I'm not a fan of Hunter's mark as a framework ability but bonus action is only sometimes used. concentration is also good control metric for "super synergies"
The design of Hunter's mark has been fine but using it creates subsequent restrictions. Hence it should be a choice to use it or not. Tasha's favored foe actually removed some of those restrictions but in turn its damage was reduced. Overall favored foe was better designed than the 2024 ranger.
And for context i(as in my personal style) still can get more use out of favored enemy + sometimes hm over either 2024 or Tasha's . We really appear to have been better off with phb + Tasha's as it was the Best satisfaction rate so far.
I really don't understand the logic that we were better off with Favored Foe (concentration, once per round, weak static scaling) than with 2024 Favored Enemy (concentration, every hit, scales with # of attacks, has out of combat uses.) To say nothing of the other things Tasha + 2014 lack like Weapon Mastery, spell preparation, 2 fewer expertises, and rituals.
Favored Foe really had some unique elements. it's timing allowed for concentration swapping. We have lots of threads on how it's better than it first appears.
Expertise is still one of the greatest fallacy of the ranger because getting double prof on [5-9 skills +tools sometimes] maths out better than guessing at the expertise skills you chose. Especially since 2024 you only get one for most of the average campaign length.
The free castings of primeval awareness took alot of the "situational trade" out spells and made preparation amost unnecessary. Not to mention just working with a good faith dm who understands players choice.
Ritual casting is nice but slot resources were rarely the complanits about 2014 or Tasha's. If you need it..... take the ritual caster druid feat and get some spells levels earlier. (Beastsense)
Favored Foe really had some unique elements. it's timing allowed for concentration swapping. We have lots of threads on how it's better than it first appears.
Expertise is still one of the greatest fallacy of the ranger because getting double prof on [5-9 skills +tools sometimes] maths out better than guessing at the expertise skills you chose. Especially since 2024 you only get one for most of the average campaign length.
The free castings of primeval awareness took alot of the "situational trade" out spells and made preparation amost unnecessary. Not to mention just working with a good faith dm who understands players choice.
Ritual casting is nice but slot resources were rarely the complanits about 2014 or Tasha's. If you need it..... take the ritual caster druid feat and get some spells levels earlier. (Beastsense)
Not HAVING to take Ritual Caster, and not needing Primal Awareness because I just have more base preparations to begin with, are advantages you and others keep overlooking. Burning a feat on Ritual Caster instead of literally anything else a Ranger can benefit from is a huge disadvantage.
It's the same as the silly "Druids can just take Skill Expert" argument. Yeah, they can, but they have way better things to be using that feat on - Resilient Con, Fey Touched, Telekinetic, Metamagic Adept, Warcaster etc. Stuff that makes them better at being a druid, rather than trying and failing to be rangers just to prove a point.
And I don't care how easy it is to swap from FF to something else, it's still 1d6 per round in most campaigns. HM easily delivers 3x that minimum.
And I don't care how easy it is to swap from FF to something else, it's still 1d6 per round in most campaigns. HM easily delivers 3x that minimum.
No actually it doesn't. At least not in the current version of D&D.
In current D&D getting Adv on ranged attacks is pretty rare, and often the Ranger will be using Sharpshooter which gives them 50% chance to hit.
If the Ranger makes 2 attacks per round (e.g. using BA for Hunter's Mark) then Hunter's Mark on average adds 0.5*2*3.5 = 3.5 damage, whereas FF adds (1-0.5^2)*3.5 = 2.6 damage. If the Ranger makes 3 attacks per round (e.g. using XbowXpert) then Hunter's Mark on average adds 0.5*3*3.5 = 5.35 damage, whereas FF adds 3.1 damage.
Now if we consider that 1 attack with SS is 8.25 damage (excluding HM/FF), then your enemy has to survive for 4 rounds for HM's extra damage above FF to surpass the loss of that 1 bonus action attack.
In 2024 D&D this changes significantly, since with Vex and Topple the chance of each attack hitting goes way up, meanwhile SS's damage bonus is no more. So in 2024 damage per attack is far far more valuable than it was in 2014, and making more attacks is even more valuable. There's a reason Treantmonk did a melee Ranger for his build under 2024 rules but did ranged builds for all his previous Rangers. I just finished updating my DPR spreadsheet to include WM & nerfed SS/GWM and a two-weapon using Ranger-Beastmaster deals ~10 more damage per round across all levels than a XbowXpert using Ranger-Hunter.
In 2024 D&D this changes significantly, since with Vex and Topple the chance of each attack hitting goes way up, meanwhile SS's damage bonus is no more. So in 2024 damage per attack is far far more valuable than it was in 2014, and making more attacks is even more valuable. There's a reason Treantmonk did a melee Ranger for his build under 2024 rules but did ranged builds for all his previous Rangers. I just finished updating my DPR spreadsheet to include WM & nerfed SS/GWM and a two-weapon using Ranger-Beastmaster deals ~10 more damage per round across all levels than a XbowXpert using Ranger-Hunter.
The reason ranged builds are screwed in 2024 5e is because every melee martial will prioritize spamming Topple, because everyone getting advantage on all attacks until the monster's next turn is the obvious optional strategy in any situation.
Topple (and other added prone-ing effects) double screws them. Next on my list will be PoB vs EB-ing warlock, but I suspect PoB will similarly come out way ahead. From a cursory look from an optimization view point, I suspect we will have melee-martials and spellcasters using saving-throw spells and that's about it.
I always love people who live in a world where there is always 10 minutes to ritual-cast a spell. Yes, the animal you want to speak to totally isn't going to run away before your finish.
(What's that? Druids can innately talk to animals anyway now? Gee, so much for that.)
You know '24 Druids don't just have that ability passively right? They have the spell always prepared, which means if they don't want to burn slots on it, they're ritual-casting it just like everyone else.
As for "the animal is going to run away before you finish" - generally speaking, when you use this you're outdoors. Find another animal. Most biomes have more than one.
Imagine if paladins needed to give up both a bonus action and concentration to smite. Or roogues needed to give up a bonus action to sneak attack?
Its horrible game design that rangers must give up both concentration and use bonus actions to use a basic ability (hunters mark) that the class is built around.
Smite burns a spell slot every time it's used. Hunter's Mark provides a damage increase across multiple hits - against a sturdy enough foe, it might even apply for the entire combat. It needing concentration is justified, especially since other Ranger spells are being confirmed to lose concentration in the 2024 PHB.
That might is the biggest problem with HM. It’s your main feature and it might be great or it might be lost the same round you use it, which means it might not add any damage if you miss your attack. Smite uses a spell slot each time you use it but it does better damage than a single round of HM and activates on a hit. While I hate that smites use your bonus action moving forward, it’s still better than HM. HM shouldn’t be a spell and shouldn’t need concentration. It should be a feature that last 1 hour and just does the ribbon ability of tracking ability. Then add a sentence that reads, “once on your turn when you hit a marked creature with a weapon attack you may expend a spell slot to deal your Wis +1d6 per spell slot level expended force damage.” That way it’s different than smites, but is better than current HM.
That might is the biggest problem with HM. It’s your main feature and it might be great or it might be lost the same round you use it, which means it might not add any damage if you miss your attack. Smite uses a spell slot each time you use it but it does better damage than a single round of HM and activates on a hit. While I hate that smites use your bonus action moving forward, it’s still better than HM. HM shouldn’t be a spell and shouldn’t need concentration. It should be a feature that last 1 hour and just does the ribbon ability of tracking ability. Then add a sentence that reads, “once on your turn when you hit a marked creature with a weapon attack you may expend a spell slot to deal your Wis +1d6 per spell slot level expended force damage.” That way it’s different than smites, but is better than current HM.
You can make that same argument about Hex, Agonizing Blast, Spirit Shroud, Conjure Minor Elementals and many other on-hit damage spells. All a miss chance does is lower their average DPR increase by a percentage, it doesn't negate the benefits entirely (unless your miss chance is 100% on every hit.)
Turning HM into a pseudo-smite is not something I'd be in favor of. The Ranger list has way, way more utility magic than the paladin list, so being more slot-efficient is in their best interests.
That might is the biggest problem with HM. It’s your main feature and it might be great or it might be lost the same round you use it, which means it might not add any damage if you miss your attack. Smite uses a spell slot each time you use it but it does better damage than a single round of HM and activates on a hit. While I hate that smites use your bonus action moving forward, it’s still better than HM. HM shouldn’t be a spell and shouldn’t need concentration. It should be a feature that last 1 hour and just does the ribbon ability of tracking ability. Then add a sentence that reads, “once on your turn when you hit a marked creature with a weapon attack you may expend a spell slot to deal your Wis +1d6 per spell slot level expended force damage.” That way it’s different than smites, but is better than current HM.
You can make that same argument about Hex, Agonizing Blast, Spirit Shroud, Conjure Minor Elementals and many other on-hit damage spells. All a miss chance does is lower their average DPR increase by a percentage, it doesn't negate the benefits entirely (unless your miss chance is 100% on every hit.)
Turning HM into a pseudo-smite is not something I'd be in favor of. The Ranger list has way, way more utility magic than the paladin list, so being more slot-efficient is in their best interests.
Don't you find it weird then that most people given the choice choose smites over sustained damage? Paladin has Divine Favour which works basically the same as Hunter's Mark (but doesn't require the mark to be moved all the time) but have you ever seen a Paladin cast it? (Vengeance Paladin even gets Hunter's Mark but rarely have I seen one use it). Similarly Warlock gets some fantastic sustained damage spells: Hex, Spirit Shroud, Shadow of Moil, but most Hexblades will still take and use Eldritch Smite instead.
Don't you find it weird then that most people given the choice choose smites over sustained damage? Paladin has Divine Favour which works basically the same as Hunter's Mark (but doesn't require the mark to be moved all the time) but have you ever seen a Paladin cast it? (Vengeance Paladin even gets Hunter's Mark but rarely have I seen one use it). Similarly Warlock gets some fantastic sustained damage spells: Hex, Spirit Shroud, Shadow of Moil, but most Hexblades will still take and use Eldritch Smite instead.
I'm not sure where your "most people" usage statistics are coming from, but when I see Divine Favor not picked, it's usually because the paladin is prioritizing defensive buffs like Protection from Evil, Shied of Faith, Heroism etc. When defense isn't needed, I've seen Divine Favor used. And I'm not sure where this false dichotomy between smites or a concentration buff is coming from when paladins and hexblades can do both simultaneously (with vanilla smite anyway in 2014; in 2024, most of them will be concentration-free), though Eldritch Smite doesn't strike me as an especially good use of a Hexblade's very limited pact slots either.
This isn't to say that some kind of smite ability couldn't work on Ranger. But again, I see them as having more utility uses for their slots, and more powerful offensive concentration spells than Paladin gets too, like Summon Beast or Conjure Animals or Spike Growth, so coming up with some nature-themed smite ability for them just isn't needed.
That might is the biggest problem with HM. It’s your main feature and it might be great or it might be lost the same round you use it, which means it might not add any damage if you miss your attack. Smite uses a spell slot each time you use it but it does better damage than a single round of HM and activates on a hit. While I hate that smites use your bonus action moving forward, it’s still better than HM. HM shouldn’t be a spell and shouldn’t need concentration. It should be a feature that last 1 hour and just does the ribbon ability of tracking ability. Then add a sentence that reads, “once on your turn when you hit a marked creature with a weapon attack you may expend a spell slot to deal your Wis +1d6 per spell slot level expended force damage.” That way it’s different than smites, but is better than current HM.
You can make that same argument about Hex, Agonizing Blast, Spirit Shroud, Conjure Minor Elementals and many other on-hit damage spells. All a miss chance does is lower their average DPR increase by a percentage, it doesn't negate the benefits entirely (unless your miss chance is 100% on every hit.)
Turning HM into a pseudo-smite is not something I'd be in favor of. The Ranger list has way, way more utility magic than the paladin list, so being more slot-efficient is in their best interests.
Yes, but they aren’t the main feature of the class. This wasn’t as big of a problem in 2014 when HM was just the best spell for a Ranger in most situations because of how it worked. In 2024 it is a Ranger feature. It’s silly to be slot efficient when all those utility spells are Druid spells. Let the Druid cast them. Also you would be being more slot efficient since you would only use the slot on a hit and it would do more damage. Most of the unique Ranger spells are combat focused and concentration (at least in 2014 and I doubt they removed concentration from those). You know like Ensnaring Strike, Zypher Strike, Hail of Thorns. So in 2024 using your main supported feature means you can’t use any of your unique spells. Divine Smite simply functioned better as a feature. It should have been once a turn in 2014, but now they over corrected that for 2024. WotC did not have to make HM the Rangers main feature. There were other paths to improve the Ranger. Since they chose the HM path they should have done something better with it.
EDIT:
Wait if this is true
This isn't to say that some kind of smite ability couldn't work on Ranger. But again, I see them as having more utility uses for their slots, and more powerful offensive concentration spells than Paladin gets too, like Summon Beast or Conjure Animals or Spike Growth, so coming up with some nature-themed smite ability for them just isn't needed.
The 2024 Ranger having HM as a main feature is really bad since concentration competes with their ability to use summon beast or any of those spells. A 2014 smite like feature would simply be better.
Yes, but they aren’t the main feature of the class. This wasn’t as big of a problem in 2014 when HM was just the best spell for a Ranger in most situations because of how it worked.
HM was never the "best spell" for a 2014 Ranger. Spike Growth, Conjure Animals, Conjure Woodland Beings, and Swift Quiver all outdamaged it, and those were just core. What 2024 is doing is acknowledging that fact by giving you a bunch of free uses, letting you use the harder hitting spells for your toughest fights, and HM as a fallback in the other ones.
It’s silly to be slot efficient when all those utility spells are Druid spells. Let the Druid cast them.
Putting aside that you might not even have a Druid and a Ranger in the same party - even in the cases where you do, redundancy is a good thing because of how opportunity cost and specialization work in this game. Your Ranger dropping their concentration on HM to Pass Without Trace the party, or Locate Object, or chat up a nearby squirrel, means the Druid is free to keep concentrating on something more valuable like Polymorph, or a powerful summon, or Find The Path etc that your ranger either can't do or can't do nearly as well. And even for spells that both of you can do, some of them involve or improve ability checks that the Ranger will be better at because of Expertise, higher Dex, or both.
Most of the unique Ranger spells are combat focused and concentration (at least in 2014 and I doubt they removed concentration from those). You know like Ensnaring Strike, Zypher Strike, Hail of Thorns. So in 2024 using your main supported feature means you can’t use any of your unique spells. Divine Smite simply functioned better as a feature. It should have been once a turn in 2014, but now they over corrected that for 2024. WotC did not have to make HM the Rangers main feature. There were other paths to improve the Ranger. Since they chose the HM path they should have done something better with it.
We don't know which Ranger spells will still have concentration in 2024, but we do know that it was removed from some of them. Let's wait a couple more days before we declare that Rangers are the bottom of the barrel.
But even if every single Ranger concentration spell in 2014 was still one in 2024 I'd still say they were better off, because of the free HM uses. Dropping HM to concentrate on something else is effectively free, or at the very least you'll have enough uses that it will be a viable strategy.
This isn't to say that some kind of smite ability couldn't work on Ranger. But again, I see them as having more utility uses for their slots, and more powerful offensive concentration spells than Paladin gets too, like Summon Beast or Conjure Animals or Spike Growth, so coming up with some nature-themed smite ability for them just isn't needed.
The 2024 Ranger having HM as a main feature is really bad since concentration competes with their ability to use summon beast or any of those spells. A 2014 smite like feature would simply be better.
As above, you can just drop your concentration on HM when those more powerful spells are needed. No muss, no fuss.
As for why no smite, even putting the saminess of that approach aside, giving them both a smite feature and a bunch of summons that paladins don't get is likely a bridge too far.
Its a simple list problem. Ranger share spell list with druid. To be named now the Primal spell-list. Most of the (best) spells on this list are concentration. This is also probably the most concentration heavy list of the 3.
Ranger have access to an heavy concentration spell list. Concentration is an heavy caster thing. They need dedicated concentration free spell, or that list is basically not usable efficiently for them as half casters.
They'ree already basically having that list btw with the new updates. Except for that hunter mark thing that I'm not using cause its 0 fun.
I think we miss reinforcement spell type. Like polyvalent or slightly defensive buff for half caster. Given the limited spell slot and their martiality, this is just ... logical. Above any thing they would make the best use of it. Paladin has some as a defender but they re more supporty than self efficient buff. Also ranger miss some of that.
Having full concentration offensive spell isnt really fitting the survival theme.
Turning HM into a pseudo-smite is not something I'd be in favor of. The Ranger list has way, way more utility magic than the paladin list, so being more slot-efficient is in their best interests.
This sort of raises a new conflict that now exists for 2024 Ranger. If Ranger wants to be slot efficient, then they want to be able to maintain concentration on HM over multiple rounds, but Ranger also really wants to be in melee now so it can take advantage of Prone & Nick, and Ranger's AC is pretty mediocre and they have no proficiency or other bonus to concentration saves. So will they actually be able to maintain concentration on HM? Probably not, at least not until level 13 or whatever when they can't lose concentration from taking damage.
PS Honestly, I kind of wish WotC would eliminate the "lose concentration from taking damage" mechanic, players really don't like it and they keep added features to help players get around it. Obviously they need the concentration mechanic to avoid stacking too many powerful spells at once, but do they still need the damage == lose concentration?
This sort of raises a new conflict that now exists for 2024 Ranger. If Ranger wants to be slot efficient, then they want to be able to maintain concentration on HM over multiple rounds, but Ranger also really wants to be in melee now so it can take advantage of Prone & Nick, and Ranger's AC is pretty mediocre and they have no proficiency or other bonus to concentration saves. So will they actually be able to maintain concentration on HM? Probably not, at least not until level 13 or whatever when they can't lose concentration from taking damage.
PS Honestly, I kind of wish WotC would eliminate the "lose concentration from taking damage" mechanic, players really don't like it and they keep added features to help players get around it. Obviously they need the concentration mechanic to avoid stacking too many powerful spells at once, but do they still need the damage == lose concentration?
I imagine the free uses are meant to offset this risk. If your concentration on HM gets broken, just recast it, it's not like doing so costs you any slots the first several times in a day.
It also creates a risk/reward tactical decision point for the Ranger player. If they feel they can keep their distance and maintain their concentration more easily, then a more powerful concentration spell like Conjure Animals or Swift Quiver might be the way to go. If instead the risk of losing it is higher, stick with HM.
As for concentration checks being tied to incoming damage... that's one of the few limiters casters even have. Removing it would be akin to giving those casters Resilient Con and War Caster essentially for free, except even better. You could argue that Rangers specifically should get such a boost to their concentration due to being half-casters (after all, Paladins and Artificers get boosts built-in too; heck, so do Arcane Tricksters and Eldritch Knights if you count their bonus ASI) and I wouldn't be opposed to that idea. But Rangers are also stronger at, well, range than Paladins and most Artificers too, so you can argue a useful tactic for them if they're in a high damage fight is to flex out of melee.
Yes they need to keep it, you must be able to stop such a spell both as player or a dm. But it should not be constitution based.
Like the hell its "concentration", the least it could be is tied to a mental stat. It would not help with half caster problem because concentration to make low spell slot issue more efficient is not really a solution at all, concentration is for powerfull spell, but at least it would makes sense.
that's one of the few limiters casters even have. Removing it would be akin to giving those casters Resilient Con and War Caster essentially for free, except even better.
See this is my problem with it. Either losing concentration by taking damage is supposed to be a check/balance on the power of casters - in which case it should be really hard to boost your concentration saves (which is not the case) - or it isn't in which case why have it as a mechanic at all?
There are so many buffs to concentration saves, that it seems to me that the designers don't actually intend it to be a check on the power of casters:
- Warlocks have an invocation that gives Adv - UA Warcaster gives you a +1 to your casting stat + Adv (so it doesn't even cost you casting stat progression to get it any more) - Paladins add their Aura of Protection - Bless (1st level spell) buffs it - Resistance (cantrip you can use as a reaction on yourself in the UA) buffs it - BI can buff it - Sorcerers and Artificers get proficiency in it as baseline in their class - Twilight Druids get a WS form that gives them a guaranteed 10 on concentration - Conjuration Wizards get a feature that removes losing concentration from damage for some spells - Rangers get a feature that removes losing concentration from damage for 1 spell - several UA Warlock subclasses get Summon spells that can't have concentration broken - and of course Resilient:Con
That's before you consider the inconsistencies in which spells do / don't require concentration: e.g. Flame Blade(Primal, 2nd level magical weapon) requires concentration, Spiritual weapons does not (or have they confirmed it does now?), Barkskin that raises your AC to 16 and Shield of Faith that gives +2 AC require concentration, Shield that gives a +5 AC does not and Warding Bond that gives +1 AC and damage sharing does not, Compulsion that forces creatures to move in a particular direction requires concentration, Command(at 4th level) can force 4 creatures to move or drop prone or a bunch of other things does not. Protection from Energy requires concentration, Protection from Poison does not. UA Conjure Elemental that summons a fixed-location AoE over time damage area requires concentration, Guardian of Faith and Faithful Hound that summons a fixed-location AoE damage over time are does not. Ray of Enfeeblement that reducing enemy melee attack damage by half is concentration, Blindness that gives an enemy DA on all attacks is not. Blur that gives enemies DA on attacks in concentration, Blink that gives you 50/50 shot at not being a target is not. Morthenkinein's Sword that gives you a BA 3d10 force damage is concentration, Crown of Stars that gives you a BA 4d12 radiant damage is not. Silent Image that gives you a small mobile illusion is concentration, Disguise self that gives you a self-centered mobile illusion is not. Shadow of Moil that gives you 2d8 reflected damage a heavy obscurement is concentration, Fire Shield that gives you 2d8 reflected damage and resistance to a damage type is not.
See this is my problem with it. Either losing concentration by taking damage is supposed to be a check/balance on the power of casters - in which case it should be really hard to boost your concentration saves (which is not the case) - or it isn't in which case why have it as a mechanic at all?
I think part of the problem lies with your definition of "really hard to boost." Two feats isn't cheap in a game where you're lucky to see three in most campaigns. Resilient Con is especially annoying given that it's a half-feat, so to get the most out of it you need to be running at an odd number (13 or 15) up to the point you can take it, or else have a wasteful hanging chad on your character sheet forever after. It's a meaningful cost in other words.
There are so many buffs to concentration saves, that it seems to me that the designers don't actually intend it to be a check on the power of casters:
- Warlocks have an invocation that gives Adv - UA Warcaster gives you a +1 to your casting stat + Adv (so it doesn't even cost you casting stat progression to get it any more) - Paladins add their Aura of Protection - Bless (1st level spell) buffs it - Resistance (cantrip you can use as a reaction on yourself in the UA) buffs it - BI can buff it - Sorcerers and Artificers get proficiency in it as baseline in their class - Twilight Druids get a WS form that gives them a guaranteed 10 on concentration - Conjuration Wizards get a feature that removes losing concentration from damage for some spells - Rangers get a feature that removes losing concentration from damage for 1 spell - several UA Warlock subclasses get Summon spells that can't have concentration broken - and of course Resilient:Con
All of these have material, in some cases substantial, costs associated with taking them though. Your mindset seems to be that as long as it's possible to overcome a flaw then that flaw becomes trivial, without considering what you paid or gave up in order to do so. That's just not how abilities work in this game, every build decision has an opportunity cost.
I think part of the problem lies with your definition of "really hard to boost." Two feats isn't cheap in a game where you're lucky to see three in most campaigns.
Really? In the UA warcaster is a half-feat, so what is my caster character losing out on to take it? A while ago I built a bunch of 5th level characters using the UA rules and posted them on this forum just to try it out and every single one of the casters took Warcaster as the 4th level feat because there wasn't really wasn't any other feat that would be worthwhile for them to take, and they still got their casting stat progression as normal - I know because I got bored of it after build #3 and tried to find something else for them to take.
Yes, but they aren’t the main feature of the class. This wasn’t as big of a problem in 2014 when HM was just the best spell for a Ranger in most situations because of how it worked.
HM was never the "best spell" for a 2014 Ranger. Spike Growth, Conjure Animals, Conjure Woodland Beings, and Swift Quiver all outdamaged it, and those were just core. What 2024 is doing is acknowledging that fact by giving you a bunch of free uses, letting you use the harder hitting spells for your toughest fights, and HM as a fallback in the other ones.
It’s silly to be slot efficient when all those utility spells are Druid spells. Let the Druid cast them.
Putting aside that you might not even have a Druid and a Ranger in the same party - even in the cases where you do, redundancy is a good thing because of how opportunity cost and specialization work in this game. Your Ranger dropping their concentration on HM to Pass Without Trace the party, or Locate Object, or chat up a nearby squirrel, means the Druid is free to keep concentrating on something more valuable like Polymorph, or a powerful summon, or Find The Path etc that your ranger either can't do or can't do nearly as well. And even for spells that both of you can do, some of them involve or improve ability checks that the Ranger will be better at because of Expertise, higher Dex, or both.
Most of the unique Ranger spells are combat focused and concentration (at least in 2014 and I doubt they removed concentration from those). You know like Ensnaring Strike, Zypher Strike, Hail of Thorns. So in 2024 using your main supported feature means you can’t use any of your unique spells. Divine Smite simply functioned better as a feature. It should have been once a turn in 2014, but now they over corrected that for 2024. WotC did not have to make HM the Rangers main feature. There were other paths to improve the Ranger. Since they chose the HM path they should have done something better with it.
We don't know which Ranger spells will still have concentration in 2024, but we do know that it was removed from some of them. Let's wait a couple more days before we declare that Rangers are the bottom of the barrel.
But even if every single Ranger concentration spell in 2014 was still one in 2024 I'd still say they were better off, because of the free HM uses. Dropping HM to concentrate on something else is effectively free, or at the very least you'll have enough uses that it will be a viable strategy.
This isn't to say that some kind of smite ability couldn't work on Ranger. But again, I see them as having more utility uses for their slots, and more powerful offensive concentration spells than Paladin gets too, like Summon Beast or Conjure Animals or Spike Growth, so coming up with some nature-themed smite ability for them just isn't needed.
The 2024 Ranger having HM as a main feature is really bad since concentration competes with their ability to use summon beast or any of those spells. A 2014 smite like feature would simply be better.
As above, you can just drop your concentration on HM when those more powerful spells are needed. No muss, no fuss.
As for why no smite, even putting the saminess of that approach aside, giving them both a smite feature and a bunch of summons that paladins don't get is likely a bridge too far.
2014 HM is definitely the best spell for low level rangers compared to the other 1st level spell options. I’m not sure why you compared it to a bunch of spells of higher level. I also feel like in every post from now on I might need to bring up all the arguments from previous post because you seem to ignore things that were brought up previously.
1. HM is bad because it interferes with casting all the other concentration spells on your spell list, some of which are unique Ranger spells.
2. If HM is suppose to be the Rangers main unique feature it brings nothing special for class in any pillar of play. It actually becomes less useful in the combat pillar as you get better spells.
3. The Ranger doesn’t get to be special in a party with a Druid. Where as a Paladin still feels unique next to a Cleric.
4. A free casting of HM can’t be dropped no fuss. That free casting wasn’t free in regards to game design. It cost you a first level feature. It could have been something useful to your gameplay. Also they went as far as to tie 3 features to HM, 2 of which are well beyond HM useful stage with neither really making HM better than some of the other spell options.
5. 2024 Rangers are better than 2014 Rangers without a doubt, but they are really a just equal to or slightly worse than Tasha’s Ranger. With every class getting a better Rangers are at the bottom of the barrel or very close to it. 2024 Rangers don’t have anything special going for them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Favored Foe really had some unique elements. it's timing allowed for concentration swapping. We have lots of threads on how it's better than it first appears.
Expertise is still one of the greatest fallacy of the ranger because getting double prof on [5-9 skills +tools sometimes] maths out better than guessing at the expertise skills you chose. Especially since 2024 you only get one for most of the average campaign length.
The free castings of primeval awareness took alot of the "situational trade" out spells and made preparation amost unnecessary. Not to mention just working with a good faith dm who understands players choice.
Ritual casting is nice but slot resources were rarely the complanits about 2014 or Tasha's. If you need it..... take the ritual caster druid feat and get some spells levels earlier. (Beastsense)
Not HAVING to take Ritual Caster, and not needing Primal Awareness because I just have more base preparations to begin with, are advantages you and others keep overlooking. Burning a feat on Ritual Caster instead of literally anything else a Ranger can benefit from is a huge disadvantage.
It's the same as the silly "Druids can just take Skill Expert" argument. Yeah, they can, but they have way better things to be using that feat on - Resilient Con, Fey Touched, Telekinetic, Metamagic Adept, Warcaster etc. Stuff that makes them better at being a druid, rather than trying and failing to be rangers just to prove a point.
And I don't care how easy it is to swap from FF to something else, it's still 1d6 per round in most campaigns. HM easily delivers 3x that minimum.
No actually it doesn't. At least not in the current version of D&D.
In current D&D getting Adv on ranged attacks is pretty rare, and often the Ranger will be using Sharpshooter which gives them 50% chance to hit.
If the Ranger makes 2 attacks per round (e.g. using BA for Hunter's Mark) then Hunter's Mark on average adds 0.5*2*3.5 = 3.5 damage, whereas FF adds (1-0.5^2)*3.5 = 2.6 damage.
If the Ranger makes 3 attacks per round (e.g. using XbowXpert) then Hunter's Mark on average adds 0.5*3*3.5 = 5.35 damage, whereas FF adds 3.1 damage.
Now if we consider that 1 attack with SS is 8.25 damage (excluding HM/FF), then your enemy has to survive for 4 rounds for HM's extra damage above FF to surpass the loss of that 1 bonus action attack.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2024 D&D this changes significantly, since with Vex and Topple the chance of each attack hitting goes way up, meanwhile SS's damage bonus is no more. So in 2024 damage per attack is far far more valuable than it was in 2014, and making more attacks is even more valuable. There's a reason Treantmonk did a melee Ranger for his build under 2024 rules but did ranged builds for all his previous Rangers. I just finished updating my DPR spreadsheet to include WM & nerfed SS/GWM and a two-weapon using Ranger-Beastmaster deals ~10 more damage per round across all levels than a XbowXpert using Ranger-Hunter.
Topple (and other added prone-ing effects) double screws them. Next on my list will be PoB vs EB-ing warlock, but I suspect PoB will similarly come out way ahead. From a cursory look from an optimization view point, I suspect we will have melee-martials and spellcasters using saving-throw spells and that's about it.
You know this is the UA forum right?
You know '24 Druids don't just have that ability passively right? They have the spell always prepared, which means if they don't want to burn slots on it, they're ritual-casting it just like everyone else.
As for "the animal is going to run away before you finish" - generally speaking, when you use this you're outdoors. Find another animal. Most biomes have more than one.
That might is the biggest problem with HM. It’s your main feature and it might be great or it might be lost the same round you use it, which means it might not add any damage if you miss your attack. Smite uses a spell slot each time you use it but it does better damage than a single round of HM and activates on a hit. While I hate that smites use your bonus action moving forward, it’s still better than HM. HM shouldn’t be a spell and shouldn’t need concentration. It should be a feature that last 1 hour and just does the ribbon ability of tracking ability. Then add a sentence that reads, “once on your turn when you hit a marked creature with a weapon attack you may expend a spell slot to deal your Wis +1d6 per spell slot level expended force damage.” That way it’s different than smites, but is better than current HM.
You know how to follow a conversation right?
The parts that are relevant, sure.
You can make that same argument about Hex, Agonizing Blast, Spirit Shroud, Conjure Minor Elementals and many other on-hit damage spells. All a miss chance does is lower their average DPR increase by a percentage, it doesn't negate the benefits entirely (unless your miss chance is 100% on every hit.)
Turning HM into a pseudo-smite is not something I'd be in favor of. The Ranger list has way, way more utility magic than the paladin list, so being more slot-efficient is in their best interests.
Don't you find it weird then that most people given the choice choose smites over sustained damage? Paladin has Divine Favour which works basically the same as Hunter's Mark (but doesn't require the mark to be moved all the time) but have you ever seen a Paladin cast it? (Vengeance Paladin even gets Hunter's Mark but rarely have I seen one use it). Similarly Warlock gets some fantastic sustained damage spells: Hex, Spirit Shroud, Shadow of Moil, but most Hexblades will still take and use Eldritch Smite instead.
I'm not sure where your "most people" usage statistics are coming from, but when I see Divine Favor not picked, it's usually because the paladin is prioritizing defensive buffs like Protection from Evil, Shied of Faith, Heroism etc. When defense isn't needed, I've seen Divine Favor used. And I'm not sure where this false dichotomy between smites or a concentration buff is coming from when paladins and hexblades can do both simultaneously (with vanilla smite anyway in 2014; in 2024, most of them will be concentration-free), though Eldritch Smite doesn't strike me as an especially good use of a Hexblade's very limited pact slots either.
This isn't to say that some kind of smite ability couldn't work on Ranger. But again, I see them as having more utility uses for their slots, and more powerful offensive concentration spells than Paladin gets too, like Summon Beast or Conjure Animals or Spike Growth, so coming up with some nature-themed smite ability for them just isn't needed.
Yes, but they aren’t the main feature of the class. This wasn’t as big of a problem in 2014 when HM was just the best spell for a Ranger in most situations because of how it worked. In 2024 it is a Ranger feature. It’s silly to be slot efficient when all those utility spells are Druid spells. Let the Druid cast them. Also you would be being more slot efficient since you would only use the slot on a hit and it would do more damage. Most of the unique Ranger spells are combat focused and concentration (at least in 2014 and I doubt they removed concentration from those). You know like Ensnaring Strike, Zypher Strike, Hail of Thorns. So in 2024 using your main supported feature means you can’t use any of your unique spells.
Divine Smite simply functioned better as a feature. It should have been once a turn in 2014, but now they over corrected that for 2024. WotC did not have to make HM the Rangers main feature. There were other paths to improve the Ranger. Since they chose the HM path they should have done something better with it.
EDIT:
Wait if this is true
The 2024 Ranger having HM as a main feature is really bad since concentration competes with their ability to use summon beast or any of those spells. A 2014 smite like feature would simply be better.
HM was never the "best spell" for a 2014 Ranger. Spike Growth, Conjure Animals, Conjure Woodland Beings, and Swift Quiver all outdamaged it, and those were just core. What 2024 is doing is acknowledging that fact by giving you a bunch of free uses, letting you use the harder hitting spells for your toughest fights, and HM as a fallback in the other ones.
Putting aside that you might not even have a Druid and a Ranger in the same party - even in the cases where you do, redundancy is a good thing because of how opportunity cost and specialization work in this game. Your Ranger dropping their concentration on HM to Pass Without Trace the party, or Locate Object, or chat up a nearby squirrel, means the Druid is free to keep concentrating on something more valuable like Polymorph, or a powerful summon, or Find The Path etc that your ranger either can't do or can't do nearly as well. And even for spells that both of you can do, some of them involve or improve ability checks that the Ranger will be better at because of Expertise, higher Dex, or both.
We don't know which Ranger spells will still have concentration in 2024, but we do know that it was removed from some of them. Let's wait a couple more days before we declare that Rangers are the bottom of the barrel.
But even if every single Ranger concentration spell in 2014 was still one in 2024 I'd still say they were better off, because of the free HM uses. Dropping HM to concentrate on something else is effectively free, or at the very least you'll have enough uses that it will be a viable strategy.
As above, you can just drop your concentration on HM when those more powerful spells are needed. No muss, no fuss.
As for why no smite, even putting the saminess of that approach aside, giving them both a smite feature and a bunch of summons that paladins don't get is likely a bridge too far.
Its a simple list problem.
Ranger share spell list with druid. To be named now the Primal spell-list.
Most of the (best) spells on this list are concentration. This is also probably the most concentration heavy list of the 3.
Ranger have access to an heavy concentration spell list.
Concentration is an heavy caster thing.
They need dedicated concentration free spell, or that list is basically not usable efficiently for them as half casters.
They'ree already basically having that list btw with the new updates.
Except for that hunter mark thing that I'm not using cause its 0 fun.
I think we miss reinforcement spell type. Like polyvalent or slightly defensive buff for half caster. Given the limited spell slot and their martiality, this is just ... logical. Above any thing they would make the best use of it. Paladin has some as a defender but they re more supporty than self efficient buff. Also ranger miss some of that.
Having full concentration offensive spell isnt really fitting the survival theme.
This sort of raises a new conflict that now exists for 2024 Ranger. If Ranger wants to be slot efficient, then they want to be able to maintain concentration on HM over multiple rounds, but Ranger also really wants to be in melee now so it can take advantage of Prone & Nick, and Ranger's AC is pretty mediocre and they have no proficiency or other bonus to concentration saves. So will they actually be able to maintain concentration on HM? Probably not, at least not until level 13 or whatever when they can't lose concentration from taking damage.
PS Honestly, I kind of wish WotC would eliminate the "lose concentration from taking damage" mechanic, players really don't like it and they keep added features to help players get around it. Obviously they need the concentration mechanic to avoid stacking too many powerful spells at once, but do they still need the damage == lose concentration?
I imagine the free uses are meant to offset this risk. If your concentration on HM gets broken, just recast it, it's not like doing so costs you any slots the first several times in a day.
It also creates a risk/reward tactical decision point for the Ranger player. If they feel they can keep their distance and maintain their concentration more easily, then a more powerful concentration spell like Conjure Animals or Swift Quiver might be the way to go. If instead the risk of losing it is higher, stick with HM.
As for concentration checks being tied to incoming damage... that's one of the few limiters casters even have. Removing it would be akin to giving those casters Resilient Con and War Caster essentially for free, except even better. You could argue that Rangers specifically should get such a boost to their concentration due to being half-casters (after all, Paladins and Artificers get boosts built-in too; heck, so do Arcane Tricksters and Eldritch Knights if you count their bonus ASI) and I wouldn't be opposed to that idea. But Rangers are also stronger at, well, range than Paladins and most Artificers too, so you can argue a useful tactic for them if they're in a high damage fight is to flex out of melee.
Yes they need to keep it, you must be able to stop such a spell both as player or a dm.
But it should not be constitution based.
Like the hell its "concentration", the least it could be is tied to a mental stat.
It would not help with half caster problem because concentration to make low spell slot issue more efficient is not really a solution at all, concentration is for powerfull spell, but at least it would makes sense.
See this is my problem with it. Either losing concentration by taking damage is supposed to be a check/balance on the power of casters - in which case it should be really hard to boost your concentration saves (which is not the case) - or it isn't in which case why have it as a mechanic at all?
There are so many buffs to concentration saves, that it seems to me that the designers don't actually intend it to be a check on the power of casters:
- Warlocks have an invocation that gives Adv
- UA Warcaster gives you a +1 to your casting stat + Adv (so it doesn't even cost you casting stat progression to get it any more)
- Paladins add their Aura of Protection
- Bless (1st level spell) buffs it
- Resistance (cantrip you can use as a reaction on yourself in the UA) buffs it
- BI can buff it
- Sorcerers and Artificers get proficiency in it as baseline in their class
- Twilight Druids get a WS form that gives them a guaranteed 10 on concentration
- Conjuration Wizards get a feature that removes losing concentration from damage for some spells
- Rangers get a feature that removes losing concentration from damage for 1 spell
- several UA Warlock subclasses get Summon spells that can't have concentration broken
- and of course Resilient:Con
That's before you consider the inconsistencies in which spells do / don't require concentration: e.g.
Flame Blade(Primal, 2nd level magical weapon) requires concentration, Spiritual weapons does not (or have they confirmed it does now?),
Barkskin that raises your AC to 16 and Shield of Faith that gives +2 AC require concentration, Shield that gives a +5 AC does not and Warding Bond that gives +1 AC and damage sharing does not,
Compulsion that forces creatures to move in a particular direction requires concentration, Command(at 4th level) can force 4 creatures to move or drop prone or a bunch of other things does not.
Protection from Energy requires concentration, Protection from Poison does not.
UA Conjure Elemental that summons a fixed-location AoE over time damage area requires concentration, Guardian of Faith and Faithful Hound that summons a fixed-location AoE damage over time are does not.
Ray of Enfeeblement that reducing enemy melee attack damage by half is concentration, Blindness that gives an enemy DA on all attacks is not.
Blur that gives enemies DA on attacks in concentration, Blink that gives you 50/50 shot at not being a target is not.
Morthenkinein's Sword that gives you a BA 3d10 force damage is concentration, Crown of Stars that gives you a BA 4d12 radiant damage is not.
Silent Image that gives you a small mobile illusion is concentration, Disguise self that gives you a self-centered mobile illusion is not.
Shadow of Moil that gives you 2d8 reflected damage a heavy obscurement is concentration, Fire Shield that gives you 2d8 reflected damage and resistance to a damage type is not.
I think part of the problem lies with your definition of "really hard to boost." Two feats isn't cheap in a game where you're lucky to see three in most campaigns. Resilient Con is especially annoying given that it's a half-feat, so to get the most out of it you need to be running at an odd number (13 or 15) up to the point you can take it, or else have a wasteful hanging chad on your character sheet forever after. It's a meaningful cost in other words.
All of these have material, in some cases substantial, costs associated with taking them though. Your mindset seems to be that as long as it's possible to overcome a flaw then that flaw becomes trivial, without considering what you paid or gave up in order to do so. That's just not how abilities work in this game, every build decision has an opportunity cost.
Really? In the UA warcaster is a half-feat, so what is my caster character losing out on to take it? A while ago I built a bunch of 5th level characters using the UA rules and posted them on this forum just to try it out and every single one of the casters took Warcaster as the 4th level feat because there wasn't really wasn't any other feat that would be worthwhile for them to take, and they still got their casting stat progression as normal - I know because I got bored of it after build #3 and tried to find something else for them to take.
2014 HM is definitely the best spell for low level rangers compared to the other 1st level spell options. I’m not sure why you compared it to a bunch of spells of higher level. I also feel like in every post from now on I might need to bring up all the arguments from previous post because you seem to ignore things that were brought up previously.
1. HM is bad because it interferes with casting all the other concentration spells on your spell list, some of which are unique Ranger spells.
2. If HM is suppose to be the Rangers main unique feature it brings nothing special for class in any pillar of play. It actually becomes less useful in the combat pillar as you get better spells.
3. The Ranger doesn’t get to be special in a party with a Druid. Where as a Paladin still feels unique next to a Cleric.
4. A free casting of HM can’t be dropped no fuss. That free casting wasn’t free in regards to game design. It cost you a first level feature. It could have been something useful to your gameplay. Also they went as far as to tie 3 features to HM, 2 of which are well beyond HM useful stage with neither really making HM better than some of the other spell options.
5. 2024 Rangers are better than 2014 Rangers without a doubt, but they are really a just equal to or slightly worse than Tasha’s Ranger. With every class getting a better Rangers are at the bottom of the barrel or very close to it. 2024 Rangers don’t have anything special going for them.