge of how "easy" or "hard" it is to learn. I mean ask anyone who speaks English as a 1st language how hard it is to learn and you'll get a very different answer compared to anyone who speaks English as a 2nd or 3rd language.
Nonsense, why is that the question? The scenarios you, AutumnalArchfey and a couple others brought up related to the previously existing Ranger abilities were things like "find out if a given type of creature is a 1 mile radius" and "learn the weaknesses of a creature." None of those things is inherently supernatural, in fact the latter has been explicitly codified into the Study Action now and therefore can provably be done with a skill check.
If your GM requires a class coupon to do these things, then fine, I can see why class coupons are important to you, but WotC isn't wrong to treat such DMs like the fringe they clearly are.
I'm not the one declaring 2024 Ranger to be inadequate. If you didn't base that on math, surely you based it on something beyond a baseless gut reaction, so what was it?
And yeah, once we have the final text I'll be glad to do my own assumptions and calculations. But the impression I'm getting is that objective math isn't your main concern anyway, its some kind of emotional reaction. That's difficult to argue against from a rational perspective.
Yes but as above, you're the ones making the positive claim here (that spell-features are a material barrier to adopting the game) so you need to back it up with evidence. That's how a thesis works. You can't simply declare that the moon's core is made of green cheese and then require everyone else to fly up there and prove you wrong.
And yet you are the one making the "positive claim" that the ranger does good damage compared to other classes, so it is you that need to back up that claim with facts & figures. Or we could skip the highschool philosophy, and take a Bayesian perspective.
Done. Final TLDR result at 55:21. Your turn.
His assumption is +4d6 per round from Hunter's Mark, which the final version can easily replicate - Nick TWF for 3 attacks, +1 HM attack from the Beast. He's assuming zero, that's right, zero reaction attacks from both himself and the beast. And he's using the playtest version of Beast of the Land, which is actually going to be weaker than the final version according to Crawford. So his final DPR number is actually under what it would be in play, and it's still very good.
And asking that you back up your positive claims with support isn't "high school philosophy" it's basic debate 101.
Yes. Because they are as much a creature as a rabbit or deer is. I don't penalize players for using their abilities intelligently. As for your sleep example that is only if you assume they actually have anywhere near a full hit point. And there would not be thousands or even hundreds of them in the area of effect anyways outside some extreme example. And if your world is that dense with life finding a one hit point mouse, rat or bird nearby shouldn't be a problem so its a sparrow instead.
At a certain point they should be. Players reach a point where they can wade through lava and then beat a 10 ton lizard to death with a stick. Their skills getting supernaturally good should be the norm in tier 3.
1) Based on the fact that you have to have a target for HM.
2) So every time you think there is a combat coming you are going to go hunt. Yeah, that doesn’t work. Also I think you are forgetting your own original argument. You were arguing that concentration free HM is somehow overpowered. The flaw is you can’t prove that to be true. You attempted to create a scenario in which it’s true, but that scenario is not common to actual play. Your original argument has you having Flame Arrows and HM up. Which in common play means first round you deal no damage casting FA, second round you spend your BA to HM so you get to deal damage with your action. 3 round you finally can benefit from xbe and do that full juicy damage you promised. Then the fights most likely over. In most cases it was going to end around that time anyway. My point being it’s not near as powerful as you are making it out to be.
3) None, but neither does hunters mark. 3d6 isn’t from hunters mark. So please explain how you came up with those numbers. Also stop claiming that you are talking about RAW, when you are attempting to do things like hunt a deer to have your HM ready for the battle. That requires DM fiat. Clearly we are discussing hypotheticals. RAW states none of this matters because HM is concentration. No need to discuss it, WotC already decided. Your opinions don’t matter and neither do mine.
I consider this to be a nonsensical argument, there are many areas where I'd agree that anecdotal evidence is not evidence, how hard people think something is to learn however is an area where data usually turns out to be irrelevant or misleading and opinions (such as anecdotal evidence) matter A LOT. If you were a teacher and you taught everybody via the methods which data predict are the best, but you get one student who says they are struggling, you'd be a terrible teacher to insist they continue trying to learn in that same method instead of seeing if there might be an alternative to help that student out. Ultimately to say, is this too convoluted, you need to ask people and then the people that usually respond aren't going to be the parts of the community that aren't watching every UA, or release and are happier to spend more time to learn all the updates and new material on release day.
Now in regards to survey data, which is a collection of opinions (which can easily be formed FROM anecdotal experience and experience), only WotC have those numbers and we have to rely on them feeding it back, as far as I've seen they never actually commented on the amount of people whom said moving divine smite to a spell was bad vs those that said it was good. Additionally they never even posed the idea that hunter's mark could become a feature instead of a spell, so likely no such numbers exist. Best I could do is create a poll but it seems pointless to do that, we already have seen such a poll for Divine Smite and it showed clearly that visitors to this forum prefer a class feature over a spell:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/unearthed-arcana/167905-smite-divine-spells-or-paladin-class-feature
I am not saying you ever said you need hours of researching / optimizer blogs, I am saying that is where this is all leads too. So it's not a strawman, because I'm not saying it is a point you've made, rather it is me making the point of where that (basing everything on optimizers calculations) inevitably leads on too.
I only partially agree on damage calculations, there is way more to class than just this class does X damage, else wise there would be no point in anything but the class that does literally the most damage. As far as ranger solely using hunter's mark, that was definitely undertuned in the latter tiers of play in 2014, rangers use different spells often to help improve damage. Swift Quiver or Elemental Weapon for example. Damage determines how fast the party kills various hostile targets sure, but it is not the only factor required for class balance and for interesting game play. Paladin for example has mediocre DPR due to their relatively low sustained/passive damage but what most players enjoyed was the highlight of the burst damage with smites and one of the big issues with ranger is they are generally just sustained damage that never bursts or has very limited burst options.
Instead ranger's adaptation to combat is things like crowd controls like plant growth or spike vines, it has summon beasts or summon feys, these decrease the direct DPR for Ranger and are much harder to figure out with DPR calculations but extremely powerful options when used correctly. But it also highlights that the 2024 ranger is in great danger of being a jack-of-all trades class where it can do a number of things well but excels at nothing. Spellcasting overlaps a lot with druid and druid just gets more spells, spell slots and rituals. Archery competes with Rogue, Fighter and Monk, melee competes with literally every martial, their skill checks are highly in danger of being overshadowed by a bard or a rogue. Overall, we will need to see where things go on release but it's a danger.
Perhaps I'll get something ready for it closer to the time, if my group decides to try D&D again, I'll look to actually calculate DPRs better than rough numbers based on about as many assumptions as most DPR formulas always are. But based on what I do see, ranger focusing on hunter's mark gets good tier 1 damage, ok tier 2 damage, bad tier 3 damage and recovers a bit for tier 4. As I see it, going into the later parts of tier 2 and most of tier 3, hunter's mark is little more than a fallback for when you aren't looking to cast some better spells, which really begs the question of why tier 4 then suddenly pushes hunter's mark again, there is just no need for this and it breaks the design of the class in that they have done this.
The issues thus with hunter's mark, isn't necessarily DPR, it's a reduction in class flavour as a level 1 feature is now consumed by it and then it's weird focus from class features at level 17 and 20. You don't want a 1st level spell outclassing 5th level spells like that, else why ever cast a 5th level spell? Hunter's mark should remain a 1st level spell and doesn't need anything beyond that. Give ranger some more flavour with those features instead, that just gives ranger more identity than, "I use hunter's mark."
=====
This all said, I think I'll leave this conversation now, it's already taken too much of my time. I am only keeping an eye on 2024 encase anybody else in my current group comes out of hiatus on their campaigns, the game I am running isn't using D&D.
Except no it isn't. To get 4d6 from Hunter's Mark this must be the second round you are attacking one particular creature and all 4 attacks must hit. Each attack has ~60% chance to hit which means you have 13% chance for all 4 attacks to hit. It also assumes that the enemy doesn't die before you complete all 4 attacks, which is unlikely. If this is the second round of attacks against that creature (since the first round you have to use your BA to mark it) it will probably die on your 2nd or 3rd attack that hits. That's still assuming you even get a 2nd round of attacks on the same creature which IME is only the case for Boss monsters, a majority of enemies die in less than 2 rounds. So in actual play you'll looking at < 7% chance of actually getting 4d6 damage from Hunter's Mark in one round.
Ok, had time to look at the video now, so we're talking about a level 13 melee-character. So our comparators are a level 13 Fighter (Eldritch Knight), a level 13 Barbarian (Beserker), and a level 13 Pact of the Blade Warlock.
As of the UA, the Fighter and Warlock both get 3 attacks with their action, and can use Nick and PAM to get 5 attacks per round. The Warlock can use Spirit Shroud to add 2d8 damage to each attack, while the Fighter is adding 2d8 attack + possibly 3d8 secondary damage using Booming Blade for one of those attacks. The Beserker Barbarian is adding +3 Rage damage to each of 4 attacks, +3d6 Frenzy damage once per turn and the option to forgo advantage to get +1d10 damage to each of the attack. While the Ranger is adding 1d6 to 4 attacks...
Oh I forgot also a level 13 Vengeance Paladin that can also use Nick and PAM to get 4 attacks per round, a 5th attack per round from Haste, and (possibly) have their mount attack (depends what the final Find Steed spell looks like). They add 1d8 to each attack from Radiant Strikes.
Meanwhile level 13 casters can use a Tasha's Summon spell at 4th level to get 2 attacks with no action cost to themselves, and cast a full action spell like Fireball for: 8d6 area damage + 2* (2d6+7) from Summon Fey.
TLDR: Yes ranger DPR went up, but so did the DPR of all other martial characters. So the Ranger - relative to other martial characters - is no further ahead than it is in 2014.
Okay, so it's +3d6 on the first round thanks to Nick. Wow such difference!
Also depending on the wording of HM + BM you could actually still get 4 attacks on the first round. Use your BA to cast/assign HM, then Attack action and trade your first attack to command your Beast to charge, knocks enemy prone then attacks again. With your second attack, swing once with main hand and Nick for free offhand attack. 2+1+1 = 4. So hard.
As for the 60% chance to hit, that's without advantage. In addition to the free prone from your beast above, you can also have a familiar to spam Help on their first hit, a Vex weapon, etc.
This is a hobby game, not a federally funded public school, "No Child Left Behind" doesn't apply. Some people will inevitably conclude this hobby isn't for them. As long as WotC makes this the most accessible the game has ever been, which they have, they're succeeding. Expecting 100% adoption rate for every rule change is ludicrous.
So not a strawman, a Slippery Slope instead. That's not a stronger argument, you're just trading one logical fallacy for another.
Enemies get a save against the Prone so on average they will only be prone 50% of the time - if they don't have another way to avoid it. Even on that 50% prone chance there's still only 84% chance to hit, so only 50% chance to hit with all 4 attacks. So overall a 25% chance at 4d6 from Hunter's Mark.
Edit: actually this is wrong, the probability is even smaller because one of those 4 attacks is the first beast attack that doesn't have Adv from prone.
If we have a familiar then:
Beast attack 1: 84% chance to hit + 50% chance to prone = 42% chance prone + 84% chance of HM damage
Beast attack 2: if prone then 84% chance to hit, otherwise 60% chance to hit = 76% chance of HM damage, and an additional 30% chance to prone (total prone chance = 72%)
Ranger attack 1: if prone then 84% chance to hit, otherwise 60% chance to hit = 77% chance of HM damage & activate Vex
Ranger attack 2: if prone then 84% chance to hit, otherwise 60% chance of Vex Adv and 40% chance of straight attack = 81% chance of HM
So average HM damage per round = 11.13
Probability of hitting with all 4 attacks = 0.84*(0.5*0.84 [prone] + 0.5*0.6 [not prone])*(0.75*0.84 [prone] + 0.25*0.6 [not prone])*(0.84 [either prone or have Vex]) = 40%
Ranger doesn't get a familiar as part of their class features so they have to spend their background feat to get one, and in the UA you can't just pop the familiar in/out of existence whenever you please so one AoE spell, ability or trap at any point in the entire adventuring day and you don't have a familiar anymore.
Vex only increases your chance to hit to 80% on average due to the chance of missing even with Adv.
Not to mention that all of the other martial classes I mentioned as comparators can equally use prone (via Topple weapons), or familiar + Vex (warlock can even get an invisible one via Pact of the Chain which they can have at the same time as Pact of the Blade). And several of them have additional ways to get Adv - Barbarian has Reckless, Vengeance Paladin has their Channel Divinity.
So how is Ranger in a better position DPR wise compared to other martial characters in UA/2024 than it is in 2014? All the other martials can make the same number of attacks (or more) and add more damage onto those attacks than Ranger can.
2014 Ranger doesn't have Nick or Vex. 2014 Ranger doesn't have 2-6 extra HM spell slots. 2014 Ranger doesn't have 5 attacks from Beastmaster, and doesn't have a single decent subclass before Gloomstalker came out.
And that's just combat - we haven't gotten to rituals, or 3x Expertise, or Long Rest spell-swapping, or Origin feats for the other two pillars.
Is it possible that 2024 Fighter and 2024 Barbarian got an even bigger boost and eat its lunch now? It's possible - we haven't seen the final versions yet, and have no DPR comparisons for the latter post-Brutal Strike. But to say 2024 Ranger is worse off than 2014 is just ridiculous on its face.
Please notice the highlighted text. I agree Ranger 2024 is better in combat than 2014 Ranger, but so are ALL martials - Actually no, I don't agree. Because SS was lost, which was a massive DPR spike for 2014 Ranger. Find me Treantmonk's video of Gloomstalker DPR for current 5e, usually people can get that build into 100s of damage not just 50.
ETA: Ah yes, I found my old calculation spreadsheet. A Subclass-less Ranger with XbowXpert + SS with no extra sources of Adv and no precasting HM with current rules deals 28 DPR. If one added a pre-cast HM and Hunter for 1d8 extra damage from collossus slayer, that's 38 DPR at 13th level, if I add a familiar for Adv on the first attack.... that's 49 DPR basically the same as Treantmonk's melee ranger build for 2024.
The 2024 MM will just increase monster hit points to account for most PCs dealing more damage (though with the loss of GWM / SS I'm not convinced there is much of an increase). More attacks, Nick, and Vex are things that ALL martials get, not just Rangers so in the rat race of "which class is the most powerful?" Ranger has not moved one inch, in fact they have probably moved downwards a slightly because in 2014 ranged weapons were OP and have been nerfed in 2024. In 2024 a STR Ranger will always deal more damage than a DEX Ranger, and a STR-other martial will usually deal more damage than a STR-ranger.
Best Martial Classes by DPR 2014:
Fighter / Barbarian
Rogue (with access to BB)
Paladin
Hexblade Warlock
Ranger/Rogue
Monk
Best Martial Classes by DPR 2024:
PoB Warlock
Barbarian
Fighter (EK)
Monk (with Fighter-1 Dip for WM & FS)
Fighter (Other)
Paladin
Ranger (STR) / Monk (Other) - this depends on the final decision w.r.t Stunning Strike
Ranger (DEX)
Rogue
Has their been a final confirmation that PoB keeps the 3rd attack. I think fairly universally people voted against that in the play test. If it lost the 3rd attack I suspect it wont be top of the charts, or particularly close to it. Which is good, it has a lot of caster in it and does not need to top the DPs charts with a blade./
No, there's no word on the final number of attacks PoB will get in 2024. I hope it goes back to a maximum of 2, and I hope they fixed Conjure Elementals so it's scaling isn't ridiculous for characters with multiple attacks. However, I saw a fair number of people defending 3 attacks for PoB as necessary so that EB+AB doesn't overshadow PoB at high levels, and Treantmonk still believes it is the most powerful class in the game and he does have access to the full 2024 PHB.
No, he specifically said Wizard is still the most powerful class. All he said about Warlock is they and Bard are approaching the table now. It's the video he recorded with Colby.
I guess we will see. I am not that impressed with Treantmonk. A lot of his stuff seems extreme white room which never really pans out in play.
Agreed, he's better than Colby these days, but still everything is quite white-room, combat oriented, and individualistic. Which are all my issues with 'build' creators. You'll never see them make Bards or Druids because those classes are support-oriented not selfish DPR oriented yet both are often MVPs of a party.