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.
Really? In the UA warcaster is a half-feat, so what is my caster character losing out on to take it?
Fey-Touched, Shadow-Touched, Metamagic Adept, Telekinetic, Telepathic, Spell Sniper, Keen Mind, Skill Expert, Resilient, Elemental Adept and those are just the ones we know about in core. As more books get printed with additional powerful options (lolCartomancer), the opportunity cost will only grow.
"Well *I* built a bunch of characters and didn't pick anything but War Caster" isn't persuasive.
2014 HM is definitely the best spell for low level rangers compared to the other 1st level spell options.
If you shift the goalposts to "low-level Rangers" then sure, HM is probably the best option, though even then I'd say Ensnaring Strike is at least competitive depending on the opponent.
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.
I didn't ignore any of these. Here, I'll address them again:
1) Multiple Ranger spells are losing concentration, until we know which ones we can't say how a HM focus will truly affect them at various level brackets. But even if absolutely none of them lost concentration, you're still getting free uses of HM which will make dropping it to concentrate on something more powerful fairly frictionless.
2) I've already said that it's a mistake to think of the Ranger as being one key feature when they are a combination, including their non-spell things like Expertise and Roving. I can't tell you how to think though, only point out areas where your disappointment is likely to be inevitable.
3) Druids can get a single Expertise, and they have to burn a valuable feat (see above post for just the core opportunity costs) to do it. The Ranger gets 3 with no feat, and can pick up the 4th if they really want to. If you can't figure out how to be special with 4x Expertise, the problem is not the books.
4) "It could have been something useful" is the most vague and pointless argument I've seen yet. It could just as easily have been something useless, like 2014 Favored Enemy or 2021 Favored Foe - you know, the last two they got.
5) "2024 is equal to or slightly worse than Tasha's" is and continues to be wrong for the reasons I've explained repeatedly. (Now who's ignoring things that were brought up previously? Irony much?)
Really? In the UA warcaster is a half-feat, so what is my caster character losing out on to take it?
Fey-Touched, Shadow-Touched, Metamagic Adept, Telekinetic, Telepathic, Spell Sniper, Keen Mind, Skill Expert, Resilient, Elemental Adept and those are just the ones we know about in core. As more books get printed with additional powerful options (lolCartomancer), the opportunity cost will only grow.
"Well *I* built a bunch of characters and didn't pick anything but War Caster" isn't persuasive.
Fey-Touched - decent for Divine/Primal casters waste of time for everyone else. Shadow-Touched - sux, you only need one person in the party capable of casting Invis, and Necro spells are awful Metamagic Adept - can't judge until we see the new metamagics - but a once per day cool thing is pretty lame for a feat. Telekinetic - mostly useless now, cause everyone and their nana can push creatures better than this feat. Telepathic - super niche, just use a Stealth check to whisper to your friends. Spell Sniper - uber niche, attack roll spells all have plenty of range already, and the UA suggests half the casters classes might get bonus range features baked in Keen Mind - aka, the "I'm too lazy to write notes" feat... Skill Expert - why do I want this on a caster except to overshadow the Expert classes like Ranger? (weren't you just arguing that clerics & druids would never take this feat?) Resilient - why would I want this on a caster except to also boost my concentration checks? Elemental Adept - this has always been garbage.
For someone's who's all "DPR is all that matters to judge the quality of a class" why are you suddenly trying to argue super niche out-of-combat feats are any good?
Fey Touched and Telekinetic are only modestly popular now because they even out an odd casting stat and aren't completely useless. If I have the choice to even out an odd casting stat and get a secondary benefit that's actually good like Warcaster, I'm 100% taking that instead.
1) Multiple Ranger spells are losing concentration, until we know which ones we can't say how a HM focus will truly affect them at various level brackets. But even if absolutely none of them lost concentration, you're still getting free uses of HM which will make dropping it to concentrate on something more powerful fairly frictionless.
These are the only Ranger-specific spells:
Hunter's Mark[c] - we know is not losing concentration requirement
Ensnaring Strike[c] - would only be ok if it lost the concentration requirement, because the major problem with this spell is the enemies you most want to restrain are the brutes, but because it is a STR save those are also the enemies most likely to succeed the save. I seriously doubt it will lose the concentration requirement.
Hail of Thorns[c] - without concentration this would be the Ranger "smite" it's pretty terrible though since they get a save for 1/2 damage and it deals a piddly 1d10 damage. You need a minimum 3 enemies within 5ft of each other for this to be worth casting even if it didn't need concentration.
Cordon of Arrows - already not concentration and almost never used b/c it sux
Conjure Barrage - already not concentration and almost never used b/c it sux, you need a huge field of enemies without any of your allies in the way for it to be worth casting. OK against a zombie horde, not any other time.
Lightning Arrow[c] - good in a game with no magic weapons, but once you've got a magic weapon you're usually better off with Hunters Mark + magic weapon regardless of concentration.
Conjure Volley - already doesn't need concentration, dealing non-magical damage in tier 4 is mostly a waste of time.
Swift Quiver[c] - I doubt this one will lose concentration, but if it does and they fix it so you make the 2 attacks when you first cast it then it would manage to bring all the other rangers up to the level of Beastmaster at the low-low cost of their only 5th level spell.
For someone's who's all "DPR is all that matters to judge the quality of a class" why are you suddenly trying to argue super niche out-of-combat feats are any good?
Your opinion of feats is clearly as bad as all the others. And every feat above is set to be a half-feat in 2024, on top of the buffs you're missing like Keen Mind being tied to the Study action now, so you're once again applying 2014 thinking to the UA forum for some reason I can't fathom. If all you care about is the 2014 game then why are you even posting here?
For someone's who's all "DPR is all that matters to judge the quality of a class" why are you suddenly trying to argue super niche out-of-combat feats are any good?
Your opinion of feats is clearly as bad as all the others. And every feat above is set to be a half-feat in 2024, on top of the buffs you're missing like Keen Mind being tied to the Study action now, so you're once again applying 2014 thinking to the UA forum for some reason I can't fathom. If all you care about is the 2014 game then why are you even posting here?
Oooh the Study action, I can use a Bonus Action to learn that a fire elemental is immune to fire. OMG so useful!
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.
I didn't ignore any of these. Here, I'll address them again:
1) Multiple Ranger spells are losing concentration, until we know which ones we can't say how a HM focus will truly affect them at various level brackets. But even if absolutely none of them lost concentration, you're still getting free uses of HM which will make dropping it to concentrate on something more powerful fairly frictionless.
2) I've already said that it's a mistake to think of the Ranger as being one key feature when they are a combination, including their non-spell things like Expertise and Roving. I can't tell you how to think though, only point out areas where your disappointment is likely to be inevitable.
3) Druids can get a single Expertise, and they have to burn a valuable feat (see above post for just the core opportunity costs) to do it. The Ranger gets 3 with no feat, and can pick up the 4th if they really want to. If you can't figure out how to be special with 4x Expertise, the problem is not the books.
4) "It could have been something useful" is the most vague and pointless argument I've seen yet. It could just as easily have been something useless, like 2014 Favored Enemy or 2021 Favored Foe - you know, the last two they got.
5) "2024 is equal to or slightly worse than Tasha's" is and continues to be wrong for the reasons I've explained repeatedly. (Now who's ignoring things that were brought up previously? Irony much?)
I never moved the goal post, but for some reason you decided I was comparing HM to all the spells on the rangers list. It would be like me talking about magic missile and you telling me fireball is far superior. Contest is very important.
Anyway let’s talk about how you are still ignoring important points, or rather talking around them.
1. Well we see which spells lost concentration, but again nothing is free. HM is not free it cost a feature.
2. It doesn’t matter if you say Ranger isn’t one key feature when 3 of its features involve HM I have to say HM is their key feature. Beast Master and Hunter also have features that use HM. What you say and what is true are two separate things. Also no class is one key feature, but all the other have something unique. Rangers have nothing. Roving is extra movement. Monks and Barbarians have extra movement. Expertise is shared with three classes.
3. I showed you that Druids don’t need expertise for Wis based skills because simply focusing on their primary stat and taking a cantrip they normally would take places them at or above the normal Ranger with expertise until 9th lvl. Expertise shines at high levels when the proficiency bonus is higher. It’s also good when it’s on a check that is your primary stat. For a Ranger it’s just bringing them up to par unless they are specifically built Ranger that I already discussed. 4X Expertise is great, but the Rogue does it better and since this is a game with a group the Ranger sits in this place of great if you party doesn’t have this other class.
4. You do realize that once you have better combat spells to use your concentration HM is worse than 2014 Favored Enemy. At least that gave you a language and advantage on some checks. Having Free casting of a spell you don’t need is a waste. Favored Foe was bad because they didn’t want it to stack with HM. They were starting fresh so they could have fixed that problem.
5. You haven’t explained how it’s better than Tasha’s. You have only explained how it’s better than 2014 which I agree. Having more Expertise does not make you a better Ranger. It’s making up for losing the advantage on skill checks. Remember with Tasha’s you could take deft explorer and still keep favored enemy which is what I did. I had plenty of languages, advantage on Wis and Int checks for my chosen creatures and expertise in perception. Also I had a cantrip build Ranger that I didn’t get to play that would have used favored foe since it didn’t require a weapon attack. I believe the new HM does not require a weapon attack as well which is an improvement, but that alone does not make 2024 superior to Tasha’s Ranger. I’ll say 2024 is equal to Tasha’s, but Tasha’s Ranger was in better place compared to all classes since all the other classes didn’t get buffs. In 2024 Ranger will sit at or near the bottom of the barrel.
I never moved the goal post, but for some reason you decided I was comparing HM to all the spells on the rangers list. It would be like me talking about magic missile and you telling me fireball is far superior. Contest is very important.
Anyway let’s talk about how you are still ignoring important points, or rather talking around them.
1. Well we see which spells lost concentration, but again nothing is free. HM is not free it cost a feature.
2. It doesn’t matter if you say Ranger isn’t one key feature when 3 of its features involve HM I have to say HM is their key feature. Beast Master and Hunter also have features that use HM. What you say and what is true are two separate things. Also no class is one key feature, but all the other have something unique. Rangers have nothing. Roving is extra movement. Monks and Barbarians have extra movement. Expertise is shared with three classes.
3. I showed you that Druids don’t need expertise for Wis based skills because simply focusing on their primary stat and taking a cantrip they normally would take places them at or above the normal Ranger with expertise until 9th lvl. Expertise shines at high levels when the proficiency bonus is higher. It’s also good when it’s on a check that is your primary stat. For a Ranger it’s just bringing them up to par unless they are specifically built Ranger that I already discussed. 4X Expertise is great, but the Rogue does it better and since this is a game with a group the Ranger sits in this place of great if you party doesn’t have this other class.
4. You do realize that once you have better combat spells to use your concentration HM is worse than 2014 Favored Enemy. At least that gave you a language and advantage on some checks. Having Free casting of a spell you don’t need is a waste. Favored Foe was bad because they didn’t want it to stack with HM. They were starting fresh so they could have fixed that problem.
5. You haven’t explained how it’s better than Tasha’s. You have only explained how it’s better than 2014 which I agree. Having more Expertise does not make you a better Ranger. It’s making up for losing the advantage on skill checks. Remember with Tasha’s you could take deft explorer and still keep favored enemy which is what I did. I had plenty of languages, advantage on Wis and Int checks for my chosen creatures and expertise in perception. Also I had a cantrip build Ranger that I didn’t get to play that would have used favored foe since it didn’t require a weapon attack. I believe the new HM does not require a weapon attack as well which is an improvement, but that alone does not make 2024 superior to Tasha’s Ranger. I’ll say 2024 is equal to Tasha’s, but Tasha’s Ranger was in better place compared to all classes since all the other classes didn’t get buffs. In 2024 Ranger will sit at or near the bottom of the barrel.
1. It cost a feature by giving you a feature. That's how features work. (Or at least, how they're supposed to; 2014 Ranger seemed to have missed the memo in several spots.)
2. And when you're not using HM, newflash, you're still a Ranger.
3. Guidance uses concentration, is impractical for multiple checks (constantly needing to chant after every check while you're trying to Stealth somewhere is counterproductive, no? How about mid-conversation?) and above all, the Ranger can easily get it too so constantly pointing at Guidance to try and invalidate Expertise is nonsensical.
4. It can't possibly be worse than 2014 Favored Enemy because it actually does something in a fight. And getting advantage is cake now that they've confirmed the tool rule made it to print. Yes there are better spells, but those spells are more costly too; HM is fine.
5. Weapon Mastery, 3x Expertise, swapping spells on a long rest, rituals, double-duration greater invisibility, origin feats, any fighting style, better Feral Senses, and I haven't even touched on the HM improvements - all things I've said repeatedly that you're continuing to ignore. Tasha Ranger gets none of it. Zero.
I never moved the goal post, but for some reason you decided I was comparing HM to all the spells on the rangers list. It would be like me talking about magic missile and you telling me fireball is far superior. Contest is very important.
Anyway let’s talk about how you are still ignoring important points, or rather talking around them.
1. Well we see which spells lost concentration, but again nothing is free. HM is not free it cost a feature.
2. It doesn’t matter if you say Ranger isn’t one key feature when 3 of its features involve HM I have to say HM is their key feature. Beast Master and Hunter also have features that use HM. What you say and what is true are two separate things. Also no class is one key feature, but all the other have something unique. Rangers have nothing. Roving is extra movement. Monks and Barbarians have extra movement. Expertise is shared with three classes.
3. I showed you that Druids don’t need expertise for Wis based skills because simply focusing on their primary stat and taking a cantrip they normally would take places them at or above the normal Ranger with expertise until 9th lvl. Expertise shines at high levels when the proficiency bonus is higher. It’s also good when it’s on a check that is your primary stat. For a Ranger it’s just bringing them up to par unless they are specifically built Ranger that I already discussed. 4X Expertise is great, but the Rogue does it better and since this is a game with a group the Ranger sits in this place of great if you party doesn’t have this other class.
4. You do realize that once you have better combat spells to use your concentration HM is worse than 2014 Favored Enemy. At least that gave you a language and advantage on some checks. Having Free casting of a spell you don’t need is a waste. Favored Foe was bad because they didn’t want it to stack with HM. They were starting fresh so they could have fixed that problem.
5. You haven’t explained how it’s better than Tasha’s. You have only explained how it’s better than 2014 which I agree. Having more Expertise does not make you a better Ranger. It’s making up for losing the advantage on skill checks. Remember with Tasha’s you could take deft explorer and still keep favored enemy which is what I did. I had plenty of languages, advantage on Wis and Int checks for my chosen creatures and expertise in perception. Also I had a cantrip build Ranger that I didn’t get to play that would have used favored foe since it didn’t require a weapon attack. I believe the new HM does not require a weapon attack as well which is an improvement, but that alone does not make 2024 superior to Tasha’s Ranger. I’ll say 2024 is equal to Tasha’s, but Tasha’s Ranger was in better place compared to all classes since all the other classes didn’t get buffs. In 2024 Ranger will sit at or near the bottom of the barrel.
1. It cost a feature by giving you a feature. That's how features work. (Or at least, how they're supposed to; 2014 Ranger seemed to have missed the memo in several spots.)
2. And when you're not using HM, newflash, you're still a Ranger.
3. Guidance uses concentration, is impractical for multiple checks (constantly needing to chant after every check while you're trying to Stealth somewhere is counterproductive, no? How about mid-conversation?) and above all, the Ranger can easily get it too so constantly pointing at Guidance to try and invalidate Expertise is nonsensical.
4. It can't possibly be worse than 2014 Favored Enemy because it actually does something in a fight. And getting advantage is cake now that they've confirmed the tool rule made it to print. Yes there are better spells, but those spells are more costly too; HM is fine.
5. Weapon Mastery, 3x Expertise, swapping spells on a long rest, rituals, double-duration greater invisibility, origin feats, any fighting style, better Feral Senses, and I haven't even touched on the HM improvements - all things I've said repeatedly that you're continuing to ignore. Tasha Ranger gets none of it. Zero.
1. It could be a feature you will use. Remember your argument was you can just drop concentration on HM. So my point is you now have a wasted feature.
2. I’m not sure what the “you’re still a Ranger” argument means. When you’re not using HM you aren’t using 3 features of Ranger, 4 if you are a Hunter or Beastmaster.
3. The new guidance last for an hour, so it’s just once and you can make all the survival or perception checks you need you only need to chant again to change what skill it’s on. I also pointed out that it’s not easy for a Ranger to get it. They have to use a feat or give up their fighting style. You are arguing with yourself. You stated this Druids have to take a feat to get expertise and because of that cost that should not be considered.
4. It does nothing in a fight if you are using your better concentration spells. You are literally arguing with yourself on this. You told me that I should be using spike growth, summon beast, and better concentration spells. You can’t have it both ways. Favored enemy still does something at a point I no longer cast HM.
5. Way to list a bunch of things that aren’t Ranger improvements. Weapon Mastery was given to most martials and if they literally pulled Tasha’s Ranger forward word for word they would have given it the new feature of the game as well. More Expertise does not make you a better Ranger. When you don’t have a high stat in a skill advantage can be better than expertise especially at low levels, and that advantage was focused on Ranger things. For people who like to control their character build more expertise is an improvement, but to people looking for any flavor it’s a lateral move at best. Swapping spells on a long rest is cool and so are rituals, but really are improvements they gave to a lot of classes as a game wide improvement. The invisibility should last longer since you get it much later. Some will never see it now. Origin feats are for everyone so don’t use that to show the 2024 Ranger is better than Tasha’s. If you play an 2014 character in the 2024 game they already said you would get origin feats by taking a 2024 background. That’s not even part of the class. It’s a game improvement not a class improvement. Using any fighting style only matters if you aren’t using a bow, crossbow or two weapon fighting. Not an improvement for most. Feral Senses is actually worse. If you were an archer shooting at an enemy you couldn’t see beyond 30ft you wouldn’t have disadvantage. With the new version you would. It’s niche that would occur, but the old version is actually just better. The new version is easier to understand and take up less words. You can’t touch on the HM improvements because they are technically bad for the overall kit. Some of them are wasted features. Let’s pole the community to see which class has the worse capstone feature. What’s funny is that 2014 Foe Slayer might actually be a better capstone. Especially for people who are concentrating on a spell other than HM.
3. Guidance uses concentration, is impractical for multiple checks (constantly needing to chant after every check while you're trying to Stealth somewhere is counterproductive, no? How about mid-conversation?) and above all, the Ranger can easily get it too so constantly pointing at Guidance to try and invalidate Expertise is nonsensical.
What are you talking about? Why would a Ranger put their Expertise into a CHA skill that would make them mediocre at best at that skill? A Ranger putting their Expertise into Stealth is only matching the Rogue making them completely unspecial. You were arguing that Ranger's unique niche is they are the best at Survival. Why would there be a problem to cast Guidance when foraging for food or tracking some footprints? You also constantly argue that taking a feat is a huge cost, except when it comes to Guidance for Ranger - make up your mind, is taking a feat is huge cost or not? A Ranger has to sacrifice Alert or Toughness or getting access to Shield in order to get Guidance that's a huge cost when 2024 Ranger wants to be in melee but has the weakest defenses of any martial.
Can we not wait 1.5 hrs to finally kill this topic? We already know Ranger spells have been improved from the myriad posts online and in the internet ether. Everywhere I see: Ranger's are Ded". Well, to use Dungeon Dudes words:
"Reports of the Ranger's demise have been grossly exaggerated"
Treantmonk's embargo is lifted and he confirmed that HM is 1d6 per hit like 2014, not the crappy 1/round scaling one from the UA. That means the free uses are just as powerful as the spell slot ones.
1. It could be a feature you will use. Remember your argument was you can just drop concentration on HM. So my point is you now have a wasted feature.
2. I’m not sure what the “you’re still a Ranger” argument means. When you’re not using HM you aren’t using 3 features of Ranger, 4 if you are a Hunter or Beastmaster.
3. The new guidance last for an hour, so it’s just once and you can make all the survival or perception checks you need you only need to chant again to change what skill it’s on. I also pointed out that it’s not easy for a Ranger to get it. They have to use a feat or give up their fighting style. You are arguing with yourself. You stated this Druids have to take a feat to get expertise and because of that cost that should not be considered.
4. It does nothing in a fight if you are using your better concentration spells. You are literally arguing with yourself on this. You told me that I should be using spike growth, summon beast, and better concentration spells. You can’t have it both ways. Favored enemy still does something at a point I no longer cast HM.
5. Way to list a bunch of things that aren’t Ranger improvements. Weapon Mastery was given to most martials and if they literally pulled Tasha’s Ranger forward word for word they would have given it the new feature of the game as well. More Expertise does not make you a better Ranger. When you don’t have a high stat in a skill advantage can be better than expertise especially at low levels, and that advantage was focused on Ranger things. For people who like to control their character build more expertise is an improvement, but to people looking for any flavor it’s a lateral move at best. Swapping spells on a long rest is cool and so are rituals, but really are improvements they gave to a lot of classes as a game wide improvement. The invisibility should last longer since you get it much later. Some will never see it now. Origin feats are for everyone so don’t use that to show the 2024 Ranger is better than Tasha’s. If you play an 2014 character in the 2024 game they already said you would get origin feats by taking a 2024 background. That’s not even part of the class. It’s a game improvement not a class improvement. Using any fighting style only matters if you aren’t using a bow, crossbow or two weapon fighting. Not an improvement for most. Feral Senses is actually worse. If you were an archer shooting at an enemy you couldn’t see beyond 30ft you wouldn’t have disadvantage. With the new version you would. It’s niche that would occur, but the old version is actually just better. The new version is easier to understand and take up less words. You can’t touch on the HM improvements because they are technically bad for the overall kit. Some of them are wasted features. Let’s pole the community to see which class has the worse capstone feature. What’s funny is that 2014 Foe Slayer might actually be a better capstone. Especially for people who are concentrating on a spell other than HM.
1. A feature you're not using right this second is not "wasted." This is like saying Action Surge is a wasted feature while your fighter isn't in combat.
2. It means that you still have Expertise, Weapon Masteries, all your proficiencies, all your other spells... all the things you get from BEING a Ranger.
3. Guidance lasts for an hour OR until you use the die on a check. So in practice, it'll never lasts the full hour before you need to chant again if you want the buff more than once.
4. Again, your logic here is that when you're concentrating on one spell all your other spells cease to exist. That's nonsense. Spells represent options - if I'm concentrating on Spike Growth and all the enemies take to the sky, I have the option of dropping Spike Growth and swapping to HM. That makes HM a useful feature for me, even if I'm not using it right now. And that is the impasse you and I will seemingly never see eye to eye on.
5. The fact that you don't see any of those things as improvements means I don't have to take your optimization views seriously.
What are you talking about? Why would a Ranger put their Expertise into a CHA skill that would make them mediocre at best at that skill? A Ranger putting their Expertise into Stealth is only matching the Rogue making them completely unspecial. You were arguing that Ranger's unique niche is they are the best at Survival. Why would there be a problem to cast Guidance when foraging for food or tracking some footprints? You also constantly argue that taking a feat is a huge cost, except when it comes to Guidance for Ranger - make up your mind, is taking a feat is huge cost or not? A Ranger has to sacrifice Alert or Toughness or getting access to Shield in order to get Guidance that's a huge cost when 2024 Ranger wants to be in melee but has the weakest defenses of any martial.
Handle Animal and Insight are also social skills, did you realize that?
Expertise in Stealth is a good thing because you have to clear a static 15 to even get the Hidden condition to start with, but you want your check to be as high as possible because that becomes the DC for any searchers.
Survival is used for more things than foraging and footprints.
2024 Rangers can get Guidance without a feat in exchange for their fighting style, just like Tasha Rangers can. If you think that's a poor ability, then your judgment applies to both of them.
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.
Fey-Touched, Shadow-Touched, Metamagic Adept, Telekinetic, Telepathic, Spell Sniper, Keen Mind, Skill Expert, Resilient, Elemental Adept and those are just the ones we know about in core. As more books get printed with additional powerful options (lolCartomancer), the opportunity cost will only grow.
"Well *I* built a bunch of characters and didn't pick anything but War Caster" isn't persuasive.
If you shift the goalposts to "low-level Rangers" then sure, HM is probably the best option, though even then I'd say Ensnaring Strike is at least competitive depending on the opponent.
I didn't ignore any of these. Here, I'll address them again:
1) Multiple Ranger spells are losing concentration, until we know which ones we can't say how a HM focus will truly affect them at various level brackets. But even if absolutely none of them lost concentration, you're still getting free uses of HM which will make dropping it to concentrate on something more powerful fairly frictionless.
2) I've already said that it's a mistake to think of the Ranger as being one key feature when they are a combination, including their non-spell things like Expertise and Roving. I can't tell you how to think though, only point out areas where your disappointment is likely to be inevitable.
3) Druids can get a single Expertise, and they have to burn a valuable feat (see above post for just the core opportunity costs) to do it. The Ranger gets 3 with no feat, and can pick up the 4th if they really want to. If you can't figure out how to be special with 4x Expertise, the problem is not the books.
4) "It could have been something useful" is the most vague and pointless argument I've seen yet. It could just as easily have been something useless, like 2014 Favored Enemy or 2021 Favored Foe - you know, the last two they got.
5) "2024 is equal to or slightly worse than Tasha's" is and continues to be wrong for the reasons I've explained repeatedly. (Now who's ignoring things that were brought up previously? Irony much?)
Fey-Touched - decent for Divine/Primal casters waste of time for everyone else.
Shadow-Touched - sux, you only need one person in the party capable of casting Invis, and Necro spells are awful
Metamagic Adept - can't judge until we see the new metamagics - but a once per day cool thing is pretty lame for a feat.
Telekinetic - mostly useless now, cause everyone and their nana can push creatures better than this feat.
Telepathic - super niche, just use a Stealth check to whisper to your friends.
Spell Sniper - uber niche, attack roll spells all have plenty of range already, and the UA suggests half the casters classes might get bonus range features baked in
Keen Mind - aka, the "I'm too lazy to write notes" feat...
Skill Expert - why do I want this on a caster except to overshadow the Expert classes like Ranger? (weren't you just arguing that clerics & druids would never take this feat?)
Resilient - why would I want this on a caster except to also boost my concentration checks?
Elemental Adept - this has always been garbage.
For someone's who's all "DPR is all that matters to judge the quality of a class" why are you suddenly trying to argue super niche out-of-combat feats are any good?
Fey Touched and Telekinetic are only modestly popular now because they even out an odd casting stat and aren't completely useless. If I have the choice to even out an odd casting stat and get a secondary benefit that's actually good like Warcaster, I'm 100% taking that instead.
These are the only Ranger-specific spells:
Hunter's Mark[c] - we know is not losing concentration requirement
Ensnaring Strike[c] - would only be ok if it lost the concentration requirement, because the major problem with this spell is the enemies you most want to restrain are the brutes, but because it is a STR save those are also the enemies most likely to succeed the save. I seriously doubt it will lose the concentration requirement.
Hail of Thorns[c] - without concentration this would be the Ranger "smite" it's pretty terrible though since they get a save for 1/2 damage and it deals a piddly 1d10 damage. You need a minimum 3 enemies within 5ft of each other for this to be worth casting even if it didn't need concentration.
Cordon of Arrows - already not concentration and almost never used b/c it sux
Conjure Barrage - already not concentration and almost never used b/c it sux, you need a huge field of enemies without any of your allies in the way for it to be worth casting. OK against a zombie horde, not any other time.
Lightning Arrow[c] - good in a game with no magic weapons, but once you've got a magic weapon you're usually better off with Hunters Mark + magic weapon regardless of concentration.
Conjure Volley - already doesn't need concentration, dealing non-magical damage in tier 4 is mostly a waste of time.
Swift Quiver[c] - I doubt this one will lose concentration, but if it does and they fix it so you make the 2 attacks when you first cast it then it would manage to bring all the other rangers up to the level of Beastmaster at the low-low cost of their only 5th level spell.
Your opinion of feats is clearly as bad as all the others. And every feat above is set to be a half-feat in 2024, on top of the buffs you're missing like Keen Mind being tied to the Study action now, so you're once again applying 2014 thinking to the UA forum for some reason I can't fathom. If all you care about is the 2014 game then why are you even posting here?
Oooh the Study action, I can use a Bonus Action to learn that a fire elemental is immune to fire. OMG so useful!
This from the guy whose ranger can't find game outdoors 😛
I never moved the goal post, but for some reason you decided I was comparing HM to all the spells on the rangers list. It would be like me talking about magic missile and you telling me fireball is far superior. Contest is very important.
Anyway let’s talk about how you are still ignoring important points, or rather talking around them.
1. Well we see which spells lost concentration, but again nothing is free. HM is not free it cost a feature.
2. It doesn’t matter if you say Ranger isn’t one key feature when 3 of its features involve HM I have to say HM is their key feature. Beast Master and Hunter also have features that use HM. What you say and what is true are two separate things. Also no class is one key feature, but all the other have something unique. Rangers have nothing. Roving is extra movement. Monks and Barbarians have extra movement. Expertise is shared with three classes.
3. I showed you that Druids don’t need expertise for Wis based skills because simply focusing on their primary stat and taking a cantrip they normally would take places them at or above the normal Ranger with expertise until 9th lvl. Expertise shines at high levels when the proficiency bonus is higher. It’s also good when it’s on a check that is your primary stat. For a Ranger it’s just bringing them up to par unless they are specifically built Ranger that I already discussed. 4X Expertise is great, but the Rogue does it better and since this is a game with a group the Ranger sits in this place of great if you party doesn’t have this other class.
4. You do realize that once you have better combat spells to use your concentration HM is worse than 2014 Favored Enemy. At least that gave you a language and advantage on some checks. Having Free casting of a spell you don’t need is a waste. Favored Foe was bad because they didn’t want it to stack with HM. They were starting fresh so they could have fixed that problem.
5. You haven’t explained how it’s better than Tasha’s. You have only explained how it’s better than 2014 which I agree. Having more Expertise does not make you a better Ranger. It’s making up for losing the advantage on skill checks. Remember with Tasha’s you could take deft explorer and still keep favored enemy which is what I did. I had plenty of languages, advantage on Wis and Int checks for my chosen creatures and expertise in perception. Also I had a cantrip build Ranger that I didn’t get to play that would have used favored foe since it didn’t require a weapon attack. I believe the new HM does not require a weapon attack as well which is an improvement, but that alone does not make 2024 superior to Tasha’s Ranger. I’ll say 2024 is equal to Tasha’s, but Tasha’s Ranger was in better place compared to all classes since all the other classes didn’t get buffs. In 2024 Ranger will sit at or near the bottom of the barrel.
1. It cost a feature by giving you a feature. That's how features work. (Or at least, how they're supposed to; 2014 Ranger seemed to have missed the memo in several spots.)
2. And when you're not using HM, newflash, you're still a Ranger.
3. Guidance uses concentration, is impractical for multiple checks (constantly needing to chant after every check while you're trying to Stealth somewhere is counterproductive, no? How about mid-conversation?) and above all, the Ranger can easily get it too so constantly pointing at Guidance to try and invalidate Expertise is nonsensical.
4. It can't possibly be worse than 2014 Favored Enemy because it actually does something in a fight. And getting advantage is cake now that they've confirmed the tool rule made it to print. Yes there are better spells, but those spells are more costly too; HM is fine.
5. Weapon Mastery, 3x Expertise, swapping spells on a long rest, rituals, double-duration greater invisibility, origin feats, any fighting style, better Feral Senses, and I haven't even touched on the HM improvements - all things I've said repeatedly that you're continuing to ignore. Tasha Ranger gets none of it. Zero.
1. It could be a feature you will use. Remember your argument was you can just drop concentration on HM. So my point is you now have a wasted feature.
2. I’m not sure what the “you’re still a Ranger” argument means. When you’re not using HM you aren’t using 3 features of Ranger, 4 if you are a Hunter or Beastmaster.
3. The new guidance last for an hour, so it’s just once and you can make all the survival or perception checks you need you only need to chant again to change what skill it’s on. I also pointed out that it’s not easy for a Ranger to get it. They have to use a feat or give up their fighting style. You are arguing with yourself. You stated this Druids have to take a feat to get expertise and because of that cost that should not be considered.
4. It does nothing in a fight if you are using your better concentration spells. You are literally arguing with yourself on this. You told me that I should be using spike growth, summon beast, and better concentration spells. You can’t have it both ways. Favored enemy still does something at a point I no longer cast HM.
5. Way to list a bunch of things that aren’t Ranger improvements.
Weapon Mastery was given to most martials and if they literally pulled Tasha’s Ranger forward word for word they would have given it the new feature of the game as well.
More Expertise does not make you a better Ranger. When you don’t have a high stat in a skill advantage can be better than expertise especially at low levels, and that advantage was focused on Ranger things. For people who like to control their character build more expertise is an improvement, but to people looking for any flavor it’s a lateral move at best.
Swapping spells on a long rest is cool and so are rituals, but really are improvements they gave to a lot of classes as a game wide improvement.
The invisibility should last longer since you get it much later. Some will never see it now.
Origin feats are for everyone so don’t use that to show the 2024 Ranger is better than Tasha’s. If you play an 2014 character in the 2024 game they already said you would get origin feats by taking a 2024 background. That’s not even part of the class. It’s a game improvement not a class improvement.
Using any fighting style only matters if you aren’t using a bow, crossbow or two weapon fighting. Not an improvement for most.
Feral Senses is actually worse. If you were an archer shooting at an enemy you couldn’t see beyond 30ft you wouldn’t have disadvantage. With the new version you would. It’s niche that would occur, but the old version is actually just better. The new version is easier to understand and take up less words.
You can’t touch on the HM improvements because they are technically bad for the overall kit. Some of them are wasted features. Let’s pole the community to see which class has the worse capstone feature. What’s funny is that 2014 Foe Slayer might actually be a better capstone. Especially for people who are concentrating on a spell other than HM.
What are you talking about? Why would a Ranger put their Expertise into a CHA skill that would make them mediocre at best at that skill? A Ranger putting their Expertise into Stealth is only matching the Rogue making them completely unspecial. You were arguing that Ranger's unique niche is they are the best at Survival. Why would there be a problem to cast Guidance when foraging for food or tracking some footprints? You also constantly argue that taking a feat is a huge cost, except when it comes to Guidance for Ranger - make up your mind, is taking a feat is huge cost or not? A Ranger has to sacrifice Alert or Toughness or getting access to Shield in order to get Guidance that's a huge cost when 2024 Ranger wants to be in melee but has the weakest defenses of any martial.
Can we not wait 1.5 hrs to finally kill this topic? We already know Ranger spells have been improved from the myriad posts online and in the internet ether. Everywhere I see: Ranger's are Ded". Well, to use Dungeon Dudes words:
"Reports of the Ranger's demise have been grossly exaggerated"
1. A feature you're not using right this second is not "wasted." This is like saying Action Surge is a wasted feature while your fighter isn't in combat.
2. It means that you still have Expertise, Weapon Masteries, all your proficiencies, all your other spells... all the things you get from BEING a Ranger.
3. Guidance lasts for an hour OR until you use the die on a check. So in practice, it'll never lasts the full hour before you need to chant again if you want the buff more than once.
4. Again, your logic here is that when you're concentrating on one spell all your other spells cease to exist. That's nonsense. Spells represent options - if I'm concentrating on Spike Growth and all the enemies take to the sky, I have the option of dropping Spike Growth and swapping to HM. That makes HM a useful feature for me, even if I'm not using it right now. And that is the impasse you and I will seemingly never see eye to eye on.
5. The fact that you don't see any of those things as improvements means I don't have to take your optimization views seriously.
Handle Animal and Insight are also social skills, did you realize that?
Expertise in Stealth is a good thing because you have to clear a static 15 to even get the Hidden condition to start with, but you want your check to be as high as possible because that becomes the DC for any searchers.
Survival is used for more things than foraging and footprints.
2024 Rangers can get Guidance without a feat in exchange for their fighting style, just like Tasha Rangers can. If you think that's a poor ability, then your judgment applies to both of them.