"you can add your proficiency bonus to any attempt to track a creature or to determine the age of any tracks it has left behind. This bonus applies to checks which are already benefiting from proficiency or expertise."
So triple proficiency? At that point you may as well just say they succeed, they could get up to +23 to their check with this before any buffs; there's no point in even rolling.
Jumping back to Hunter's Mark, I have in other threads made this point with regards to Paladin's Smites too, but when something is meant to be a core feature like Hunter's Mark, even if it's powered by spell slots, it should remain a feature and not be a spell. I think hunter's mark in the latest iteration being pushed as a core feature in the way it is, is negative to the Ranger class.
No one has been able to give me a reason why core features being spells is a problem, beyond repeatedly asserting "I don't like it." The one possible concern I could have seen, i.e. Bards and Magic Initiate being able to usurp the feature in question, has been dealt with; ranger-only and paladin-only spells are off-limits for those now. So what's the actual problem with HM being a spell?
How I think Hunter's Mark should work is probably re-adjusting it downwards but making it a proper feature instead of a spell.
Level 1, You gain the Ranger's Hunter's Mark, when you hit the target of your hunter's mark you can apply 1d4 force damage once per round. When tracking the current target of your hunter's mark, you gain advantage on any Wisdom (Perception) or Wisdom (Survival) checks you make to find it. You can apply hunter's mark to a creature when hitting it with an attack or by using your bonus action to apply to a creature you can see, you can not re-assign your hunter's mark if it is currently on another target and you have utilized any feature of your hunter's mark within the past 10 minutes. You hunter's mark expires if the creature is reduced to 0HP or if you have not seen the creature within the past 8 hours.
Level 5, you can spend 1 minute to cast locate creature as a ritual but it can only locate the current target of your hunter's mark and it's duration is reduced to 1 minute, when locate creature is cast in this way, you can not cast it again in this method until you have completed a short or long rest.
Level 9, your hunter's mark now adds 1d6 damage instead of 1d4.
Level 13, you gain hunter's reaction which you can use a number of times equal to your wisdom modifier, per long rest. The hunter's reaction allows you to take a reaction to apply advantage to an allies attack, if that attack directly targets current target of your hunter's mark and affects no other creature. You can alternatively use your hunter's reaction to apply disadvantage to any saving throws made by the current target of your hunter's marks as a reaction.
Level 17, your hunter's mark now adds 1d8 damage instead of 1d4. Get advantage on attack rolls against the current target of your hunter's mark.
Level 20, your hunter's mark now adds 1d10 damage instead of 1d4. When you score a critical hit against the current target of your hunter's mark, you deal an additional damage 1d10 force damage as part of the critical hit, this damage is not doubled.
I think this makes a much more balanced hunter's mark and keeps it as a feature you'd want to keep using, while being able to make up the lost damage by utilizing spells like Zephyr Strike, Summon Beast, Spike Growth or Flame Arrows. Of course people are free to disagree with me on that one, it's just my suggestion on what is more inline with where Hunter's Mark should have gone, if it was to be promoted into being such a core feature of the Ranger class.
Hard no to all of this because you lost me the moment you said the damage should only apply once per round. The only way for that to be worthwhile would be if it retained the innate damage scaling with higher slots, which the free uses wouldn't be able to use. The approach they went with of 1d6 per hit at 1st level is far superior.
Of the riders you listed, the reaction is okay and the rest are either already available to the ranger/granted by HM or aren't worthwhile.
The issue with it being a spell is that means your core feature is tied to another resource mechanic that has its own reasons why you would want to use it. Whether that is a feature or a bug is a matter of perspective. With a paladins smite I see it as a bug as the spells are not balanced well against the use of smites so this other large feature of your spell casting does not seem to get used. Rangers I think its less of an issue as its a long duration spell not a spell per hit. I still think its core issue is concentration which could be on a feature as well as a spell. So whether its a spell or feature if it has concentration it is going to have issues. This has a similar problem with the paladin in that you have this core feature with multiple class levels devoted to it that motivates you to not use another core feature your spells. Hunters mark probably isn't worth it though at the levels you get those class features so you end up just wasting class features.
The issue with it being a spell is that means your core feature is tied to another resource mechanic that has its own reasons why you would want to use it. Whether that is a feature or a bug is a matter of perspective. With a paladins smite I see it as a bug as the spells are not balanced well against the use of smites so this other large feature of your spell casting does not seem to get used. Rangers I think its less of an issue as its a long duration spell not a spell per hit. I still think its core issue is concentration which could be on a feature as well as a spell. So whether its a spell or feature if it has concentration it is going to have issues. This has a similar problem with the paladin in that you have this core feature with multiple class levels devoted to it that motivates you to not use another core feature your spells. Hunters mark probably isn't worth it though at the levels you get those class features so you end up just wasting class features.
1) Lots of core features are tied to shared resource mechanics. Paladin's Smite as you mention has always worked this way - even before it was a spell itself it still cost spell slots, so you always had the strategic choice of how many slots you would devote to smiting vs. other things. The same is true for Monk's Flurry - while it doesn't cost spell slots, it still draws from a resource pool the monk is using for other things.
2) To the extent that costing spell slots is even an issue, they've solved that too, by giving you a bunch of free uses per long rest. You need to burn through all of those before the slot tradeoff even becomes an issue. And unlike Smite, you're not sacrificing damage with the free uses, because HM doesn't scale up with damage, only duration.
3) The free uses also alleviate the concentration concern. When you need to concentrate on something else, just drop HM - even the free uses last an hour each, so you're not giving up much of anything by letting it go.
4) I still don't understand the "wasted class features" argument. Not every class feature you get is meant to be used 100% of the time, some are conditional. When my Cleric isn't facing undead, I don't consider their Turn Undead or Smite Undead features to be "wasted" - they're just things my class gets that I'm not using right now. When I'm not concentrating on Hunter's Mark, I don't consider Relentless Hunter and Precise Hunter to be "wasted" - they're just things my class gets that I'm not using right now.
This whole hunters mark problem is fixed with one sentence added to Favored Enemy. “When you cast Hunter’s Mark without expending a spell slot it does not require concentration.”
That means it’s limited on when you can cast in without concentration and it is always a 1st level version that doesn’t need concentration.
I feel like all Rangers should have gotten the Hunter’s 6th level feature that allows them to know an enemies weakness, but I acknowledge we all have different interpretations of what a Ranger is at its core. I’ve always seen Rangers as knowledgeable supports. Saying things like “I know/heard Trolls are weak against fire.” Then having a way to add fire to their own or the party’s attacks. Honestly their ability to track and survive are covered by skill checks, so features beyond expertise aren’t necessary since they also have spells to help in with those.
My version of HM makes the 13th level feature pointless. Instead Relentless Hunter should work for any Ranger concentration spell you cast while the non concentration version of Hunters Mark is active. That would give you 54 seconds/ 9 rounds were you know damage won’t make you lose concentration on any Ranger spell.
Their Capstone is trash. Hated the 2014 version but honestly think it’s better than the 2024 version. Why connect the Capstone to HM at all, but if that’s what we are going to get, why not just make 2d6?
Why can't I use a skill check to determine what kinds of creatures might be in the area? Oh I can? Then why is this a whole class feature?
But you don't care if a spellcaster can instantly tell exactly where a creature is via a spell, with no fail chance.
This is the design philosophy of 2024 5e, that magic is the only way to have specialized abilities to overcome obstacles, and there is nothing a martial can do that anyone else shouldn't be able to do.
Why can't I use a skill check to determine what kinds of creatures might be in the area? Oh I can? Then why is this a whole class feature?
But you don't care if a spellcaster can instantly tell exactly where a creature is via a spell, with no fail chance.
This is the design philosophy of 2024 5e, that magic is the only way to have specialized abilities to overcome obstacles, and there is nothing a martial can do that anyone else shouldn't be able to do.
But the Ranger is a Spellcaster who can have a spell that does that. The Ranger can use a skill check or a spell. PsyrenXY is correct that there is no point in a feature that negates the use of skill checks or a spell use. A good feature might promote them or make you more successful at them, but that’s covered with expertise.
Why can't I use a skill check to determine what kinds of creatures might be in the area? Oh I can? Then why is this a whole class feature?
But you don't care if a spellcaster can instantly tell exactly where a creature is via a spell, with no fail chance.
This is the design philosophy of 2024 5e, that magic is the only way to have specialized abilities to overcome obstacles, and there is nothing a martial can do that anyone else shouldn't be able to do.
But the Ranger is a Spellcaster who can have a spell that does that. The Ranger can use a skill check or a spell. PsyrenXY is correct that there is no point in a feature that negates the use of skill checks or a spell use. A good feature might promote them or make you more successful at them, but that’s covered with expertise.
There is no point in features that allow non-magical characters to excel in certain situations only if you want only casters to have such tools and opportunities, while still having the ability to do everything else a non-caster can do via ability checks.
It is the deliberate and knowing desire to leave players out of such situations for having chosen the "wrong" class.
"you can add your proficiency bonus to any attempt to track a creature or to determine the age of any tracks it has left behind. This bonus applies to checks which are already benefiting from proficiency or expertise."
So triple proficiency? At that point you may as well just say they succeed, they could get up to +23 to their check with this before any buffs; there's no point in even rolling.
It's ignoring the point I was making, as I said, I wasn't seriously suggesting this, the focus was on how it enhances things rather than enables things. I was not considering balance because it wasn't a suggestion of what ranger should have, it was more a suggestion of how features should be more mindful to improve the ability to do something than give the ability to do so, as it assumes nobody can do that thing, without that feature.
Jumping back to Hunter's Mark, I have in other threads made this point with regards to Paladin's Smites too, but when something is meant to be a core feature like Hunter's Mark, even if it's powered by spell slots, it should remain a feature and not be a spell. I think hunter's mark in the latest iteration being pushed as a core feature in the way it is, is negative to the Ranger class.
No one has been able to give me a reason why core features being spells is a problem, beyond repeatedly asserting "I don't like it." The one possible concern I could have seen, i.e. Bards and Magic Initiate being able to usurp the feature in question, has been dealt with; ranger-only and paladin-only spells are off-limits for those now. So what's the actual problem with HM being a spell?
It's quiet simple, it's because the core feature then appears fully under the class details, rather than having to go off and finding parts of the class in completely different sections which are not part of the class. It gives clear and concise details on how those features are meant to work WHEN you are reading the class, not having to jump about in the book, the only thing that should be going to spells, is the spellcasting feature, no other core feature should be shifting half of what the feature does, into a specific spell.
When classes are displayed, it is beneficial for many people to have the class details fully within the class section, now you might not think this important at all, but you're not everyone. So to be clear and concise core features of the class, should always be features and not spells.
Now supplementary features which only give a method of casting a spell are fine but these shouldn't be doing more than just giving a way to cast a specific spell, if they are, it shouldn't be a spell. I.E. Spirit Seeker gives a Totem Barbarian the Beast Sense and Speak with Animals rituals, it doesn't do more than that.
How I think Hunter's Mark should work is probably re-adjusting it downwards but making it a proper feature instead of a spell.
Level 1, You gain the Ranger's Hunter's Mark, when you hit the target of your hunter's mark you can apply 1d4 force damage once per round. When tracking the current target of your hunter's mark, you gain advantage on any Wisdom (Perception) or Wisdom (Survival) checks you make to find it. You can apply hunter's mark to a creature when hitting it with an attack or by using your bonus action to apply to a creature you can see, you can not re-assign your hunter's mark if it is currently on another target and you have utilized any feature of your hunter's mark within the past 10 minutes. You hunter's mark expires if the creature is reduced to 0HP or if you have not seen the creature within the past 8 hours.
Level 5, you can spend 1 minute to cast locate creature as a ritual but it can only locate the current target of your hunter's mark and it's duration is reduced to 1 minute, when locate creature is cast in this way, you can not cast it again in this method until you have completed a short or long rest.
Level 9, your hunter's mark now adds 1d6 damage instead of 1d4.
Level 13, you gain hunter's reaction which you can use a number of times equal to your wisdom modifier, per long rest. The hunter's reaction allows you to take a reaction to apply advantage to an allies attack, if that attack directly targets current target of your hunter's mark and affects no other creature. You can alternatively use your hunter's reaction to apply disadvantage to any saving throws made by the current target of your hunter's marks as a reaction.
Level 17, your hunter's mark now adds 1d8 damage instead of 1d4. Get advantage on attack rolls against the current target of your hunter's mark.
Level 20, your hunter's mark now adds 1d10 damage instead of 1d4. When you score a critical hit against the current target of your hunter's mark, you deal an additional damage 1d10 force damage as part of the critical hit, this damage is not doubled.
I think this makes a much more balanced hunter's mark and keeps it as a feature you'd want to keep using, while being able to make up the lost damage by utilizing spells like Zephyr Strike, Summon Beast, Spike Growth or Flame Arrows. Of course people are free to disagree with me on that one, it's just my suggestion on what is more inline with where Hunter's Mark should have gone, if it was to be promoted into being such a core feature of the Ranger class.
Hard no to all of this because you lost me the moment you said the damage should only apply once per round. The only way for that to be worthwhile would be if it retained the innate damage scaling with higher slots, which the free uses wouldn't be able to use. The approach they went with of 1d6 per hit at 1st level is far superior.
Of the riders you listed, the reaction is okay and the rest are either already available to the ranger/granted by HM or aren't worthwhile.
And this is where you're fundamentally creating an unsolvable issue, you can't both have Hunter's Mark and then say that spell casting is so improved when the ranger design has been streamlined to Hunter's Mark for multiple features. So your solutions are one of the following:
a) remove all features related to hunter's mark and just leave it a Ranger specific spell which benefits from no specific features. Hunter's mark features are then replaced out with other features that are not related to hunter's mark so that rangers do not feel they are being pigeonholed into Hunter's Mark and that they have features and spells more appropriate to later tiers of play.
b) you make hunter's mark something that doesn't conflict with the enhancements to spellcasting such as consuming concentration, to do this, you can't have hunter's mark still doing the same level of damage, it would make ranger vastly too powerful. Thus the solution I proposed. The once per round is fine, it would become free damage and would basically act the same way that Colossus Slayer does.
c) You continue on with this deeply unpopular form of Ranger that vast amounts of community are speaking out about because of this obviously terrible design around hunter's mark. What's the point in having flaming arrow when you can just use hunter's mark? It becomes very situational, overall the current design is very lackluster.
Why can't I use a skill check to determine what kinds of creatures might be in the area? Oh I can? Then why is this a whole class feature?
But you don't care if a spellcaster can instantly tell exactly where a creature is via a spell, with no fail chance.
This is the design philosophy of 2024 5e, that magic is the only way to have specialized abilities to overcome obstacles, and there is nothing a martial can do that anyone else shouldn't be able to do.
But the Ranger is a Spellcaster who can have a spell that does that. The Ranger can use a skill check or a spell. PsyrenXY is correct that there is no point in a feature that negates the use of skill checks or a spell use. A good feature might promote them or make you more successful at them, but that’s covered with expertise.
I don't believe that's true.
Skill checks are not stable metrics.
One dm may make a survival check be equal to locate plants but another might just give you a hint at a direction and another may say you need a direction but skill checks finish the job and are for harvesting .
This can extrapolate to every skill.
Features that "skip checks" or quantify the results better helps with gamplay experience by solidifying expected actions and outcomes.
This whole hunters mark problem is fixed with one sentence added to Favored Enemy. “When you cast Hunter’s Mark without expending a spell slot it does not require concentration.”
That means it’s limited on when you can cast in without concentration and it is always a 1st level version that doesn’t need concentration.
HM without concentration is too powerful early on. I'd be fine with removing concentration at high levels (definitely at the capstone when balance is mostly out the window anyway), but if you lead with that right away then Rangers get ridiculous fast. Even a basic combination like HM + Flame Arrows + XBE would give them +6d6 damage per round at level 9 - that's more than a rogue's entire sneak attack at that level, and they don't even need to set it up with an ally or advantage.
But you don't care if a spellcaster can instantly tell exactly where a creature is via a spell, with no fail chance.
And which spell is that? Be specific. Because I guarantee you're overlooking the limitations that were built into whatever spell you're thinking of, as usual.
It's ignoring the point I was making, as I said, I wasn't seriously suggesting this, the focus was on how it enhances things rather than enables things. I was not considering balance because it wasn't a suggestion of what ranger should have, it was more a suggestion of how features should be more mindful to improve the ability to do something than give the ability to do so, as it assumes nobody can do that thing, without that feature.
It's fine for you to not consider balance with your proposals, but that's not a luxury the designers have.
It's quiet simple, it's because the core feature then appears fully under the class details, rather than having to go off and finding parts of the class in completely different sections which are not part of the class. It gives clear and concise details on how those features are meant to work WHEN you are reading the class, not having to jump about in the book, the only thing that should be going to spells, is the spellcasting feature, no other core feature should be shifting half of what the feature does, into a specific spell.
That's a bug, not a feature. Needing to cram the text of the ability into the class section instead of having the room to breathe it would get in the spell section means at best the feature is redundant and at worse it lacks key functionality.
Consider the Diviner's Third Eye ability for instance. The original version had a pared down see invisibility option (10ft) as well as a separate ethereal sight option. They realized "hey, we can just make this ability work like the See Invisibility spell instead" - getting both pieces of functionality, improved, in far less text. Win for the designers, win for us.
c) You continue on with this deeply unpopular form of Ranger that vast amounts of community are speaking out about because of this obviously terrible design around hunter's mark. What's the point in having flaming arrow when you can just use hunter's mark? It becomes very situational, overall the current design is very lackluster.
Community popularity based on a preview video is irrelevant to me, it's a bunch of kneejerk reactions that are not based in rational thinking. The cooler heads will prevail once things like DPR comparisons and build guides start coming out. I'm patient enough for that.
So what's the actual problem with HM being a spell?
The problem with it being a spell is that it must follow all the spell mechanics, which includes:
You automatically reveal your location when casting it - no you cannot sneak up on a bandit, hunter's mark them and then track them back to their camp because the moment you cast Hunter's Mark they can hear you and see you. This also means it breaks many types of Invisibility and Sanctuary.
Some monsters are flat out immune to it. It wouldn't be acceptable for a creature to be completely immune to a barbarian's rage, or a rogue's sneak attack. If Hunter's Mark the core feature of the class, then monsters should not be able to be immune to it. It is also suppressed / blocked by : Antimagic, Globe of Invulnerability, and Silence.
Any character in the game can pick it up with the Fey Touched feat (one might argue that this is against the spirit of 2024 PHB but until they reprint this feat it is still RAW).
Concentration conflicts with other spells, and the fact you are casting a spell with a BA might interfere with casting other spells as an action (has it been confirmed this is going to be changed in 2024 PHB?)
It is trapped to scaling with spell slots rather than character level making it super dippable by other casting classes, or requiring it to have terrible scaling making it bad to build the Ranger class around it. If you do have class features to try to boost it well now you have the worst of all worlds because the full description of it exists no where, not in the spellcasting section nor in your class description.
that's more than a rogue's entire sneak attack at that level, and they don't even need to set it up with an ally or advantage.
2024 Rogue is getting a feature that is just "use a bonus action to get advantage", so there is almost 0 chance that a rogue will not be able to sneak attack every turn in 2024. And TBH that is correct because Rogue DPR is balanced compared to other classes if you assume they get that Sneak Attack every round where they hit with an attack.
Needing to cram the text of the ability into the class section instead of having the room to breathe it would get in the spell section means at best the feature is redundant and at worse it lacks key functionality.
So making people flip back and forth across hundreds of pages in order to figure out how their class works is a feature? Because I've done that with learning Pathfinder during the OGL crisis and it was a major turn-off. Ended up giving up on the books entirely and using only the online character builders where it takes 1 click to read the spell. Also more text =/= better. Rather the opposite, more text means more players & DMs just skimming it rather than reading it thoroughly, means more confusion and disagreements at the table. People already routinely run Hunter's Mark incorrectly: they typically allow players to move the mark as a bonus action whenever they want despite the spell text explicitly saying it can only be moved if the current target is reduced to 0 hp. Not to mention that WotC are breaking up a ton of class features into lots of little features in order to fill up the classes with extra text & redundant features in order to give the appearance of more features in the new classes than the old ones.
So triple proficiency? At that point you may as well just say they succeed, they could get up to +23 to their check with this before any buffs; there's no point in even rolling.
Sorry but you do know that the Eloquence Bard, Rogue, and Starry Druid exist right? Eloquence Bard gets a guaranteed 10+Mod on Persuasion and Deception at 3rd level, 2024 Rogue will get guaranteed 10+Mod at level 7, and Starry Druid can use their Dragon form for guaranteed 10+mod on all Intelligence and Wisdom skills at 2nd level (or 3rd level in the new PHB).
If people are against features that just do a thing, why not just give Ranger a guaranteed 10 on the dice for all Survival checks at 1st level? - Don't make me roll to do some of the iconic things my class is supposed to be able to do.
There are so many add-ons to skill checks in 5e now, that my players almost never fail one and they aren't even optimized characters. When we did have an optimized party we succeeded on DC 25 checks at 3rd level without much issue.
Tying hunters mark to your class features will vary in usefulness depending on what tier you are in.
In tier 1 its fine. It gives a couple free extra uses when you dont have a lot of spell slots and it combos very well with nick weapon mastery and two weapon fighting. I think the new ranger has acess to both.
In tier two its meh. In combat I would probably use summon beast or spike growth first and when spell slots run out, default to free uses of hunters mark. Its ok but not great.
In tier 3 and 4 hunters mark is obsolete and this feature becomes terrible. The new conjure animals looks to be really good. Summon fey and summon elemental are both great and the new conjure woodland beings also looks pretty good (as of the last UA). There will always be better things to do with your concentration then use hunters mark at these levels. Always. That will make it feel like you are either not getting any benefit of your class features if you choose not to use hunters mark, or you will be forced into a certain play style if you do want to gain benefit from your class features. Thats not good.
As a capstone its brutal. I dont know what the designers were thinking here.
My solution is to not tie Favored Enemy to any concentration spell or damage bonuses at all. Mark a creature as your favored enemy (concentration free) and maybe give some other benefit (like advantage on attack rolls or increased crit range). Similar to vengeance paladin or hexblade. Then you are free to use hunters mark as you choose but favored enemy would still always be useful.
Community popularity based on a preview video is irrelevant to me, it's a bunch of kneejerk reactions that are not based in rational thinking. The cooler heads will prevail once things like DPR comparisons and build guides start coming out. I'm patient enough for that.
100%
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
So what's the actual problem with HM being a spell?
The problem with it being a spell is that it must follow all the spell mechanics, which includes:
You automatically reveal your location when casting it - no you cannot sneak up on a bandit, hunter's mark them and then track them back to their camp because the moment you cast Hunter's Mark they can hear you and see you. This also means it breaks many types of Invisibility and Sanctuary.
Some monsters are flat out immune to it. It wouldn't be acceptable for a creature to be completely immune to a barbarian's rage, or a rogue's sneak attack. If Hunter's Mark the core feature of the class, then monsters should not be able to be immune to it. It is also suppressed / blocked by : Antimagic, Globe of Invulnerability, and Silence.
Any character in the game can pick it up with the Fey Touched feat (one might argue that this is against the spirit of 2024 PHB but until they reprint this feat it is still RAW).
Concentration conflicts with other spells, and the fact you are casting a spell with a BA might interfere with casting other spells as an action (has it been confirmed this is going to be changed in 2024 PHB?)
It is trapped to scaling with spell slots rather than character level making it super dippable by other casting classes, or requiring it to have terrible scaling making it bad to build the Ranger class around it. If you do have class features to try to boost it well now you have the worst of all worlds because the full description of it exists no where, not in the spellcasting section nor in your class description.
1) Having a verbal component is an intentional drawback of HM and always has been. Even if it wasn't a spell, they'd simply include that anyway, or else just make it weaksauce like Favored Foe was.
2) If you're up against one of the handful of creatures that's immune to HM (like a Rakshasa or something?) Just buff yourself or an ally instead, you have other spells. There are creatures immune to Radiant damage too, does that mean Divine Smite should be removed from the game?
3) They are reprinting Fey-Touched (as well as every other Tasha's feat) in the PHB and said as much, so it will have the same limitation as Magic Initiate, Magical Secrets etc.
4) You're a gish, even if that rule is still there you're usually supposed to be attacking with your action.
5) Dipping is an optional rule, if you have a problem with it existing then ban it at your table. Dipping Ranger is no more an issue than dipping Warlock for Blade Pact/EB or dipping Paladin for smite. Do you complain about those too? And if you do, again, you have the solution right in front of you.
Your objections are based on defaulting to the worst case scenario doom-reading of everything rather than logical extrapolations of what they will do, like the Fey-Touched thing .
2024 Rogue is getting a feature that is just "use a bonus action to get advantage", so there is almost 0 chance that a rogue will not be able to sneak attack every turn in 2024.
Yeah at the cost of their movement, unless you're an Assassin in which case it's the cost of your subclass. It's not free in other words.
The issue with it being a spell is that means your core feature is tied to another resource mechanic that has its own reasons why you would want to use it. Whether that is a feature or a bug is a matter of perspective. With a paladins smite I see it as a bug as the spells are not balanced well against the use of smites so this other large feature of your spell casting does not seem to get used. Rangers I think its less of an issue as its a long duration spell not a spell per hit. I still think its core issue is concentration which could be on a feature as well as a spell. So whether its a spell or feature if it has concentration it is going to have issues. This has a similar problem with the paladin in that you have this core feature with multiple class levels devoted to it that motivates you to not use another core feature your spells. Hunters mark probably isn't worth it though at the levels you get those class features so you end up just wasting class features.
This is a response to several who have mentioned it being a spell, not just you (I’ve even said similar myself but..)
Even with it being a spell, with free castings isn’t it basically a class feature? much like other classes class features that say you can do <class feature> X number of times until you finish a long rest, or by spending a <spell slot, wild shape, or other resource>?
The issue with it being a spell is that means your core feature is tied to another resource mechanic that has its own reasons why you would want to use it. Whether that is a feature or a bug is a matter of perspective. With a paladins smite I see it as a bug as the spells are not balanced well against the use of smites so this other large feature of your spell casting does not seem to get used. Rangers I think its less of an issue as its a long duration spell not a spell per hit. I still think its core issue is concentration which could be on a feature as well as a spell. So whether its a spell or feature if it has concentration it is going to have issues. This has a similar problem with the paladin in that you have this core feature with multiple class levels devoted to it that motivates you to not use another core feature your spells. Hunters mark probably isn't worth it though at the levels you get those class features so you end up just wasting class features.
This is a response to several who have mentioned it being a spell, not just you (I’ve even said similar myself but..)
Even with it being a spell, with free castings isn’t it basically a class feature? much like other classes class features that say you can do <class feature> X number of times until you finish a long rest, or by spending a <spell slot, wild shape, or other resource>?
It helps for sure. It still comes with the other baggage of it being a spell including concentration.
It helps for sure. It still comes with the other baggage of it being a spell including concentration.
Not being a spell wouldn't have helped with that. See Favored Foe from Tasha's, it still required concentration even though it wasn't a spell.
Literally all you'd achieve by making it not a spell would be for them to nerf it into the toilet just like they did with FF and make it actually useless at high levels.
Why can't I use a skill check to determine what kinds of creatures might be in the area? Oh I can? Then why is this a whole class feature?
But you don't care if a spellcaster can instantly tell exactly where a creature is via a spell, with no fail chance.
This is the design philosophy of 2024 5e, that magic is the only way to have specialized abilities to overcome obstacles, and there is nothing a martial can do that anyone else shouldn't be able to do.
But the Ranger is a Spellcaster who can have a spell that does that. The Ranger can use a skill check or a spell. PsyrenXY is correct that there is no point in a feature that negates the use of skill checks or a spell use. A good feature might promote them or make you more successful at them, but that’s covered with expertise.
There is no point in features that allow non-magical characters to excel in certain situations only if you want only casters to have such tools and opportunities, while still having the ability to do everything else a non-caster can do via ability checks.
It is the deliberate and knowing desire to leave players out of such situations for having chosen the "wrong" class.
But Rangers are magical. This isn’t a caster vs non caster debate. Rangers are casters.
Why can't I use a skill check to determine what kinds of creatures might be in the area? Oh I can? Then why is this a whole class feature?
But you don't care if a spellcaster can instantly tell exactly where a creature is via a spell, with no fail chance.
This is the design philosophy of 2024 5e, that magic is the only way to have specialized abilities to overcome obstacles, and there is nothing a martial can do that anyone else shouldn't be able to do.
But the Ranger is a Spellcaster who can have a spell that does that. The Ranger can use a skill check or a spell. PsyrenXY is correct that there is no point in a feature that negates the use of skill checks or a spell use. A good feature might promote them or make you more successful at them, but that’s covered with expertise.
I don't believe that's true.
Skill checks are not stable metrics.
One dm may make a survival check be equal to locate plants but another might just give you a hint at a direction and another may say you need a direction but skill checks finish the job and are for harvesting .
This can extrapolate to every skill.
Features that "skip checks" or quantify the results better helps with gamplay experience by solidifying expected actions and outcomes.
But that’s were spells come in. Note I said skill checks and spells. A Ranger has both for a reason.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So triple proficiency? At that point you may as well just say they succeed, they could get up to +23 to their check with this before any buffs; there's no point in even rolling.
No one has been able to give me a reason why core features being spells is a problem, beyond repeatedly asserting "I don't like it." The one possible concern I could have seen, i.e. Bards and Magic Initiate being able to usurp the feature in question, has been dealt with; ranger-only and paladin-only spells are off-limits for those now. So what's the actual problem with HM being a spell?
Hard no to all of this because you lost me the moment you said the damage should only apply once per round. The only way for that to be worthwhile would be if it retained the innate damage scaling with higher slots, which the free uses wouldn't be able to use. The approach they went with of 1d6 per hit at 1st level is far superior.
Of the riders you listed, the reaction is okay and the rest are either already available to the ranger/granted by HM or aren't worthwhile.
The issue with it being a spell is that means your core feature is tied to another resource mechanic that has its own reasons why you would want to use it. Whether that is a feature or a bug is a matter of perspective. With a paladins smite I see it as a bug as the spells are not balanced well against the use of smites so this other large feature of your spell casting does not seem to get used. Rangers I think its less of an issue as its a long duration spell not a spell per hit. I still think its core issue is concentration which could be on a feature as well as a spell. So whether its a spell or feature if it has concentration it is going to have issues. This has a similar problem with the paladin in that you have this core feature with multiple class levels devoted to it that motivates you to not use another core feature your spells. Hunters mark probably isn't worth it though at the levels you get those class features so you end up just wasting class features.
1) Lots of core features are tied to shared resource mechanics. Paladin's Smite as you mention has always worked this way - even before it was a spell itself it still cost spell slots, so you always had the strategic choice of how many slots you would devote to smiting vs. other things. The same is true for Monk's Flurry - while it doesn't cost spell slots, it still draws from a resource pool the monk is using for other things.
2) To the extent that costing spell slots is even an issue, they've solved that too, by giving you a bunch of free uses per long rest. You need to burn through all of those before the slot tradeoff even becomes an issue. And unlike Smite, you're not sacrificing damage with the free uses, because HM doesn't scale up with damage, only duration.
3) The free uses also alleviate the concentration concern. When you need to concentrate on something else, just drop HM - even the free uses last an hour each, so you're not giving up much of anything by letting it go.
4) I still don't understand the "wasted class features" argument. Not every class feature you get is meant to be used 100% of the time, some are conditional. When my Cleric isn't facing undead, I don't consider their Turn Undead or Smite Undead features to be "wasted" - they're just things my class gets that I'm not using right now. When I'm not concentrating on Hunter's Mark, I don't consider Relentless Hunter and Precise Hunter to be "wasted" - they're just things my class gets that I'm not using right now.
This whole hunters mark problem is fixed with one sentence added to Favored Enemy. “When you cast Hunter’s Mark without expending a spell slot it does not require concentration.”
That means it’s limited on when you can cast in without concentration and it is always a 1st level version that doesn’t need concentration.
I feel like all Rangers should have gotten the Hunter’s 6th level feature that allows them to know an enemies weakness, but I acknowledge we all have different interpretations of what a Ranger is at its core. I’ve always seen Rangers as knowledgeable supports. Saying things like “I know/heard Trolls are weak against fire.” Then having a way to add fire to their own or the party’s attacks. Honestly their ability to track and survive are covered by skill checks, so features beyond expertise aren’t necessary since they also have spells to help in with those.
My version of HM makes the 13th level feature pointless. Instead Relentless Hunter should work for any Ranger concentration spell you cast while the non concentration version of Hunters Mark is active. That would give you 54 seconds/ 9 rounds were you know damage won’t make you lose concentration on any Ranger spell.
Their Capstone is trash. Hated the 2014 version but honestly think it’s better than the 2024 version. Why connect the Capstone to HM at all, but if that’s what we are going to get, why not just make 2d6?
But you don't care if a spellcaster can instantly tell exactly where a creature is via a spell, with no fail chance.
This is the design philosophy of 2024 5e, that magic is the only way to have specialized abilities to overcome obstacles, and there is nothing a martial can do that anyone else shouldn't be able to do.
But the Ranger is a Spellcaster who can have a spell that does that. The Ranger can use a skill check or a spell. PsyrenXY is correct that there is no point in a feature that negates the use of skill checks or a spell use. A good feature might promote them or make you more successful at them, but that’s covered with expertise.
There is no point in features that allow non-magical characters to excel in certain situations only if you want only casters to have such tools and opportunities, while still having the ability to do everything else a non-caster can do via ability checks.
It is the deliberate and knowing desire to leave players out of such situations for having chosen the "wrong" class.
It's ignoring the point I was making, as I said, I wasn't seriously suggesting this, the focus was on how it enhances things rather than enables things. I was not considering balance because it wasn't a suggestion of what ranger should have, it was more a suggestion of how features should be more mindful to improve the ability to do something than give the ability to do so, as it assumes nobody can do that thing, without that feature.
It's quiet simple, it's because the core feature then appears fully under the class details, rather than having to go off and finding parts of the class in completely different sections which are not part of the class. It gives clear and concise details on how those features are meant to work WHEN you are reading the class, not having to jump about in the book, the only thing that should be going to spells, is the spellcasting feature, no other core feature should be shifting half of what the feature does, into a specific spell.
When classes are displayed, it is beneficial for many people to have the class details fully within the class section, now you might not think this important at all, but you're not everyone. So to be clear and concise core features of the class, should always be features and not spells.
Now supplementary features which only give a method of casting a spell are fine but these shouldn't be doing more than just giving a way to cast a specific spell, if they are, it shouldn't be a spell. I.E. Spirit Seeker gives a Totem Barbarian the Beast Sense and Speak with Animals rituals, it doesn't do more than that.
And this is where you're fundamentally creating an unsolvable issue, you can't both have Hunter's Mark and then say that spell casting is so improved when the ranger design has been streamlined to Hunter's Mark for multiple features. So your solutions are one of the following:
a) remove all features related to hunter's mark and just leave it a Ranger specific spell which benefits from no specific features. Hunter's mark features are then replaced out with other features that are not related to hunter's mark so that rangers do not feel they are being pigeonholed into Hunter's Mark and that they have features and spells more appropriate to later tiers of play.
b) you make hunter's mark something that doesn't conflict with the enhancements to spellcasting such as consuming concentration, to do this, you can't have hunter's mark still doing the same level of damage, it would make ranger vastly too powerful. Thus the solution I proposed. The once per round is fine, it would become free damage and would basically act the same way that Colossus Slayer does.
c) You continue on with this deeply unpopular form of Ranger that vast amounts of community are speaking out about because of this obviously terrible design around hunter's mark. What's the point in having flaming arrow when you can just use hunter's mark? It becomes very situational, overall the current design is very lackluster.
I don't believe that's true.
Skill checks are not stable metrics.
One dm may make a survival check be equal to locate plants but another might just give you a hint at a direction and another may say you need a direction but skill checks finish the job and are for harvesting .
This can extrapolate to every skill.
Features that "skip checks" or quantify the results better helps with gamplay experience by solidifying expected actions and outcomes.
HM without concentration is too powerful early on. I'd be fine with removing concentration at high levels (definitely at the capstone when balance is mostly out the window anyway), but if you lead with that right away then Rangers get ridiculous fast. Even a basic combination like HM + Flame Arrows + XBE would give them +6d6 damage per round at level 9 - that's more than a rogue's entire sneak attack at that level, and they don't even need to set it up with an ally or advantage.
And which spell is that? Be specific. Because I guarantee you're overlooking the limitations that were built into whatever spell you're thinking of, as usual.
It's fine for you to not consider balance with your proposals, but that's not a luxury the designers have.
That's a bug, not a feature. Needing to cram the text of the ability into the class section instead of having the room to breathe it would get in the spell section means at best the feature is redundant and at worse it lacks key functionality.
Consider the Diviner's Third Eye ability for instance. The original version had a pared down see invisibility option (10ft) as well as a separate ethereal sight option. They realized "hey, we can just make this ability work like the See Invisibility spell instead" - getting both pieces of functionality, improved, in far less text. Win for the designers, win for us.
Community popularity based on a preview video is irrelevant to me, it's a bunch of kneejerk reactions that are not based in rational thinking. The cooler heads will prevail once things like DPR comparisons and build guides start coming out. I'm patient enough for that.
The problem with it being a spell is that it must follow all the spell mechanics, which includes:
2024 Rogue is getting a feature that is just "use a bonus action to get advantage", so there is almost 0 chance that a rogue will not be able to sneak attack every turn in 2024. And TBH that is correct because Rogue DPR is balanced compared to other classes if you assume they get that Sneak Attack every round where they hit with an attack.
So making people flip back and forth across hundreds of pages in order to figure out how their class works is a feature? Because I've done that with learning Pathfinder during the OGL crisis and it was a major turn-off. Ended up giving up on the books entirely and using only the online character builders where it takes 1 click to read the spell. Also more text =/= better. Rather the opposite, more text means more players & DMs just skimming it rather than reading it thoroughly, means more confusion and disagreements at the table. People already routinely run Hunter's Mark incorrectly: they typically allow players to move the mark as a bonus action whenever they want despite the spell text explicitly saying it can only be moved if the current target is reduced to 0 hp. Not to mention that WotC are breaking up a ton of class features into lots of little features in order to fill up the classes with extra text & redundant features in order to give the appearance of more features in the new classes than the old ones.
Sorry but you do know that the Eloquence Bard, Rogue, and Starry Druid exist right? Eloquence Bard gets a guaranteed 10+Mod on Persuasion and Deception at 3rd level, 2024 Rogue will get guaranteed 10+Mod at level 7, and Starry Druid can use their Dragon form for guaranteed 10+mod on all Intelligence and Wisdom skills at 2nd level (or 3rd level in the new PHB).
If people are against features that just do a thing, why not just give Ranger a guaranteed 10 on the dice for all Survival checks at 1st level? - Don't make me roll to do some of the iconic things my class is supposed to be able to do.
There are so many add-ons to skill checks in 5e now, that my players almost never fail one and they aren't even optimized characters. When we did have an optimized party we succeeded on DC 25 checks at 3rd level without much issue.
Tying hunters mark to your class features will vary in usefulness depending on what tier you are in.
In tier 1 its fine. It gives a couple free extra uses when you dont have a lot of spell slots and it combos very well with nick weapon mastery and two weapon fighting. I think the new ranger has acess to both.
In tier two its meh. In combat I would probably use summon beast or spike growth first and when spell slots run out, default to free uses of hunters mark. Its ok but not great.
In tier 3 and 4 hunters mark is obsolete and this feature becomes terrible. The new conjure animals looks to be really good. Summon fey and summon elemental are both great and the new conjure woodland beings also looks pretty good (as of the last UA). There will always be better things to do with your concentration then use hunters mark at these levels. Always. That will make it feel like you are either not getting any benefit of your class features if you choose not to use hunters mark, or you will be forced into a certain play style if you do want to gain benefit from your class features. Thats not good.
As a capstone its brutal. I dont know what the designers were thinking here.
My solution is to not tie Favored Enemy to any concentration spell or damage bonuses at all. Mark a creature as your favored enemy (concentration free) and maybe give some other benefit (like advantage on attack rolls or increased crit range). Similar to vengeance paladin or hexblade. Then you are free to use hunters mark as you choose but favored enemy would still always be useful.
100%
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
1) Having a verbal component is an intentional drawback of HM and always has been. Even if it wasn't a spell, they'd simply include that anyway, or else just make it weaksauce like Favored Foe was.
2) If you're up against one of the handful of creatures that's immune to HM (like a Rakshasa or something?) Just buff yourself or an ally instead, you have other spells. There are creatures immune to Radiant damage too, does that mean Divine Smite should be removed from the game?
3) They are reprinting Fey-Touched (as well as every other Tasha's feat) in the PHB and said as much, so it will have the same limitation as Magic Initiate, Magical Secrets etc.
4) You're a gish, even if that rule is still there you're usually supposed to be attacking with your action.
5) Dipping is an optional rule, if you have a problem with it existing then ban it at your table. Dipping Ranger is no more an issue than dipping Warlock for Blade Pact/EB or dipping Paladin for smite. Do you complain about those too? And if you do, again, you have the solution right in front of you.
Your objections are based on defaulting to the worst case scenario doom-reading of everything rather than logical extrapolations of what they will do, like the Fey-Touched thing .
Yeah at the cost of their movement, unless you're an Assassin in which case it's the cost of your subclass. It's not free in other words.
I'm not sure if you realized but Rangers are spellcasters. You were going to that chapter anyway.
This is a response to several who have mentioned it being a spell, not just you (I’ve even said similar myself but..)
Even with it being a spell, with free castings isn’t it basically a class feature? much like other classes class features that say you can do <class feature> X number of times until you finish a long rest, or by spending a <spell slot, wild shape, or other resource>?
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
It helps for sure. It still comes with the other baggage of it being a spell including concentration.
Not being a spell wouldn't have helped with that. See Favored Foe from Tasha's, it still required concentration even though it wasn't a spell.
Literally all you'd achieve by making it not a spell would be for them to nerf it into the toilet just like they did with FF and make it actually useless at high levels.
But Rangers are magical. This isn’t a caster vs non caster debate. Rangers are casters.
But that’s were spells come in. Note I said skill checks and spells. A Ranger has both for a reason.