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.
9th level isn’t early on and you have a very kind DM who allows you to cast two verbal spells without/before the enemies notice you. If you do this in combat one turn is spent casting flame arrow and the you must use your bonus action to cast HM. Also you compared it to a rogues sneak attack which is unlimited. You used at least two turns and only have 12 shot attempts, and if you get hit you can lose concentration on flame arrows. So have fun making this build that can do some crazy damage, but often won’t get the opportunity to set it all up.
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.
They have the luxury during initial purpose of the concept, you can't balance something you haven't even thought up yet, which again, you never even responded to the point of that comment anyway, which was merely asking on your opinion of how things should be written in regards to certain features. I'll drop this now, this ain't going anywhere further.
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.
This description of cram is highly misleading, again and still ignores the main issue, shifting core features out of the class makes it inherently more difficult to understand what the class does. It is fine for the spellcasting features because that is literally the point of them but what we have seen in Ranger (and also with smites and find steed for Paladin), is a pointless redirection to spells for class features.
Is Diviner's Third Eye a core feature of a class? Hunter's mark here is being affected by three separate CLASS features and yet what is hunter's mark? Well that is else where in the book, so you now have to go off to the spell casting section, read up on what hunter's mark is, then return to the Ranger's class description to find those features that modify what hunter's mark even does.
You might not find that an issue, but you aren't everybody, sure I can deal with it too but I know from playing D&D and a certain other system that other people do have issues with this. There is no need to have an unnecessary barrier to entry into the game with unnecessarily over-convoluted class design.
Additionally Diviner's Third Eye would fit under this part which I said earlier, giving a way to cast spells is fine, but adding anything supplementary past that is where it creates issues.
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.
The reason why I said this, is simple. Everything you need from Spirit Seeker is just that it gives you a way to cast spells, it doesn't change anything about what those spells do and as such you aren't having to go back and forth between both the spell and the features that then modify that spell. Faithful steed is the only exception I can think of where it's questionable because it basically adds nothing, most groups aren't killing off the paladin's mount every (in-game) day and so free daily recasts is basically a non-feature and it's removal would essentially not change the 2024 paladin at all.
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.
They might not be relevant too YOU, but as you said, "that's not a luxury the designers have." The designers should still be gathering community feedback here and at least addressing it already, clearly there a deep concerns that the iterations of Ranger and Paladin here are very busted and poorly designed. But to say these reactions aren't based on rational thinking, is just your opinion, there has been some quiet significant points raised which are definitely rational, such as why is Hunter's Mark being pigeonholed, it makes no sense. If the improvements for class design are improved spell casting, why is the class design still then pushing a 1st level spell at level 17 or gives a lacklustre capstone at level 20?
I will also point out how some of these "knee jerk" reactions have pointed out that Tireless and Nature's Veil are essentially nerfed since Tashas, why did they need to be nerfed? Their usages are now based on Wisdom modifier instead of Proficiency Bonus, Nature's Veil now comes at level 14 when proficiency bonus is already at +5, so yeah, it's a straight up reduction, best you can do is match it, if you're primarily focused on Wisdom instead of Dexterity for some reason and decided Ranger is better for that than Druid... Tireless Proficiency bonus is already at +4, so again, most rangers are going to just straight up see less uses of it.
There is just so much wrong with this design of ranger that it isn't even a joke, and if it were a joke, it's one that has surpassed Paladin is size.
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.
Neither need concentration. There are spells without it, and features without it. It is far more common in spells though. It is the rare general ability that has concentration.
9th level isn’t early on and you have a very kind DM who allows you to cast two verbal spells without/before the enemies notice you. If you do this in combat one turn is spent casting flame arrow and the you must use your bonus action to cast HM. Also you compared it to a rogues sneak attack which is unlimited. You used at least two turns and only have 12 shot attempts, and if you get hit you can lose concentration on flame arrows. So have fun making this build that can do some crazy damage, but often won’t get the opportunity to set it all up.
1) Hunter's Mark by RAW only has a verbal component when it's cast; assigning an existing instance of it that you're already concentrating on to a new target has no components at all. So the whole "sneak up and mark a target unnoticed, then follow it without engaging" scenario is still viable, using the current text of the spell.
2) In addition to the above, even the free uses last an hour each, so your chances of being able to start a combat with one running are fairly high. Even if you have to cast it at the start though,
3) I don't need to "have fun making that build" because it's not possible by RAW; both spells require concentration. I was merely explaining the devs' likely thought process with keeping concentration on HM, that's all. And it's not just concentration spells that boost your attacks directly that would need to be watched here - even spells that do their own separate instances of damage completely, like Summon Beast, Conjure Animals, Summon Fey and Conjure Woodland Beings would allow a Ranger who is also making HM-enhanced attacks on top of that to potentially spike above where they should be. Again, I'm down for this at high levels when characters should be swinging for the fences anyway, but not so much in the first 2 or even first 3 tiers.
They have the luxury during initial purpose of the concept, you can't balance something you haven't even thought up yet, which again, you never even responded to the point of that comment anyway, which was merely asking on your opinion of how things should be written in regards to certain features. I'll drop this now, this ain't going anywhere further.
Expertise + high ability score practically already breaks bounded accuracy on its own, I don't see the point in letting you stack proficiency bonus a third time.
This description of cram is highly misleading, again and still ignores the main issue, shifting core features out of the class makes it inherently more difficult to understand what the class does.
I disagree because you have to go to the spells chapter to properly use every Ranger anyway. Features as spells aren't asking more of you than the class already does; this isn't a Fighter or Monk we're talking about here, it's a spellcasting class.
It's an example of a recent key feature that went from being embedded text to referencing a spell in the spells chapter and the benefits that came with doing that, on a class that expects you to be refencing the spells chapter anyway.
You might not find that an issue, but you aren't everybody, sure I can deal with it too but I know from playing D&D and a certain other system that other people do have issues with this. There is no need to have an unnecessary barrier to entry into the game with unnecessarily over-convoluted class design.
You have no evidence that this is a "barrier" at all. Again, Ranger already expects you to reference the spells chapter, just like every other spellcaster in the game does. Why would asking you to do the thing every Ranger player has to do be a "barrier?"
They might not be relevant too YOU, but as you said, "that's not a luxury the designers have." The designers should still be gathering community feedback here and at least addressing it already, clearly there a deep concerns that the iterations of Ranger and Paladin here are very busted and poorly designed.
And where are the calculations those concerns are based on? Or the Ranger spell list? Comparisons between 2014, Tasha's, and 2024?
That's right, none of that exists yet. If and when it does, and that shows 2024 to be horribly deficient in a mathematical way, I'll change my tune - but not before.
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 do you make that assumption? Generally class features are more powerful than spells, that's why in 2024 when they replaced class features with "you learn X spell" the class feature always included something else as well - either free uses of the spell (see Hunter's Mark & Find Steed), or special buffs to the spell (see Bard & Sorcerer capstones). FF was a fluke, which speaks more to WotC's disrespect for Ranger than anything else.
1) Hunter's Mark by RAW only has a verbal component when it's cast; assigning an existing instance of it that you're already concentrating on to a new target has no components at all. So the whole "sneak up and mark a target unnoticed, then follow it without engaging" scenario is still viable, using the current text of the spell.
Please explain. If you precast Hunter's Mark on one of your allies before going out sneaking so you can silently move it then I'm sorry, that doesn't work either because you have to kill your ally in order to move your Mark. Otherwise you'll have to have engaged in combat relatively recently to whom you are sneaking up on and combat isn't quiet, so good luck sneaking up on someone 5 minutes after your party wizard hucked a Fireball. Current Hunter's Mark is exclusively a combat spell, the utility ribbon attached to it is essentially useless - it's why when given the choice of Hex or Hunter's Mark for Fey Touched, people universally pick Hex.
1) Hunter's Mark by RAW only has a verbal component when it's cast; assigning an existing instance of it that you're already concentrating on to a new target has no components at all. So the whole "sneak up and mark a target unnoticed, then follow it without engaging" scenario is still viable, using the current text of the spell.
Please explain. If you precast Hunter's Mark on one of your allies before going out sneaking so you can silently move it then I'm sorry, that doesn't work either because you have to kill your ally in order to move your Mark. Otherwise you'll have to have engaged in combat relatively recently to whom you are sneaking up on and combat isn't quiet, so good luck sneaking up on someone 5 minutes after your party wizard hucked a Fireball. Current Hunter's Mark is exclusively a combat spell, the utility ribbon attached to it is essentially useless - it's why when given the choice of Hex or Hunter's Mark for Fey Touched, people universally pick Hex.
The warlock way is to cast it on a vermin and kill it. I assume that works for hunters as well. It just seems less thematically appropriate in most cases, though I could see it as some sort of ritual killing for certain rangers. But I'll just say a spell or ability is not balanced because people can create a work around to make it work. It should work well at default.
9th level isn’t early on and you have a very kind DM who allows you to cast two verbal spells without/before the enemies notice you. If you do this in combat one turn is spent casting flame arrow and the you must use your bonus action to cast HM. Also you compared it to a rogues sneak attack which is unlimited. You used at least two turns and only have 12 shot attempts, and if you get hit you can lose concentration on flame arrows. So have fun making this build that can do some crazy damage, but often won’t get the opportunity to set it all up.
1) Hunter's Mark by RAW only has a verbal component when it's cast; assigning an existing instance of it that you're already concentrating on to a new target has no components at all. So the whole "sneak up and mark a target unnoticed, then follow it without engaging" scenario is still viable, using the current text of the spell.
2) In addition to the above, even the free uses last an hour each, so your chances of being able to start a combat with one running are fairly high. Even if you have to cast it at the start though,
3) I don't need to "have fun making that build" because it's not possible by RAW; both spells require concentration. I was merely explaining the devs' likely thought process with keeping concentration on HM, that's all. And it's not just concentration spells that boost your attacks directly that would need to be watched here - even spells that do their own separate instances of damage completely, like Summon Beast, Conjure Animals, Summon Fey and Conjure Woodland Beings would allow a Ranger who is also making HM-enhanced attacks on top of that to potentially spike above where they should be. Again, I'm down for this at high levels when characters should be swinging for the fences anyway, but not so much in the first 2 or even first 3 tiers.
1) That doesn’t work.
2) Casting the spell early and hoping you get into a fight within an hour is wild to me and requires particular DM style to be effective. Also you are heavily dependent on your party to not waste time exploring. But more importantly HM needs a target so how are you casting it early. Flame arrows can be cast early, but again that’s a wild risk in my opinion.
3)I know it’s not RAW, but this whole conversation is based on that hypothetical situation so it’s pointless for you to defend your ineffective build idea by saying well I can’t since it’s not RAW. Let me rephrase my previous post’s statement. “Even if HM did not require concentration the build you presented is not effective at dealing a lot of damage most of the time. It is a trap build that would on occasion deal a lot of damage, but in normal play would waste turns on set up.”
Why do you make that assumption? Generally class features are more powerful than spells, that's why in 2024 when they replaced class features with "you learn X spell" the class feature always included something else as well - either free uses of the spell (see Hunter's Mark & Find Steed), or special buffs to the spell (see Bard & Sorcerer capstones). FF was a fluke, which speaks more to WotC's disrespect for Ranger than anything else.
You call it a "fluke," and yet the first non-spell Favored Enemy was crap too - zero combat use at all. Favored Foe might have been weak but it was at least okay for a few levels. The intent was always for rangers to use HM as their baseline damage tool, so the game making that explicit and providing free uses is a good thing.
Please explain. If you precast Hunter's Mark on one of your allies before going out sneaking so you can silently move it then I'm sorry, that doesn't work either because you have to kill your ally in order to move your Mark.
Stick it on a deer or rabbit first. From there you can move it freely and the camp has dinner for later that night; win-win. But I guess hunting game isn't a Ranger-y enough thing to do or something?
2) Casting the spell early and hoping you get into a fight within an hour is wild to me and requires particular DM style to be effective. Also you are heavily dependent on your party to not waste time exploring. But more importantly HM needs a target so how are you casting it early. Flame arrows can be cast early, but again that’s a wild risk in my opinion.
3)I know it’s not RAW, but this whole conversation is based on that hypothetical situation so it’s pointless for you to defend your ineffective build idea by saying well I can’t since it’s not RAW. Let me rephrase my previous post’s statement. “Even if HM did not require concentration the build you presented is not effective at dealing a lot of damage most of the time. It is a trap build that would on occasion deal a lot of damage, but in normal play would waste turns on set up.”
1) Based on what, your houserules? I'm discussing RAW.
2) By hunting a wild animal as mentioned. You know, a thing Rangers would reasonably do while traveling overland. But even if you cast it on the first round of combat, you're losing what, a single d6 worth of damage? And if you're using Nick Mastery when you cast it, not even that?
3) It's a bit rich to label mine ineffective while relying on your own houserules instead, but I'll bite. What other 1st-level spell provides 3d6 damage per round from a single slot?
The intent was always for rangers to use HM as their baseline damage tool, so the game making that explicit and providing free uses is a good thing.
Well then the designers always failed at realizing this intent because a majority of rangers I have played with did not use Hunter's Mark as their baseline damage. Once a Ranger gets Crossbow Expert there is really no reason for them to ever cast Hunter's Mark - sooner for Drakewarden, Beastmaster, and Swarmkeeper who tend to command their buddy with their BA and not use Hunter's Mark. Favoured Foe was actually better than Hunter's Mark for them because it didn't compete for their Bonus Action.
Stick it on a deer or rabbit first.
Yes, because wandering off by yourself away from the party for a couple of hours in hostile territory in order to stalk a rabbit or deer and then hunt it down is a viable strategy in order to plan your ambush of an enemy encampment?
1) Hunter's Mark by RAW only has a verbal component when it's cast; assigning an existing instance of it that you're already concentrating on to a new target has no components at all. So the whole "sneak up and mark a target unnoticed, then follow it without engaging" scenario is still viable, using the current text of the spell.
Please explain. If you precast Hunter's Mark on one of your allies before going out sneaking so you can silently move it then I'm sorry, that doesn't work either because you have to kill your ally in order to move your Mark. Otherwise you'll have to have engaged in combat relatively recently to whom you are sneaking up on and combat isn't quiet, so good luck sneaking up on someone 5 minutes after your party wizard hucked a Fireball. Current Hunter's Mark is exclusively a combat spell, the utility ribbon attached to it is essentially useless - it's why when given the choice of Hex or Hunter's Mark for Fey Touched, people universally pick Hex.
The warlock way is to cast it on a vermin and kill it. I assume that works for hunters as well. It just seems less thematically appropriate in most cases, though I could see it as some sort of ritual killing for certain rangers. But I'll just say a spell or ability is not balanced because people can create a work around to make it work. It should work well at default.
Seriously? Do your party and DM actually allow that? Cause I certainly wouldn't. In general, random vermin don't count as "creatures" in D&D so would not be viable targets of the spell. If this was not the case the Sleep would be completely useless because all it would do is put to sleep the thousands and thousands of spiders, ants, cockroaches, shrews, mice, etc... and there would be no HP pool left to affect any enemies.
Well then the designers always failed at realizing this intent because a majority of rangers I have played with did not use Hunter's Mark as their baseline damage.
Yes, because wandering off by yourself away from the party for a couple of hours in hostile territory in order to stalk a rabbit or deer and then hunt it down is a viable strategy in order to plan your ambush of an enemy encampment?
It takes your ranger hours to find a game animal out in the wilderness? Skill issue...
And again, you don't even need to do that, the spell works fine on the first round. It's a bonus action, remember?
It takes your ranger hours to find a game animal out in the wilderness? Skill issue...
Clearly you have never gone hunting or fishing before, but then again, even in most fantasy literature hunting takes hours (see Hunger Games, Lord of the Rings, Wheel of Time). It's not a "skill issue" it is a "DM interpretation difference", see I and my DMs tend to rule skill-checks as pretty close to IRL realism, so hunting and foraging takes hours, climbing a 20 ft sheer wall is impossible without climbing gear or a race with a climb speed etc... etc...
It's not a "skill issue" it is a "DM interpretation difference", see I and my DMs tend to rule skill-checks as pretty close to IRL realism, so hunting and foraging takes hours, climbing a 20 ft sheer wall is impossible without climbing gear or a race with a climb speed etc... etc...
Then it's little wonder Rangers suck at your tables if they are limited to what IRL hunters can do despite having literal magic alongside their skill expertise. But that's not a book problem, that's your DMs hosing your character. Which of course they're allowed to do, but WotC doesn't have to design around that.
Then it's little wonder Rangers suck at your tables if they are limited to what IRL hunters can do despite having literal magic alongside their skill expertise.
Skill checks are not magic - you get skill proficiencies from racial choice and background which means non-adventurers have skill proficiencies and can make skill checks too. Even commoners can make skill checks and they can easily roll higher than even a Ranger with Expertise. A commoner with no proficiency and no ability modifier can skill get a 20 on a skill check, and I've already mentioned that Backgrounds give skill proficiencies so a random street criminal should have proficiency in Sealth and Deception so be able to get 22 on those skill checks. Thus a skill check should not allow a character to do anything supernatural until the DC is well over 20. Any check with a DC less than 20 is something very achievable by even the most ordinary of ordinary people, and even some minimal experience - e.g. being a war veteran - can achieve skill checks will DCs up to 25 so that really shouldn't be anything particularly supernatural either, a war veteran isn't magical. Magic exists in the system to cover supernatural stuff, so if you aren't using a spell or a magical ability / class feature then you are limited to non-supernatural stuff for the most part, DCs from 25+ might start getting you into the somewhat supernatural area but any skill check result of < 25 represents simply what non-magical people can achieve.
This is why people want class features that allow Rangers to tap into their primal magic to do stuff supernaturally good, rather than be limited to non-supernatural skill checks.
D&D fantasy superhero.
No where in any of the rule books, media promotion, fluff text does D&D ever claim your character is a superhero, so I don't know where you got that from. It seems like you just invented it because that's what you want D&D to be, not because that is or ever was what D&D is. Your character is an Adventurer, eventually they may become a hero (or a villain depending on your choices), but in D&D "hero" is not synonymous with "superhero", there is even a background that is "folk hero" which has 0 implication that your character did something supernatural before becoming an adventurer, the fluff text clearly indicates this "hero"-ness is pretty mundane like killing a wolf, or rescuing a boy from a well. Looking at the tiers of play, a D&D character only approaches "superhero" status in Tier 4. In Tier 1 they are simply promising amateurs, Tier 2 they are experienced masters of their craft, and Tier 3 they are only about as powerful as kings or generals.
Then it's little wonder Rangers suck at your tables if they are limited to what IRL hunters can do despite having literal magic alongside their skill expertise.
Skill checks are not magic - you get skill proficiencies from racial choice and background which means non-adventurers have skill proficiencies and can make skill checks too. Even commoners can make skill checks and they can easily roll higher than even a Ranger with Expertise. A commoner with no proficiency and no ability modifier can skill get a 20 on a skill check, and I've already mentioned that Backgrounds give skill proficiencies so a random street criminal should have proficiency in Sealth and Deception so be able to get 22 on those skill checks. Thus a skill check should not allow a character to do anything supernatural until the DC is well over 20. Any check with a DC less than 20 is something very achievable by even the most ordinary of ordinary people, and even some minimal experience - e.g. being a war veteran - can achieve skill checks will DCs up to 25 so that really shouldn't be anything particularly supernatural either, a war veteran isn't magical. Magic exists in the system to cover supernatural stuff, so if you aren't using a spell or a magical ability / class feature then you are limited to non-supernatural stuff for the most part, DCs from 25+ might start getting you into the somewhat supernatural area but any skill check result of < 25 represents simply what non-magical people can achieve.
This is why people want class features that allow Rangers to tap into their primal magic to do stuff supernaturally good, rather than be limited to non-supernatural skill checks.
Remember that people do things that are considered "miraculous" and it turns out they got very very lucky. Those are the higher rolls. The 20's are areas where people would die 95% of the time, but a ranger with expertise may be able to succeed nearly half the time. A miracle for an average person, but something hard but doable for a legendary warrior such as a Ranger. Even at higher levels a skilled person like a locksmith having a 95% chance of failure is going to look at the task you are giving him and say "that is impossible" and when someone pulls it off he is not going believe they did it even though he had a a 5% chance himself of doing it. The chance is small enough that it isn't something they are considered to be able to do. While a 20 is something our heroes will find hard, but far from impossible. I have seen someone catch a fish in a few minutes before thanks to skill, not hours. And if a commoner can do that a legendary ranger would definitely be able to.
And again, you don't even need to do that, the spell works fine on the first round. It's a bonus action, remember?
We are discussing whether it is possible to sneak up on someone and surreptitiously mark them with Hunter's Mark and then proceed to track / follow them, remember? If the Ranger has to cast the spell then they destroy their Stealth / Sneaking because it has Verbal components. Which is why I said it is a pure combat spell and the OOC rider is essentially useless.
Similarly because it requires a bonus action it conflicts with Crossbow Expert, and commanding a Beast/Dragon companion which makes it a poor choice for many Rangers. It's a good spell if you are a melee two-weapon fighting and non-companion having ranger, but not if you are a ranged-Ranger using Crossbow Expert or a Str-Ranger using a polearm, and only mediocre for Str-Rangers using GWM. That is a terrible design if it is supposed to be the core feature of the class. Which is why I have seen many rangers that prefer Favoured Foe to Hunter's Mark.
Side Rant: Nick Weapon Mastery is a real problem for the game since they restored Hex & Hunter's Mark to their per-hit versions, because now it is obviously optimal damage-wise to go for two-weapon fighting + PAM in order to stack up as many attacks as possible in a single turn. But then game balance has always been a struggle for WotC so I don't know why I'm surprised 2024 PHB has lots of game balance issues too.
This description of cram is highly misleading, again and still ignores the main issue, shifting core features out of the class makes it inherently more difficult to understand what the class does.
I disagree because you have to go to the spells chapter to properly use every Ranger anyway. Features as spells aren't asking more of you than the class already does; this isn't a Fighter or Monk we're talking about here, it's a spellcasting class.
And I disagree, because it's a matter of CORE feature, it's going back and forth and having to combine the two. Core features should be limited too being in the class features, not being in spells. A class feature can enable a spell but should never, in anyway, modify the spell. The one exception I'll give too features modifying spells is Meta Magic but this is because Meta Magic does not modify specific spells but rather gives sorcerer the ability to modify a number of spells in a way that makes sense for the sorcerer class.
You could also say Invocations and Eldritch Blast too, but I'd disagree on that one, since I believe Eldritch Blast should be a feature too, which scales specifically with warlock level and not character level.
It's an example of a recent key feature that went from being embedded text to referencing a spell in the spells chapter and the benefits that came with doing that, on a class that expects you to be refencing the spells chapter anyway.
An example, but the point still remains, it is not a core feature of the class and the point also remains that there is no back and forth between spells to the class description to understand what the spell does, as I said, enabling a method to cast a spell is fine, modifying the spell is not and spells shouldn't replace CORE features, this isn't anything core to Wizard, it's an archetype feature and it isn't even key to that archetype.
Also, having thought about it more, I actually dislike this change, sure it simplifies the text but what it also does is makes it so that certain types of DMs rule that a Diviner sees nothing since they need to recast see invisibility every hour. Now those are already a toxic type of DM not worth playing with, but the older version avoids this issue since the wizard just needs to expend an action and has those senses until basically short/long rest. There is no need for the wizard to be recasting the spell every 1 hour, which this change technically requires. 95+% of groups will assume wizard is always recasting, no doubt here but this isn't something that should even need to be handled like this in the first place.
You might not find that an issue, but you aren't everybody, sure I can deal with it too but I know from playing D&D and a certain other system that other people do have issues with this. There is no need to have an unnecessary barrier to entry into the game with unnecessarily over-convoluted class design.
You have no evidence that this is a "barrier" at all. Again, Ranger already expects you to reference the spells chapter, just like every other spellcaster in the game does. Why would asking you to do the thing every Ranger player has to do be a "barrier?"
What type of evidence are you even after? And again, you misrepresent the point. Did you know Hunter's mark is not ONCE referenced in the 2014 Ranger class features? in fact there are zero features which modify what a spell does in the 2014 Ranger. This is not the case in the 2024 Ranger, which has features specifically modifying what Hunter's Mark does. It changes the damage and it grants advantage. It's a, you have to go to the spell, read what the spell does, now you have to go back to the class description and read how the spell is modified, it's simply overly convoluted and bad design.
They might not be relevant too YOU, but as you said, "that's not a luxury the designers have." The designers should still be gathering community feedback here and at least addressing it already, clearly there a deep concerns that the iterations of Ranger and Paladin here are very busted and poorly designed.
And where are the calculations those concerns are based on? Or the Ranger spell list? Comparisons between 2014, Tasha's, and 2024?
That's right, none of that exists yet. If and when it does, and that shows 2024 to be horribly deficient in a mathematical way, I'll change my tune - but not before.
What are you even on about, "calculations." Calculations of what? DPR, DPR is highly misleading and you know it, On paper there are builds in 5E that can do 1K damage in a single round which has insane DPR but the set-ups to get there often take 3-4 rounds and are highly unreliable.
And this gets on to further in the issues, it's not just about damage, in fact I am relatively sure that via utilizing Divine Favor and Spirit Shroud, a Paladin can keep up a relatively decent DPR but that is not an obvious way of playing the class and it relies on things like always making concentration saving throws and so all that is happening with Ranger and Paladin is an increase in the skill floor, and a misdirection from the class features of how you should in fact play these classes which is then compounded by a reduction in the variety of viable builds for Ranger and Paladin since you literally need to optimize the classes to play them in a viable way for how the game is designed, the calculations you're after aren't going to show ANY of this.
You shouldn't have to spend hours researching a class after reading the book and going through optimizer blogs and websites to make a class playable, that is an utter nonsense way of designing the game. You'll always have optimizers and they will always find things to exploit in any class, heck even in monk which has been in desperate need for some TLC for a while.
The 20's are areas where people would die 95% of the time, but a ranger with expertise may be able to succeed nearly half the time.
Sorry, which level of Ranger are we talking about? A 3rd level ranger with Expertise in Survival will have a +7-+8, vs Commoner with a relevant job having a +2-+3 modifier. At DC 20, the Commoner has a 15-20% chance of success, vs the Ranger having a 40-45% chance of success. So the Ranger is 2-3 times more likely to succeed as a Commoner that's hardly super-hero levels of success, and someone having a 20% chance of success at something on the first try is hardly "impossible". Sure the Commoner might be impressed, but they are hardly going to proclaim you a superhero.
Remember that people do things that are considered "miraculous" and it turns out they got very very lucky.
A "miracle" is not something that happens 1/20 times anyone anywhere in the world attempt to do something hard. It's not a "miracle" when a hockey player scores a goal even though they have about a 1/20 success rate.
9th level isn’t early on and you have a very kind DM who allows you to cast two verbal spells without/before the enemies notice you. If you do this in combat one turn is spent casting flame arrow and the you must use your bonus action to cast HM. Also you compared it to a rogues sneak attack which is unlimited. You used at least two turns and only have 12 shot attempts, and if you get hit you can lose concentration on flame arrows. So have fun making this build that can do some crazy damage, but often won’t get the opportunity to set it all up.
They have the luxury during initial purpose of the concept, you can't balance something you haven't even thought up yet, which again, you never even responded to the point of that comment anyway, which was merely asking on your opinion of how things should be written in regards to certain features. I'll drop this now, this ain't going anywhere further.
This description of cram is highly misleading, again and still ignores the main issue, shifting core features out of the class makes it inherently more difficult to understand what the class does. It is fine for the spellcasting features because that is literally the point of them but what we have seen in Ranger (and also with smites and find steed for Paladin), is a pointless redirection to spells for class features.
Is Diviner's Third Eye a core feature of a class? Hunter's mark here is being affected by three separate CLASS features and yet what is hunter's mark? Well that is else where in the book, so you now have to go off to the spell casting section, read up on what hunter's mark is, then return to the Ranger's class description to find those features that modify what hunter's mark even does.
You might not find that an issue, but you aren't everybody, sure I can deal with it too but I know from playing D&D and a certain other system that other people do have issues with this. There is no need to have an unnecessary barrier to entry into the game with unnecessarily over-convoluted class design.
Additionally Diviner's Third Eye would fit under this part which I said earlier, giving a way to cast spells is fine, but adding anything supplementary past that is where it creates issues.
The reason why I said this, is simple. Everything you need from Spirit Seeker is just that it gives you a way to cast spells, it doesn't change anything about what those spells do and as such you aren't having to go back and forth between both the spell and the features that then modify that spell. Faithful steed is the only exception I can think of where it's questionable because it basically adds nothing, most groups aren't killing off the paladin's mount every (in-game) day and so free daily recasts is basically a non-feature and it's removal would essentially not change the 2024 paladin at all.
They might not be relevant too YOU, but as you said, "that's not a luxury the designers have." The designers should still be gathering community feedback here and at least addressing it already, clearly there a deep concerns that the iterations of Ranger and Paladin here are very busted and poorly designed. But to say these reactions aren't based on rational thinking, is just your opinion, there has been some quiet significant points raised which are definitely rational, such as why is Hunter's Mark being pigeonholed, it makes no sense. If the improvements for class design are improved spell casting, why is the class design still then pushing a 1st level spell at level 17 or gives a lacklustre capstone at level 20?
I will also point out how some of these "knee jerk" reactions have pointed out that Tireless and Nature's Veil are essentially nerfed since Tashas, why did they need to be nerfed? Their usages are now based on Wisdom modifier instead of Proficiency Bonus, Nature's Veil now comes at level 14 when proficiency bonus is already at +5, so yeah, it's a straight up reduction, best you can do is match it, if you're primarily focused on Wisdom instead of Dexterity for some reason and decided Ranger is better for that than Druid... Tireless Proficiency bonus is already at +4, so again, most rangers are going to just straight up see less uses of it.
There is just so much wrong with this design of ranger that it isn't even a joke, and if it were a joke, it's one that has surpassed Paladin is size.
Neither need concentration. There are spells without it, and features without it. It is far more common in spells though. It is the rare general ability that has concentration.
1) Hunter's Mark by RAW only has a verbal component when it's cast; assigning an existing instance of it that you're already concentrating on to a new target has no components at all. So the whole "sneak up and mark a target unnoticed, then follow it without engaging" scenario is still viable, using the current text of the spell.
2) In addition to the above, even the free uses last an hour each, so your chances of being able to start a combat with one running are fairly high. Even if you have to cast it at the start though,
3) I don't need to "have fun making that build" because it's not possible by RAW; both spells require concentration. I was merely explaining the devs' likely thought process with keeping concentration on HM, that's all. And it's not just concentration spells that boost your attacks directly that would need to be watched here - even spells that do their own separate instances of damage completely, like Summon Beast, Conjure Animals, Summon Fey and Conjure Woodland Beings would allow a Ranger who is also making HM-enhanced attacks on top of that to potentially spike above where they should be. Again, I'm down for this at high levels when characters should be swinging for the fences anyway, but not so much in the first 2 or even first 3 tiers.
Expertise + high ability score practically already breaks bounded accuracy on its own, I don't see the point in letting you stack proficiency bonus a third time.
I disagree because you have to go to the spells chapter to properly use every Ranger anyway. Features as spells aren't asking more of you than the class already does; this isn't a Fighter or Monk we're talking about here, it's a spellcasting class.
It's an example of a recent key feature that went from being embedded text to referencing a spell in the spells chapter and the benefits that came with doing that, on a class that expects you to be refencing the spells chapter anyway.
You have no evidence that this is a "barrier" at all. Again, Ranger already expects you to reference the spells chapter, just like every other spellcaster in the game does. Why would asking you to do the thing every Ranger player has to do be a "barrier?"
And where are the calculations those concerns are based on? Or the Ranger spell list? Comparisons between 2014, Tasha's, and 2024?
That's right, none of that exists yet. If and when it does, and that shows 2024 to be horribly deficient in a mathematical way, I'll change my tune - but not before.
Why do you make that assumption? Generally class features are more powerful than spells, that's why in 2024 when they replaced class features with "you learn X spell" the class feature always included something else as well - either free uses of the spell (see Hunter's Mark & Find Steed), or special buffs to the spell (see Bard & Sorcerer capstones). FF was a fluke, which speaks more to WotC's disrespect for Ranger than anything else.
Please explain. If you precast Hunter's Mark on one of your allies before going out sneaking so you can silently move it then I'm sorry, that doesn't work either because you have to kill your ally in order to move your Mark. Otherwise you'll have to have engaged in combat relatively recently to whom you are sneaking up on and combat isn't quiet, so good luck sneaking up on someone 5 minutes after your party wizard hucked a Fireball. Current Hunter's Mark is exclusively a combat spell, the utility ribbon attached to it is essentially useless - it's why when given the choice of Hex or Hunter's Mark for Fey Touched, people universally pick Hex.
The warlock way is to cast it on a vermin and kill it. I assume that works for hunters as well. It just seems less thematically appropriate in most cases, though I could see it as some sort of ritual killing for certain rangers. But I'll just say a spell or ability is not balanced because people can create a work around to make it work. It should work well at default.
You call it a "fluke," and yet the first non-spell Favored Enemy was crap too - zero combat use at all. Favored Foe might have been weak but it was at least okay for a few levels. The intent was always for rangers to use HM as their baseline damage tool, so the game making that explicit and providing free uses is a good thing.
Stick it on a deer or rabbit first. From there you can move it freely and the camp has dinner for later that night; win-win. But I guess hunting game isn't a Ranger-y enough thing to do or something?
1) Based on what, your houserules? I'm discussing RAW.
2) By hunting a wild animal as mentioned. You know, a thing Rangers would reasonably do while traveling overland. But even if you cast it on the first round of combat, you're losing what, a single d6 worth of damage? And if you're using Nick Mastery when you cast it, not even that?
3) It's a bit rich to label mine ineffective while relying on your own houserules instead, but I'll bite. What other 1st-level spell provides 3d6 damage per round from a single slot?
Well then the designers always failed at realizing this intent because a majority of rangers I have played with did not use Hunter's Mark as their baseline damage. Once a Ranger gets Crossbow Expert there is really no reason for them to ever cast Hunter's Mark - sooner for Drakewarden, Beastmaster, and Swarmkeeper who tend to command their buddy with their BA and not use Hunter's Mark. Favoured Foe was actually better than Hunter's Mark for them because it didn't compete for their Bonus Action.
Yes, because wandering off by yourself away from the party for a couple of hours in hostile territory in order to stalk a rabbit or deer and then hunt it down is a viable strategy in order to plan your ambush of an enemy encampment?
Seriously? Do your party and DM actually allow that? Cause I certainly wouldn't. In general, random vermin don't count as "creatures" in D&D so would not be viable targets of the spell. If this was not the case the Sleep would be completely useless because all it would do is put to sleep the thousands and thousands of spiders, ants, cockroaches, shrews, mice, etc... and there would be no HP pool left to affect any enemies.
Personal Incredulity Fallacy rejected.
It takes your ranger hours to find a game animal out in the wilderness? Skill issue...
And again, you don't even need to do that, the spell works fine on the first round. It's a bonus action, remember?
Clearly you have never gone hunting or fishing before, but then again, even in most fantasy literature hunting takes hours (see Hunger Games, Lord of the Rings, Wheel of Time). It's not a "skill issue" it is a "DM interpretation difference", see I and my DMs tend to rule skill-checks as pretty close to IRL realism, so hunting and foraging takes hours, climbing a 20 ft sheer wall is impossible without climbing gear or a race with a climb speed etc... etc...
What I've done is irrelevant, I'm not a D&D fantasy superhero.
Then it's little wonder Rangers suck at your tables if they are limited to what IRL hunters can do despite having literal magic alongside their skill expertise. But that's not a book problem, that's your DMs hosing your character. Which of course they're allowed to do, but WotC doesn't have to design around that.
Skill checks are not magic - you get skill proficiencies from racial choice and background which means non-adventurers have skill proficiencies and can make skill checks too. Even commoners can make skill checks and they can easily roll higher than even a Ranger with Expertise. A commoner with no proficiency and no ability modifier can skill get a 20 on a skill check, and I've already mentioned that Backgrounds give skill proficiencies so a random street criminal should have proficiency in Sealth and Deception so be able to get 22 on those skill checks. Thus a skill check should not allow a character to do anything supernatural until the DC is well over 20. Any check with a DC less than 20 is something very achievable by even the most ordinary of ordinary people, and even some minimal experience - e.g. being a war veteran - can achieve skill checks will DCs up to 25 so that really shouldn't be anything particularly supernatural either, a war veteran isn't magical. Magic exists in the system to cover supernatural stuff, so if you aren't using a spell or a magical ability / class feature then you are limited to non-supernatural stuff for the most part, DCs from 25+ might start getting you into the somewhat supernatural area but any skill check result of < 25 represents simply what non-magical people can achieve.
This is why people want class features that allow Rangers to tap into their primal magic to do stuff supernaturally good, rather than be limited to non-supernatural skill checks.
No where in any of the rule books, media promotion, fluff text does D&D ever claim your character is a superhero, so I don't know where you got that from. It seems like you just invented it because that's what you want D&D to be, not because that is or ever was what D&D is. Your character is an Adventurer, eventually they may become a hero (or a villain depending on your choices), but in D&D "hero" is not synonymous with "superhero", there is even a background that is "folk hero" which has 0 implication that your character did something supernatural before becoming an adventurer, the fluff text clearly indicates this "hero"-ness is pretty mundane like killing a wolf, or rescuing a boy from a well. Looking at the tiers of play, a D&D character only approaches "superhero" status in Tier 4. In Tier 1 they are simply promising amateurs, Tier 2 they are experienced masters of their craft, and Tier 3 they are only about as powerful as kings or generals.
Remember that people do things that are considered "miraculous" and it turns out they got very very lucky. Those are the higher rolls. The 20's are areas where people would die 95% of the time, but a ranger with expertise may be able to succeed nearly half the time. A miracle for an average person, but something hard but doable for a legendary warrior such as a Ranger. Even at higher levels a skilled person like a locksmith having a 95% chance of failure is going to look at the task you are giving him and say "that is impossible" and when someone pulls it off he is not going believe they did it even though he had a a 5% chance himself of doing it. The chance is small enough that it isn't something they are considered to be able to do. While a 20 is something our heroes will find hard, but far from impossible. I have seen someone catch a fish in a few minutes before thanks to skill, not hours. And if a commoner can do that a legendary ranger would definitely be able to.
We are discussing whether it is possible to sneak up on someone and surreptitiously mark them with Hunter's Mark and then proceed to track / follow them, remember? If the Ranger has to cast the spell then they destroy their Stealth / Sneaking because it has Verbal components. Which is why I said it is a pure combat spell and the OOC rider is essentially useless.
Similarly because it requires a bonus action it conflicts with Crossbow Expert, and commanding a Beast/Dragon companion which makes it a poor choice for many Rangers. It's a good spell if you are a melee two-weapon fighting and non-companion having ranger, but not if you are a ranged-Ranger using Crossbow Expert or a Str-Ranger using a polearm, and only mediocre for Str-Rangers using GWM. That is a terrible design if it is supposed to be the core feature of the class. Which is why I have seen many rangers that prefer Favoured Foe to Hunter's Mark.
Side Rant: Nick Weapon Mastery is a real problem for the game since they restored Hex & Hunter's Mark to their per-hit versions, because now it is obviously optimal damage-wise to go for two-weapon fighting + PAM in order to stack up as many attacks as possible in a single turn. But then game balance has always been a struggle for WotC so I don't know why I'm surprised 2024 PHB has lots of game balance issues too.
And I disagree, because it's a matter of CORE feature, it's going back and forth and having to combine the two. Core features should be limited too being in the class features, not being in spells. A class feature can enable a spell but should never, in anyway, modify the spell. The one exception I'll give too features modifying spells is Meta Magic but this is because Meta Magic does not modify specific spells but rather gives sorcerer the ability to modify a number of spells in a way that makes sense for the sorcerer class.
You could also say Invocations and Eldritch Blast too, but I'd disagree on that one, since I believe Eldritch Blast should be a feature too, which scales specifically with warlock level and not character level.
An example, but the point still remains, it is not a core feature of the class and the point also remains that there is no back and forth between spells to the class description to understand what the spell does, as I said, enabling a method to cast a spell is fine, modifying the spell is not and spells shouldn't replace CORE features, this isn't anything core to Wizard, it's an archetype feature and it isn't even key to that archetype.
Also, having thought about it more, I actually dislike this change, sure it simplifies the text but what it also does is makes it so that certain types of DMs rule that a Diviner sees nothing since they need to recast see invisibility every hour. Now those are already a toxic type of DM not worth playing with, but the older version avoids this issue since the wizard just needs to expend an action and has those senses until basically short/long rest. There is no need for the wizard to be recasting the spell every 1 hour, which this change technically requires. 95+% of groups will assume wizard is always recasting, no doubt here but this isn't something that should even need to be handled like this in the first place.
What type of evidence are you even after? And again, you misrepresent the point. Did you know Hunter's mark is not ONCE referenced in the 2014 Ranger class features? in fact there are zero features which modify what a spell does in the 2014 Ranger. This is not the case in the 2024 Ranger, which has features specifically modifying what Hunter's Mark does. It changes the damage and it grants advantage. It's a, you have to go to the spell, read what the spell does, now you have to go back to the class description and read how the spell is modified, it's simply overly convoluted and bad design.
What are you even on about, "calculations." Calculations of what? DPR, DPR is highly misleading and you know it, On paper there are builds in 5E that can do 1K damage in a single round which has insane DPR but the set-ups to get there often take 3-4 rounds and are highly unreliable.
And this gets on to further in the issues, it's not just about damage, in fact I am relatively sure that via utilizing Divine Favor and Spirit Shroud, a Paladin can keep up a relatively decent DPR but that is not an obvious way of playing the class and it relies on things like always making concentration saving throws and so all that is happening with Ranger and Paladin is an increase in the skill floor, and a misdirection from the class features of how you should in fact play these classes which is then compounded by a reduction in the variety of viable builds for Ranger and Paladin since you literally need to optimize the classes to play them in a viable way for how the game is designed, the calculations you're after aren't going to show ANY of this.
You shouldn't have to spend hours researching a class after reading the book and going through optimizer blogs and websites to make a class playable, that is an utter nonsense way of designing the game. You'll always have optimizers and they will always find things to exploit in any class, heck even in monk which has been in desperate need for some TLC for a while.
Sorry, which level of Ranger are we talking about? A 3rd level ranger with Expertise in Survival will have a +7-+8, vs Commoner with a relevant job having a +2-+3 modifier. At DC 20, the Commoner has a 15-20% chance of success, vs the Ranger having a 40-45% chance of success. So the Ranger is 2-3 times more likely to succeed as a Commoner that's hardly super-hero levels of success, and someone having a 20% chance of success at something on the first try is hardly "impossible". Sure the Commoner might be impressed, but they are hardly going to proclaim you a superhero.
A "miracle" is not something that happens 1/20 times anyone anywhere in the world attempt to do something hard. It's not a "miracle" when a hockey player scores a goal even though they have about a 1/20 success rate.