Radiant Strikes is an 11th level feature. I'd be totally fine with Rangers getting an 11th level feature that makes Hunter's Mark not require concentration. The problem is having it require no concentration in Tier 1, and partially in Tier 2 play.
I know. I think HM should have its damage scale differently, somewhere along the lines of barbarian's rage. It's a very basic feature for ranger and making it monopolize concentration is just silly. I personally like it being a different way of applying extra damage. Fighters hit faster, barbarians rage and hit harder, paladins add radiant damage, rangers mark their prey and hit it harder (plus tracking and whatever subclass features may add to it).
That's why I think non-damage but attack bonus, but for the whole party, would be better.
Make Hunter's Mark a mildly useful but reliable non-concentration support ability for the whole party (+1 to attacks against that specific enemy, increasing to +2 at 7th and +3 at 12th for example, I dunno exactly) that the ranger gets to add damage and condition riders as they level or through subclass.
Now it's noticable when your ranger isn't there to point out the big enemy's weakness and give you that +2, but also means stuff like Bless still has its place against multiple enemies, etc.
Radiant Strikes is an 11th level feature. I'd be totally fine with Rangers getting an 11th level feature that makes Hunter's Mark not require concentration. The problem is having it require no concentration in Tier 1, and partially in Tier 2 play.
I know. I think HM should have its damage scale differently, somewhere along the lines of barbarian's rage. It's a very basic feature for ranger and making it monopolize concentration is just silly. I personally like it being a different way of applying extra damage. Fighters hit faster, barbarians rage and hit harder, paladins add radiant damage, rangers mark their prey and hit it harder (plus tracking and whatever subclass features may add to it).
But why the assumption that every ranger should always be using Hunter's Mark at all times? Hunter's Mark is a perfectly fine base choice for Ranger but it isn't and shouldn't be the only thing they do in combat - otherwise they should just go play a Fighter not a Ranger. Ensnaring Strike is awesome and super thematic for Rangers and it makes be sad that I have never, ever seen a Ranger use it in combat.
Radiant Strikes is an 11th level feature. I'd be totally fine with Rangers getting an 11th level feature that makes Hunter's Mark not require concentration. The problem is having it require no concentration in Tier 1, and partially in Tier 2 play.
I know. I think HM should have its damage scale differently, somewhere along the lines of barbarian's rage. It's a very basic feature for ranger and making it monopolize concentration is just silly. I personally like it being a different way of applying extra damage. Fighters hit faster, barbarians rage and hit harder, paladins add radiant damage, rangers mark their prey and hit it harder (plus tracking and whatever subclass features may add to it).
But why the assumption that every ranger should always be using Hunter's Mark at all times? Hunter's Mark is a perfectly fine base choice for Ranger but it isn't and shouldn't be the only thing they do in combat - otherwise they should just go play a Fighter not a Ranger. Ensnaring Strike is awesome and super thematic for Rangers and it makes be sad that I have never, ever seen a Ranger use it in combat.
Because the game rewards on-going damage much more than it rewards something that can be saved out of. Short duration, concentration spells that *may* do damage for a little while and possibly take out some actions...but almost certainly never more than 5 rounds...aren't as useful as a long-term damage buff.
I agree it's very thematic, but there's not much in-game reward. I think 5e in general has overused Concentration. I agree that we don't want the mess of stacking from 3rd, but this has gone too far the other way.
I really do like some of the idea floated about the ranger passing on bonuses to the whole party as a way to differentiate them from just woodsy fighters.
As soon as you make it a core feature and give over multiple core and subclass features to the use of it, it should be consistently usable and not interfere with other spells/features (allowing you to use Ensnaring Strike, for example!).
If that means weakening it, or spreading the benefits across levels, so be it.
Or even return it to just being a completely optional spell and give ranger a different core feature, I don't care. But if you're gonna make it a core feature, do it properly.
I really like how hunters mark works in 5e. Its a level 1 spell that encourages you to increase your number of attacks which leads to some satisfying options. Having it once per turn feels so rigid and underwhelming to me... I just generally dont like the feeling of once per turn damage boosters, even if they are sometimes needed.
On top of that, I find it very odd to require the player to upcast hunters mark for it to be viable at higher levels, but to then include free castings for the ranger which do not support any kind of free upcasting at higher levels.... It seems to me that the free castings wont really be used at all beyond early levels when the spell doesnt scale with number of attacks anymore and still competes for your concentratoin.
For me, Id either wanna keep hunters mark as is, or remove concentration, because then atleast you have a reason to cast it at higher levels.
Personally I say no concentration 1d6 per attack, though if the damage auto scaled by ranger level instead of spell level once per turn would be fine. As a spell with free castings always being cast at the spells lowest level one of the rangers core features just ends up being really bad, really quick. Partly because like Hex I do not think they should be spells but abilities. Hunters mark should be like a stance, effectively a mode the ranger can switch into X# of times a day each use lasting one hour, with enough uses as they level to cover the day. Sub Classes could work off of this, when in your hunters stance you also get x,y,z.. Warlocks similarly should not be casting the spell hex, but using the class ability to lay a hex which should not even need a target, you create a hex, and apply it as a bonus action at some point later on.
Radiant Strikes is an 11th level feature. I'd be totally fine with Rangers getting an 11th level feature that makes Hunter's Mark not require concentration. The problem is having it require no concentration in Tier 1, and partially in Tier 2 play.
I know. I think HM should have its damage scale differently, somewhere along the lines of barbarian's rage. It's a very basic feature for ranger and making it monopolize concentration is just silly. I personally like it being a different way of applying extra damage. Fighters hit faster, barbarians rage and hit harder, paladins add radiant damage, rangers mark their prey and hit it harder (plus tracking and whatever subclass features may add to it).
But why the assumption that every ranger should always be using Hunter's Mark at all times? Hunter's Mark is a perfectly fine base choice for Ranger but it isn't and shouldn't be the only thing they do in combat - otherwise they should just go play a Fighter not a Ranger. Ensnaring Strike is awesome and super thematic for Rangers and it makes be sad that I have never, ever seen a Ranger use it in combat.
Because they decided to make it a class feature for the ranger. If it was just a primal spell and no class features around it, sure. but when its a core feature of the class and then its just freaking terrible to use by level X or something its bad design.
As soon as you make it a core feature and give over multiple core and subclass features to the use of it, it should be consistently usable and not interfere with other spells/features (allowing you to use Ensnaring Strike, for example!).
If that means weakening it, or spreading the benefits across levels, so be it.
Or even return it to just being a completely optional spell and give ranger a different core feature, I don't care. But if you're gonna make it a core feature, do it properly.
This, i should have finished reading through before basically making the same comment.
Maybe removing the cantrips is not bad by itself. Now we can get a feat with any character via Backgrounds. So the Ranger starts more martial, and if you want your cantrips back, you can get the feat Magic Initiate, if you prefer instead being more martial, you can get Tough or another fighting style. So you start in the middle then decide your way from there.
I like having many choices in character creation, but do realize this might make things more complicated for new players. The cleric now gets to chose a divine order Protector or Thaumaturge.
Maybe the ranger should have a similar choice, where you chose between taking weapon mastery or cantrips.
It also creates more design space in case they later come up with new ideas. For example adding a additional cleric choice focused on Channel Divinity , where you can Channel Divinity a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus + 1 instead of the normaladvancement.
I think I'd be ok with the Ranger getting a Primal Order-like option at Level 1, where they can choose cantrips or Weapon Mastery. Though giving up Mastery might be a bit much. Part of me wants to bundle Weapon Mastery and Fighting Style as one choice, and cantrips plus something else as the other choice, I'm just not sure what that something else should be. My reasoning is you're either more martial-focused or more magic-focused. If you're magic-focused, both Weapon Mastery AND Fighting Style lose some importance. Or heck, let you choose Mastery vs Cantrips at Level 1, and Fighting Style vs ??? at Level 2. I'm just spitballing here, but I'd love to see options that make it easier to build a Ranger focusing more on Wis than Dex.
But why the assumption that every ranger should always be using Hunter's Mark at all times? Hunter's Mark is a perfectly fine base choice for Ranger but it isn't and shouldn't be the only thing they do in combat - otherwise they should just go play a Fighter not a Ranger. Ensnaring Strike is awesome and super thematic for Rangers and it makes be sad that I have never, ever seen a Ranger use it in combat.
Why the assumption that every barbarian must always be using rage at all times?
But why the assumption that every ranger should always be using Hunter's Mark at all times? Hunter's Mark is a perfectly fine base choice for Ranger but it isn't and shouldn't be the only thing they do in combat - otherwise they should just go play a Fighter not a Ranger. Ensnaring Strike is awesome and super thematic for Rangers and it makes be sad that I have never, ever seen a Ranger use it in combat.
Why the assumption that every barbarian must always be using rage at all times?
the idea of Power mode is critical to the fantasy of playing a barbarian. either by hitting hard or absorbing lots of damage. Rage provides both
Meanwhile rangers sometimes target weak points, sometimes rapid fire, sometimes do 'chip damage', and sometimes do one hard hit. How rangers fight isn't core to a ranger but huntersmark (as a main feature) encourages the rapid attacks approach.
In base 5e, by picking your skills, feats, spells, stats and weapons right you can match any Idea of how rangers fight. I believe the core part of a ranger is feeling like you won by making the intelligent choice, and by encouraging one type of fighting (multi attacks) it feels less of a choice for ranger.
at the same time some people want the two weapon fighting fantasy. so there needs to be some cost benefit trade offs for taking that style.
I for one think the choice between two medium(or 3 medium) damage hits and one large and one small (or 1-L 2-S)becomes an interesting character building choice.
the idea of Power mode is critical to the fantasy of playing a barbarian. either by hitting hard or absorbing lots of damage. Rage provides both
Meanwhile rangers sometimes target weak points, sometimes rapid fire, sometimes do 'chip damage', and sometimes do one hard hit. How rangers fight isn't core to a ranger but huntersmark (as a main feature) encourages the rapid attacks approach.
In base 5e, by picking your skills, feats, spells, stats and weapons right you can match any Idea of how rangers fight. I believe the core part of a ranger is feeling like you won by making the intelligent choice, and by encouraging one type of fighting (multi attacks) it feels less of a choice for ranger.
at the same time some people want the two weapon fighting fantasy. so there needs to be some cost benefit trade offs for taking that style.
I for one think the choice between two medium(or 3 medium) damage hits and one large and one small (or 1-L 2-S)becomes an interesting character building choice.
The way rage works, it also favors dual wielding and rapid attacks to get the most out of rage damage bonus. Yet we don't see it happening. There's no way to do "sometimes rapid fire, sometimes one hard hit". You get extra attack at level 5. You make two attacks. Three if you dual wield. That's it. A barbarian is also free to use two-handers, shields, dual wielding, or even thrown weapons.
The existence of Pole Arm Master makes dual wielding unnecessary for Barbarians and also combines with Great Weapon Master which works well with the advantage Barbarians can generate with Reckless Attacks.
But if you're playing something like a Barbarian/Rogue multiclass, dual wielding short swords (especially if you can get the Dual Wielder fighting style from the Fighting Initiate feat) is a decent way to maximize the damage you get from combining Rage and Sneak Attack.
Now I want to play a dual wielding Scout Rogue/Totem Barbarian Wood Elf.
The existence of Pole Arm Master makes dual wielding unnecessary for Barbarians and also combines with Great Weapon Master which works well with the advantage Barbarians can generate with Reckless Attacks.
But if you're playing something like a Barbarian/Rogue multiclass, dual wielding short swords (especially if you can get the Dual Wielder fighting style from the Fighting Initiate feat) is a decent way to maximize the damage you get from combining Rage and Sneak Attack.
Now I want to play a dual wielding Scout Rogue/Totem Barbarian Wood Elf.
Last time I played as opposed to ran a barbarian/rogue was what I did. I was a giff zealot/soul knife. Not the best combo but it worked as a reflection of his abilities from being a zealot of Mask. I made it so I grappled/shoved with my off hand with my 2nd attack at barb 5th level. Didn't need to reckless attack as much for advantage as enemies were prone. Advantage, 20 strength, expertise in athletics meant i pretty much never failed. The giff wasn't the best choice since their strength kind of overlaps with barbarian rage, but I thought it was funny to have this giant giff rogue. And it was a spell jammer campaign.
There are only two features that have anything to do with Hunter's Mark. The feature that allows you to cast it and the capstone. I don't really care about the capstone, since nobody really plays that except 20th-level one-shots. Can't say I really like the changes, though.
The requirement to move it with BA is fine. It should have some cost to move the ability, otherwise, it's just a damage boost. Even for Dual-Wielding Rangers, since they can take the Nick weapon mastery, it is still viable. I think the damage reduction is fine. For a 1st level spell, 1d6 once per turn is a good amount that builds over time. The ability to use this without a spell slot as many times as your Wisdom modifier is also good at low levels.
The problem starts when you reach level ~5. Until then, you only had one attack, maybe two with dual-wielding, you had only a few spell slots and they were all 1st level spells anyway. The ability to cast HM for free really helped you. But now, you have more attacks, monsters have more HP and you have more spell slots, as well as more spells, including 2nd-level spells. Holding concentration for 1d6 per turn means your other spell slots will see little to no use, as most of them require concentration. The effectiveness of this damage goes down, however.
So they have a problem. They either: 1. Make HM strong without concentration. That will be overpowered. 2. Make HM strong with concentration. Other spells will never get cast and your spell slots are all unused until you can upcast HM to get it even stronger. Sure, you might lose concentration, but you can easily recast the spell. 3. Make HM weak without concentration. Just a small damage boost which you have to keep moving around. A little annoying, but I think this is the best option. The damage will build up over time if you have long encounters/multiple encounters per adventuring day. 4. Make HM weak with concentration. Obviously, a bad choice, as it will see very little use, only at levels 1-4, or maybe only 1-3. This is what we currently have, as I think at levels 5-8 I have better things to concentrate on than 1d6 per turn, and from levels 9+ if I really want HM I'd rather upcast it. So free castings of 1st level? Never will they see use.
I'd want to keep it as is but remove the concentration. Alternatively, making upcasted HM require no concentration.
And if we're already on the Ranger topic, wtf happened to Zephyr Strike? And why was Gloom Stalker made better than it was already, while Hunter became extremely boring? Also very weak? The Retaliator was improved and is now pretty nice. Other than that, Rogue is infinitely better at doing the exact same things, faster. In fact, that reaction might trigger Sneak Attack which is huge. Take 3 levels in Ranger and then Rogue all the way. You'll get the same features earlier anyway. No seriously, 12 more levels to get what a Rogue gets in 7? And everything competes for reactions, too. At least Beastmaster is pretty cool.
Well, concerning the last part, it sounds fair to get those later than a rogue. Where would be the point in choosing rogue else ? Multiclass in this new edition is costfull as you must forget you 19th lvl epic boon to, and also your lvl20 capacity of ranger which is quite powerfull, so I'd rather stick to the ranger class.
Aniway, what do you like in the new beastmaster ? It no longuers gives you a TRUE choice of your beast, as the paladin's Find a steed spell, which allowed you to take more personal forms before...
But otherwise the class has got a great upgrade, as the other fighters' classes, so looks like this edition will be very interesting for their players.
But why the assumption that every ranger should always be using Hunter's Mark at all times? Hunter's Mark is a perfectly fine base choice for Ranger but it isn't and shouldn't be the only thing they do in combat - otherwise they should just go play a Fighter not a Ranger. Ensnaring Strike is awesome and super thematic for Rangers and it makes be sad that I have never, ever seen a Ranger use it in combat.
Why the assumption that every barbarian must always be using rage at all times?
Rage is a core feature of Barbarian and a majority of their class features are based on it and build upon it and there is no other way to get Rage than to be a Barbarian.
Hunter's Mark is one spell of out of hundreds, it's not even the only Ranger-specific spell, there are half a dozen ranger-specific spells. Since it's a 1st level spell any character in the game can pick up Hunter's Mark from Magic Initiate (as a background feat) or from Fey Touched. If Hunter's Mark is the class defining ability of Ranger that's pretty sad, cause in 2024 DnD I'd be more inclined to pick it up with Magic Initiate on a Monk (along side Shillelagh) as it is much more potent for a Monk to use Hunter's Mark than a Ranger.
But why the assumption that every ranger should always be using Hunter's Mark at all times? Hunter's Mark is a perfectly fine base choice for Ranger but it isn't and shouldn't be the only thing they do in combat - otherwise they should just go play a Fighter not a Ranger. Ensnaring Strike is awesome and super thematic for Rangers and it makes be sad that I have never, ever seen a Ranger use it in combat.
Why the assumption that every barbarian must always be using rage at all times?
Rage is a core feature of Barbarian and a majority of their class features are based on it and build upon it and there is no other way to get Rage than to be a Barbarian.
Hunter's Mark is one spell of out of hundreds, it's not even the only Ranger-specific spell, there are half a dozen ranger-specific spells. Since it's a 1st level spell any character in the game can pick up Hunter's Mark from Magic Initiate (as a background feat) or from Fey Touched. If Hunter's Mark is the class defining ability of Ranger that's pretty sad, cause in 2024 DnD I'd be more inclined to pick it up with Magic Initiate on a Monk (along side Shillelagh) as it is much more potent for a Monk to use Hunter's Mark than a Ranger.
Listening to their Ranger reveal a lot of the class is based around hunters mark, all the way up to their capstone. So yeah it sounds class defining now. I'm sure you can ignore it but that means you ignore like 1/4 of your class abilities.
But why the assumption that every ranger should always be using Hunter's Mark at all times? Hunter's Mark is a perfectly fine base choice for Ranger but it isn't and shouldn't be the only thing they do in combat - otherwise they should just go play a Fighter not a Ranger. Ensnaring Strike is awesome and super thematic for Rangers and it makes be sad that I have never, ever seen a Ranger use it in combat.
Why the assumption that every barbarian must always be using rage at all times?
Rage is a core feature of Barbarian and a majority of their class features are based on it and build upon it and there is no other way to get Rage than to be a Barbarian.
Hunter's Mark is one spell of out of hundreds, it's not even the only Ranger-specific spell, there are half a dozen ranger-specific spells. Since it's a 1st level spell any character in the game can pick up Hunter's Mark from Magic Initiate (as a background feat) or from Fey Touched. If Hunter's Mark is the class defining ability of Ranger that's pretty sad, cause in 2024 DnD I'd be more inclined to pick it up with Magic Initiate on a Monk (along side Shillelagh) as it is much more potent for a Monk to use Hunter's Mark than a Ranger.
Listening to their Ranger reveal a lot of the class is based around hunters mark, all the way up to their capstone. So yeah it sounds class defining now. I'm sure you can ignore it but that means you ignore like 1/4 of your class abilities.
That was a very poor design choice by WotC. I don't understand their push to make everything a spell, when there are so many ways for characters to pick up spells other than through their class. It's like in the UA where they tried to make the warlock pact boons into cantrips, which just would have allowed any character to pick them up using Magic Initiate. It's the same with Hunter's Mark. A spell is not a class feature, spells are never class-specific because Magical Secrets exists and Magic Initiate exists. If Hunter's Mark is class defining then the Vengeance Paladin is also a Ranger because they get Hunter's Mark on their extended spell list. The improvements to hunter's mark don't come until after level 10 (which many groups don't play) and are pretty minor. Even if they make Hunter's Mark scale with spell level, that doesn't help Ranger be unique because as a half-caster they have much more limited ability to up cast it than other classes. E.g. a Valor Bard will be better at using Hunter's Mark than a Ranger.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I know. I think HM should have its damage scale differently, somewhere along the lines of barbarian's rage. It's a very basic feature for ranger and making it monopolize concentration is just silly. I personally like it being a different way of applying extra damage. Fighters hit faster, barbarians rage and hit harder, paladins add radiant damage, rangers mark their prey and hit it harder (plus tracking and whatever subclass features may add to it).
hello
That's why I think non-damage but attack bonus, but for the whole party, would be better.
Make Hunter's Mark a mildly useful but reliable non-concentration support ability for the whole party (+1 to attacks against that specific enemy, increasing to +2 at 7th and +3 at 12th for example, I dunno exactly) that the ranger gets to add damage and condition riders as they level or through subclass.
Now it's noticable when your ranger isn't there to point out the big enemy's weakness and give you that +2, but also means stuff like Bless still has its place against multiple enemies, etc.
But why the assumption that every ranger should always be using Hunter's Mark at all times? Hunter's Mark is a perfectly fine base choice for Ranger but it isn't and shouldn't be the only thing they do in combat - otherwise they should just go play a Fighter not a Ranger. Ensnaring Strike is awesome and super thematic for Rangers and it makes be sad that I have never, ever seen a Ranger use it in combat.
Because the game rewards on-going damage much more than it rewards something that can be saved out of. Short duration, concentration spells that *may* do damage for a little while and possibly take out some actions...but almost certainly never more than 5 rounds...aren't as useful as a long-term damage buff.
I agree it's very thematic, but there's not much in-game reward. I think 5e in general has overused Concentration. I agree that we don't want the mess of stacking from 3rd, but this has gone too far the other way.
I really do like some of the idea floated about the ranger passing on bonuses to the whole party as a way to differentiate them from just woodsy fighters.
As soon as you make it a core feature and give over multiple core and subclass features to the use of it, it should be consistently usable and not interfere with other spells/features (allowing you to use Ensnaring Strike, for example!).
If that means weakening it, or spreading the benefits across levels, so be it.
Or even return it to just being a completely optional spell and give ranger a different core feature, I don't care. But if you're gonna make it a core feature, do it properly.
I really like how hunters mark works in 5e. Its a level 1 spell that encourages you to increase your number of attacks which leads to some satisfying options. Having it once per turn feels so rigid and underwhelming to me... I just generally dont like the feeling of once per turn damage boosters, even if they are sometimes needed.
On top of that, I find it very odd to require the player to upcast hunters mark for it to be viable at higher levels, but to then include free castings for the ranger which do not support any kind of free upcasting at higher levels.... It seems to me that the free castings wont really be used at all beyond early levels when the spell doesnt scale with number of attacks anymore and still competes for your concentratoin.
For me, Id either wanna keep hunters mark as is, or remove concentration, because then atleast you have a reason to cast it at higher levels.
Personally I say no concentration 1d6 per attack, though if the damage auto scaled by ranger level instead of spell level once per turn would be fine. As a spell with free castings always being cast at the spells lowest level one of the rangers core features just ends up being really bad, really quick. Partly because like Hex I do not think they should be spells but abilities. Hunters mark should be like a stance, effectively a mode the ranger can switch into X# of times a day each use lasting one hour, with enough uses as they level to cover the day. Sub Classes could work off of this, when in your hunters stance you also get x,y,z.. Warlocks similarly should not be casting the spell hex, but using the class ability to lay a hex which should not even need a target, you create a hex, and apply it as a bonus action at some point later on.
Because they decided to make it a class feature for the ranger. If it was just a primal spell and no class features around it, sure. but when its a core feature of the class and then its just freaking terrible to use by level X or something its bad design.
This, i should have finished reading through before basically making the same comment.
I think I'd be ok with the Ranger getting a Primal Order-like option at Level 1, where they can choose cantrips or Weapon Mastery. Though giving up Mastery might be a bit much. Part of me wants to bundle Weapon Mastery and Fighting Style as one choice, and cantrips plus something else as the other choice, I'm just not sure what that something else should be. My reasoning is you're either more martial-focused or more magic-focused. If you're magic-focused, both Weapon Mastery AND Fighting Style lose some importance. Or heck, let you choose Mastery vs Cantrips at Level 1, and Fighting Style vs ??? at Level 2. I'm just spitballing here, but I'd love to see options that make it easier to build a Ranger focusing more on Wis than Dex.
Why the assumption that every barbarian must always be using rage at all times?
the idea of Power mode is critical to the fantasy of playing a barbarian. either by hitting hard or absorbing lots of damage. Rage provides both
Meanwhile rangers sometimes target weak points, sometimes rapid fire, sometimes do 'chip damage', and sometimes do one hard hit. How rangers fight isn't core to a ranger but huntersmark (as a main feature) encourages the rapid attacks approach.
In base 5e, by picking your skills, feats, spells, stats and weapons right you can match any Idea of how rangers fight. I believe the core part of a ranger is feeling like you won by making the intelligent choice, and by encouraging one type of fighting (multi attacks) it feels less of a choice for ranger.
at the same time some people want the two weapon fighting fantasy. so there needs to be some cost benefit trade offs for taking that style.
I for one think the choice between two medium(or 3 medium) damage hits and one large and one small (or 1-L 2-S)becomes an interesting character building choice.
The way rage works, it also favors dual wielding and rapid attacks to get the most out of rage damage bonus. Yet we don't see it happening. There's no way to do "sometimes rapid fire, sometimes one hard hit". You get extra attack at level 5. You make two attacks. Three if you dual wield. That's it. A barbarian is also free to use two-handers, shields, dual wielding, or even thrown weapons.
The existence of Pole Arm Master makes dual wielding unnecessary for Barbarians and also combines with Great Weapon Master which works well with the advantage Barbarians can generate with Reckless Attacks.
But if you're playing something like a Barbarian/Rogue multiclass, dual wielding short swords (especially if you can get the Dual Wielder fighting style from the Fighting Initiate feat) is a decent way to maximize the damage you get from combining Rage and Sneak Attack.
Now I want to play a dual wielding Scout Rogue/Totem Barbarian Wood Elf.
Last time I played as opposed to ran a barbarian/rogue was what I did. I was a giff zealot/soul knife. Not the best combo but it worked as a reflection of his abilities from being a zealot of Mask. I made it so I grappled/shoved with my off hand with my 2nd attack at barb 5th level. Didn't need to reckless attack as much for advantage as enemies were prone. Advantage, 20 strength, expertise in athletics meant i pretty much never failed. The giff wasn't the best choice since their strength kind of overlaps with barbarian rage, but I thought it was funny to have this giant giff rogue. And it was a spell jammer campaign.
Well, concerning the last part, it sounds fair to get those later than a rogue. Where would be the point in choosing rogue else ? Multiclass in this new edition is costfull as you must forget you 19th lvl epic boon to, and also your lvl20 capacity of ranger which is quite powerfull, so I'd rather stick to the ranger class.
Aniway, what do you like in the new beastmaster ? It no longuers gives you a TRUE choice of your beast, as the paladin's Find a steed spell, which allowed you to take more personal forms before...
But otherwise the class has got a great upgrade, as the other fighters' classes, so looks like this edition will be very interesting for their players.
~Ulfgar.
Rage is a core feature of Barbarian and a majority of their class features are based on it and build upon it and there is no other way to get Rage than to be a Barbarian.
Hunter's Mark is one spell of out of hundreds, it's not even the only Ranger-specific spell, there are half a dozen ranger-specific spells. Since it's a 1st level spell any character in the game can pick up Hunter's Mark from Magic Initiate (as a background feat) or from Fey Touched. If Hunter's Mark is the class defining ability of Ranger that's pretty sad, cause in 2024 DnD I'd be more inclined to pick it up with Magic Initiate on a Monk (along side Shillelagh) as it is much more potent for a Monk to use Hunter's Mark than a Ranger.
Listening to their Ranger reveal a lot of the class is based around hunters mark, all the way up to their capstone. So yeah it sounds class defining now. I'm sure you can ignore it but that means you ignore like 1/4 of your class abilities.
That was a very poor design choice by WotC. I don't understand their push to make everything a spell, when there are so many ways for characters to pick up spells other than through their class. It's like in the UA where they tried to make the warlock pact boons into cantrips, which just would have allowed any character to pick them up using Magic Initiate. It's the same with Hunter's Mark. A spell is not a class feature, spells are never class-specific because Magical Secrets exists and Magic Initiate exists. If Hunter's Mark is class defining then the Vengeance Paladin is also a Ranger because they get Hunter's Mark on their extended spell list. The improvements to hunter's mark don't come until after level 10 (which many groups don't play) and are pretty minor. Even if they make Hunter's Mark scale with spell level, that doesn't help Ranger be unique because as a half-caster they have much more limited ability to up cast it than other classes. E.g. a Valor Bard will be better at using Hunter's Mark than a Ranger.