If you want pure uniqueness, 5e is not the game for you. Sorry.
Why then does every other class get something unique to them? Barbs have Rage, Fighter has Action Surge, Bard has BI, Warlock has invocations & pact magic, sorcerer has metamagic, rogue has sneak attack, paladin has auras and smites, druid has WS, monk has stunning strike & deflect attack, cleric & wizard have a ton of unique spells.
2024 Ranger has: some extra move speeds, and a handful of unique spells: Ensnaring Strike, Hail of Thorns, Hunter's Mark, Cordon of Arrows, Conjure Barrage, Lightning Arrow, Conjure Volley, Swift Quiver
I think you downplay alot of class uniqueness. Every class has at least 2 unique traits that make the mechanics and theme interface together. Examples: wizards have special ritual casting, Clerics have Chanel divinity, and rogues get reliable talent and cunning action (which are more uniqely class-defining than sneak imo) Even the ones that can be feat looted are lesser versions or naratively tied to the original source.
Now ranger has various themes and trying to mechanically reinforce them all would be impossible. Some forced established elements are good while others are too restricted/forced naratives. Establishing 5e ranger as a spellcaster was probably a good locked in choice But a locked in primary spell forces a style and interferes with individual fantasy. The other fantasy supporting elements.(tracking spells, movement boons etc) are also weak in theme enforcement.
I still argue players got more combat movement benefits out of ignoring difficult difficult terrain rather than extra speed. Now this is at least partially dm encounter design dependant. But then why not allow the option (especially since movement is available via multiple other methods but difficult terrain is hard to ignore)
The "unique" invisibility from nature's veil could have been a really ranger trait but it becomes overlaps the boon to hm and is still lesser than greater invisibility and maintainsmost of its weaknesses. Still a real revision to hips would have made it stand out as a ranger feature.
Imagine if paladins needed to give up both a bonus action and concentration to smite. Or roogues needed to give up a bonus action to sneak attack?
Its horrible game design that rangers must give up both concentration and use bonus actions to use a basic ability (hunters mark) that the class is built around.
Imagine if paladins needed to give up both a bonus action and concentration to smite. Or roogues needed to give up a bonus action to sneak attack?
Its horrible game design that rangers must give up both concentration and use bonus actions to use a basic ability (hunters mark) that the class is built around.
Smite burns a spell slot every time it's used. Hunter's Mark provides a damage increase across multiple hits - against a sturdy enough foe, it might even apply for the entire combat. It needing concentration is justified, especially since other Ranger spells are being confirmed to lose concentration in the 2024 PHB.
Imagine if paladins needed to give up both a bonus action and concentration to smite. Or roogues needed to give up a bonus action to sneak attack?
Its horrible game design that rangers must give up both concentration and use bonus actions to use a basic ability (hunters mark) that the class is built around.
I'm not a fan of Hunter's mark as a framework ability but bonus action is only sometimes used. concentration is also good control metric for "super synergies"
The design of Hunter's mark has been fine but using it creates subsequent restrictions. Hence it should be a choice to use it or not. Tasha's favored foe actually removed some of those restrictions but in turn its damage was reduced. Overall favored foe was better designed than the 2024 ranger.
And for context i(as in my personal style) still can get more use out of favored enemy + sometimes hm over either 2024 or Tasha's . We really appear to have been better off with phb + Tasha's as it was the Best satisfaction rate so far.
I'm not a fan of Hunter's mark as a framework ability but bonus action is only sometimes used. concentration is also good control metric for "super synergies"
The design of Hunter's mark has been fine but using it creates subsequent restrictions. Hence it should be a choice to use it or not. Tasha's favored foe actually removed some of those restrictions but in turn its damage was reduced. Overall favored foe was better designed than the 2024 ranger.
And for context i(as in my personal style) still can get more use out of favored enemy + sometimes hm over either 2024 or Tasha's . We really appear to have been better off with phb + Tasha's as it was the Best satisfaction rate so far.
I really don't understand the logic that we were better off with Favored Foe (concentration, once per round, weak static scaling) than with 2024 Favored Enemy (concentration, every hit, scales with # of attacks, has out of combat uses.) To say nothing of the other things Tasha + 2014 lack like Weapon Mastery, spell preparation, 2 fewer expertises, and rituals.
I'm not a fan of Hunter's mark as a framework ability but bonus action is only sometimes used. concentration is also good control metric for "super synergies"
The design of Hunter's mark has been fine but using it creates subsequent restrictions. Hence it should be a choice to use it or not. Tasha's favored foe actually removed some of those restrictions but in turn its damage was reduced. Overall favored foe was better designed than the 2024 ranger.
And for context i(as in my personal style) still can get more use out of favored enemy + sometimes hm over either 2024 or Tasha's . We really appear to have been better off with phb + Tasha's as it was the Best satisfaction rate so far.
I really don't understand the logic that we were better off with Favored Foe (concentration, once per round, weak static scaling) than with 2024 Favored Enemy (concentration, every hit, scales with # of attacks, has out of combat uses.) To say nothing of the other things Tasha + 2014 lack like Weapon Mastery, spell preparation, 2 fewer expertises, and rituals.
Favored Foe really had some unique elements. it's timing allowed for concentration swapping. We have lots of threads on how it's better than it first appears.
Expertise is still one of the greatest fallacy of the ranger because getting double prof on [5-9 skills +tools sometimes] maths out better than guessing at the expertise skills you chose. Especially since 2024 you only get one for most of the average campaign length.
The free castings of primeval awareness took alot of the "situational trade" out spells and made preparation amost unnecessary. Not to mention just working with a good faith dm who understands players choice.
Ritual casting is nice but slot resources were rarely the complanits about 2014 or Tasha's. If you need it..... take the ritual caster druid feat and get some spells levels earlier. (Beastsense)
Favored Foe really had some unique elements. it's timing allowed for concentration swapping. We have lots of threads on how it's better than it first appears.
Expertise is still one of the greatest fallacy of the ranger because getting double prof on [5-9 skills +tools sometimes] maths out better than guessing at the expertise skills you chose. Especially since 2024 you only get one for most of the average campaign length.
The free castings of primeval awareness took alot of the "situational trade" out spells and made preparation amost unnecessary. Not to mention just working with a good faith dm who understands players choice.
Ritual casting is nice but slot resources were rarely the complanits about 2014 or Tasha's. If you need it..... take the ritual caster druid feat and get some spells levels earlier. (Beastsense)
Not HAVING to take Ritual Caster, and not needing Primal Awareness because I just have more base preparations to begin with, are advantages you and others keep overlooking. Burning a feat on Ritual Caster instead of literally anything else a Ranger can benefit from is a huge disadvantage.
It's the same as the silly "Druids can just take Skill Expert" argument. Yeah, they can, but they have way better things to be using that feat on - Resilient Con, Fey Touched, Telekinetic, Metamagic Adept, Warcaster etc. Stuff that makes them better at being a druid, rather than trying and failing to be rangers just to prove a point.
And I don't care how easy it is to swap from FF to something else, it's still 1d6 per round in most campaigns. HM easily delivers 3x that minimum.
And I don't care how easy it is to swap from FF to something else, it's still 1d6 per round in most campaigns. HM easily delivers 3x that minimum.
No actually it doesn't. At least not in the current version of D&D.
In current D&D getting Adv on ranged attacks is pretty rare, and often the Ranger will be using Sharpshooter which gives them 50% chance to hit.
If the Ranger makes 2 attacks per round (e.g. using BA for Hunter's Mark) then Hunter's Mark on average adds 0.5*2*3.5 = 3.5 damage, whereas FF adds (1-0.5^2)*3.5 = 2.6 damage. If the Ranger makes 3 attacks per round (e.g. using XbowXpert) then Hunter's Mark on average adds 0.5*3*3.5 = 5.35 damage, whereas FF adds 3.1 damage.
Now if we consider that 1 attack with SS is 8.25 damage (excluding HM/FF), then your enemy has to survive for 4 rounds for HM's extra damage above FF to surpass the loss of that 1 bonus action attack.
In 2024 D&D this changes significantly, since with Vex and Topple the chance of each attack hitting goes way up, meanwhile SS's damage bonus is no more. So in 2024 damage per attack is far far more valuable than it was in 2014, and making more attacks is even more valuable. There's a reason Treantmonk did a melee Ranger for his build under 2024 rules but did ranged builds for all his previous Rangers. I just finished updating my DPR spreadsheet to include WM & nerfed SS/GWM and a two-weapon using Ranger-Beastmaster deals ~10 more damage per round across all levels than a XbowXpert using Ranger-Hunter.
Favored Foe really had some unique elements. it's timing allowed for concentration swapping. We have lots of threads on how it's better than it first appears.
Expertise is still one of the greatest fallacy of the ranger because getting double prof on [5-9 skills +tools sometimes] maths out better than guessing at the expertise skills you chose. Especially since 2024 you only get one for most of the average campaign length.
The free castings of primeval awareness took alot of the "situational trade" out spells and made preparation amost unnecessary. Not to mention just working with a good faith dm who understands players choice.
Ritual casting is nice but slot resources were rarely the complanits about 2014 or Tasha's. If you need it..... take the ritual caster druid feat and get some spells levels earlier. (Beastsense)
Not HAVING to take Ritual Caster, and not needing Primal Awareness because I just have more base preparations to begin with, are advantages you and others keep overlooking. Burning a feat on Ritual Caster instead of literally anything else a Ranger can benefit from is a huge disadvantage.
It's the same as the silly "Druids can just take Skill Expert" argument. Yeah, they can, but they have way better things to be using that feat on - Resilient Con, Fey Touched, Telekinetic, Metamagic Adept, Warcaster etc. Stuff that makes them better at being a druid, rather than trying and failing to be rangers just to prove a point.
And I don't care how easy it is to swap from FF to something else, it's still 1d6 per round in most campaigns. HM easily delivers 3x that minimum.
I always love people who live in a world where there is always 10 minutes to ritual-cast a spell. Yes, the animal you want to speak to totally isn't going to run away before your finish.
(What's that? Druids can innately talk to animals anyway now? Gee, so much for that.)
In 2024 D&D this changes significantly, since with Vex and Topple the chance of each attack hitting goes way up, meanwhile SS's damage bonus is no more. So in 2024 damage per attack is far far more valuable than it was in 2014, and making more attacks is even more valuable. There's a reason Treantmonk did a melee Ranger for his build under 2024 rules but did ranged builds for all his previous Rangers. I just finished updating my DPR spreadsheet to include WM & nerfed SS/GWM and a two-weapon using Ranger-Beastmaster deals ~10 more damage per round across all levels than a XbowXpert using Ranger-Hunter.
The reason ranged builds are screwed in 2024 5e is because every melee martial will prioritize spamming Topple, because everyone getting advantage on all attacks until the monster's next turn is the obvious optional strategy in any situation.
In 2024 D&D this changes significantly, since with Vex and Topple the chance of each attack hitting goes way up, meanwhile SS's damage bonus is no more. So in 2024 damage per attack is far far more valuable than it was in 2014, and making more attacks is even more valuable. There's a reason Treantmonk did a melee Ranger for his build under 2024 rules but did ranged builds for all his previous Rangers. I just finished updating my DPR spreadsheet to include WM & nerfed SS/GWM and a two-weapon using Ranger-Beastmaster deals ~10 more damage per round across all levels than a XbowXpert using Ranger-Hunter.
The reason ranged builds are screwed in 2024 5e is because every melee martial will prioritize spamming Topple, because everyone getting advantage on all attacks until the monster's next turn is the obvious optional strategy in any situation.
Topple (and other added prone-ing effects) double screws them. Next on my list will be PoB vs EB-ing warlock, but I suspect PoB will similarly come out way ahead. From a cursory look from an optimization view point, I suspect we will have melee-martials and spellcasters using saving-throw spells and that's about it.
I always love people who live in a world where there is always 10 minutes to ritual-cast a spell. Yes, the animal you want to speak to totally isn't going to run away before your finish.
(What's that? Druids can innately talk to animals anyway now? Gee, so much for that.)
You know '24 Druids don't just have that ability passively right? They have the spell always prepared, which means if they don't want to burn slots on it, they're ritual-casting it just like everyone else.
As for "the animal is going to run away before you finish" - generally speaking, when you use this you're outdoors. Find another animal. Most biomes have more than one.
Imagine if paladins needed to give up both a bonus action and concentration to smite. Or roogues needed to give up a bonus action to sneak attack?
Its horrible game design that rangers must give up both concentration and use bonus actions to use a basic ability (hunters mark) that the class is built around.
Smite burns a spell slot every time it's used. Hunter's Mark provides a damage increase across multiple hits - against a sturdy enough foe, it might even apply for the entire combat. It needing concentration is justified, especially since other Ranger spells are being confirmed to lose concentration in the 2024 PHB.
That might is the biggest problem with HM. It’s your main feature and it might be great or it might be lost the same round you use it, which means it might not add any damage if you miss your attack. Smite uses a spell slot each time you use it but it does better damage than a single round of HM and activates on a hit. While I hate that smites use your bonus action moving forward, it’s still better than HM. HM shouldn’t be a spell and shouldn’t need concentration. It should be a feature that last 1 hour and just does the ribbon ability of tracking ability. Then add a sentence that reads, “once on your turn when you hit a marked creature with a weapon attack you may expend a spell slot to deal your Wis +1d6 per spell slot level expended force damage.” That way it’s different than smites, but is better than current HM.
That might is the biggest problem with HM. It’s your main feature and it might be great or it might be lost the same round you use it, which means it might not add any damage if you miss your attack. Smite uses a spell slot each time you use it but it does better damage than a single round of HM and activates on a hit. While I hate that smites use your bonus action moving forward, it’s still better than HM. HM shouldn’t be a spell and shouldn’t need concentration. It should be a feature that last 1 hour and just does the ribbon ability of tracking ability. Then add a sentence that reads, “once on your turn when you hit a marked creature with a weapon attack you may expend a spell slot to deal your Wis +1d6 per spell slot level expended force damage.” That way it’s different than smites, but is better than current HM.
You can make that same argument about Hex, Agonizing Blast, Spirit Shroud, Conjure Minor Elementals and many other on-hit damage spells. All a miss chance does is lower their average DPR increase by a percentage, it doesn't negate the benefits entirely (unless your miss chance is 100% on every hit.)
Turning HM into a pseudo-smite is not something I'd be in favor of. The Ranger list has way, way more utility magic than the paladin list, so being more slot-efficient is in their best interests.
That might is the biggest problem with HM. It’s your main feature and it might be great or it might be lost the same round you use it, which means it might not add any damage if you miss your attack. Smite uses a spell slot each time you use it but it does better damage than a single round of HM and activates on a hit. While I hate that smites use your bonus action moving forward, it’s still better than HM. HM shouldn’t be a spell and shouldn’t need concentration. It should be a feature that last 1 hour and just does the ribbon ability of tracking ability. Then add a sentence that reads, “once on your turn when you hit a marked creature with a weapon attack you may expend a spell slot to deal your Wis +1d6 per spell slot level expended force damage.” That way it’s different than smites, but is better than current HM.
You can make that same argument about Hex, Agonizing Blast, Spirit Shroud, Conjure Minor Elementals and many other on-hit damage spells. All a miss chance does is lower their average DPR increase by a percentage, it doesn't negate the benefits entirely (unless your miss chance is 100% on every hit.)
Turning HM into a pseudo-smite is not something I'd be in favor of. The Ranger list has way, way more utility magic than the paladin list, so being more slot-efficient is in their best interests.
Don't you find it weird then that most people given the choice choose smites over sustained damage? Paladin has Divine Favour which works basically the same as Hunter's Mark (but doesn't require the mark to be moved all the time) but have you ever seen a Paladin cast it? (Vengeance Paladin even gets Hunter's Mark but rarely have I seen one use it). Similarly Warlock gets some fantastic sustained damage spells: Hex, Spirit Shroud, Shadow of Moil, but most Hexblades will still take and use Eldritch Smite instead.
Don't you find it weird then that most people given the choice choose smites over sustained damage? Paladin has Divine Favour which works basically the same as Hunter's Mark (but doesn't require the mark to be moved all the time) but have you ever seen a Paladin cast it? (Vengeance Paladin even gets Hunter's Mark but rarely have I seen one use it). Similarly Warlock gets some fantastic sustained damage spells: Hex, Spirit Shroud, Shadow of Moil, but most Hexblades will still take and use Eldritch Smite instead.
I'm not sure where your "most people" usage statistics are coming from, but when I see Divine Favor not picked, it's usually because the paladin is prioritizing defensive buffs like Protection from Evil, Shied of Faith, Heroism etc. When defense isn't needed, I've seen Divine Favor used. And I'm not sure where this false dichotomy between smites or a concentration buff is coming from when paladins and hexblades can do both simultaneously (with vanilla smite anyway in 2014; in 2024, most of them will be concentration-free), though Eldritch Smite doesn't strike me as an especially good use of a Hexblade's very limited pact slots either.
This isn't to say that some kind of smite ability couldn't work on Ranger. But again, I see them as having more utility uses for their slots, and more powerful offensive concentration spells than Paladin gets too, like Summon Beast or Conjure Animals or Spike Growth, so coming up with some nature-themed smite ability for them just isn't needed.
That might is the biggest problem with HM. It’s your main feature and it might be great or it might be lost the same round you use it, which means it might not add any damage if you miss your attack. Smite uses a spell slot each time you use it but it does better damage than a single round of HM and activates on a hit. While I hate that smites use your bonus action moving forward, it’s still better than HM. HM shouldn’t be a spell and shouldn’t need concentration. It should be a feature that last 1 hour and just does the ribbon ability of tracking ability. Then add a sentence that reads, “once on your turn when you hit a marked creature with a weapon attack you may expend a spell slot to deal your Wis +1d6 per spell slot level expended force damage.” That way it’s different than smites, but is better than current HM.
You can make that same argument about Hex, Agonizing Blast, Spirit Shroud, Conjure Minor Elementals and many other on-hit damage spells. All a miss chance does is lower their average DPR increase by a percentage, it doesn't negate the benefits entirely (unless your miss chance is 100% on every hit.)
Turning HM into a pseudo-smite is not something I'd be in favor of. The Ranger list has way, way more utility magic than the paladin list, so being more slot-efficient is in their best interests.
Yes, but they aren’t the main feature of the class. This wasn’t as big of a problem in 2014 when HM was just the best spell for a Ranger in most situations because of how it worked. In 2024 it is a Ranger feature. It’s silly to be slot efficient when all those utility spells are Druid spells. Let the Druid cast them. Also you would be being more slot efficient since you would only use the slot on a hit and it would do more damage. Most of the unique Ranger spells are combat focused and concentration (at least in 2014 and I doubt they removed concentration from those). You know like Ensnaring Strike, Zypher Strike, Hail of Thorns. So in 2024 using your main supported feature means you can’t use any of your unique spells. Divine Smite simply functioned better as a feature. It should have been once a turn in 2014, but now they over corrected that for 2024. WotC did not have to make HM the Rangers main feature. There were other paths to improve the Ranger. Since they chose the HM path they should have done something better with it.
EDIT:
Wait if this is true
This isn't to say that some kind of smite ability couldn't work on Ranger. But again, I see them as having more utility uses for their slots, and more powerful offensive concentration spells than Paladin gets too, like Summon Beast or Conjure Animals or Spike Growth, so coming up with some nature-themed smite ability for them just isn't needed.
The 2024 Ranger having HM as a main feature is really bad since concentration competes with their ability to use summon beast or any of those spells. A 2014 smite like feature would simply be better.
Yes, but they aren’t the main feature of the class. This wasn’t as big of a problem in 2014 when HM was just the best spell for a Ranger in most situations because of how it worked.
HM was never the "best spell" for a 2014 Ranger. Spike Growth, Conjure Animals, Conjure Woodland Beings, and Swift Quiver all outdamaged it, and those were just core. What 2024 is doing is acknowledging that fact by giving you a bunch of free uses, letting you use the harder hitting spells for your toughest fights, and HM as a fallback in the other ones.
It’s silly to be slot efficient when all those utility spells are Druid spells. Let the Druid cast them.
Putting aside that you might not even have a Druid and a Ranger in the same party - even in the cases where you do, redundancy is a good thing because of how opportunity cost and specialization work in this game. Your Ranger dropping their concentration on HM to Pass Without Trace the party, or Locate Object, or chat up a nearby squirrel, means the Druid is free to keep concentrating on something more valuable like Polymorph, or a powerful summon, or Find The Path etc that your ranger either can't do or can't do nearly as well. And even for spells that both of you can do, some of them involve or improve ability checks that the Ranger will be better at because of Expertise, higher Dex, or both.
Most of the unique Ranger spells are combat focused and concentration (at least in 2014 and I doubt they removed concentration from those). You know like Ensnaring Strike, Zypher Strike, Hail of Thorns. So in 2024 using your main supported feature means you can’t use any of your unique spells. Divine Smite simply functioned better as a feature. It should have been once a turn in 2014, but now they over corrected that for 2024. WotC did not have to make HM the Rangers main feature. There were other paths to improve the Ranger. Since they chose the HM path they should have done something better with it.
We don't know which Ranger spells will still have concentration in 2024, but we do know that it was removed from some of them. Let's wait a couple more days before we declare that Rangers are the bottom of the barrel.
But even if every single Ranger concentration spell in 2014 was still one in 2024 I'd still say they were better off, because of the free HM uses. Dropping HM to concentrate on something else is effectively free, or at the very least you'll have enough uses that it will be a viable strategy.
This isn't to say that some kind of smite ability couldn't work on Ranger. But again, I see them as having more utility uses for their slots, and more powerful offensive concentration spells than Paladin gets too, like Summon Beast or Conjure Animals or Spike Growth, so coming up with some nature-themed smite ability for them just isn't needed.
The 2024 Ranger having HM as a main feature is really bad since concentration competes with their ability to use summon beast or any of those spells. A 2014 smite like feature would simply be better.
As above, you can just drop your concentration on HM when those more powerful spells are needed. No muss, no fuss.
As for why no smite, even putting the saminess of that approach aside, giving them both a smite feature and a bunch of summons that paladins don't get is likely a bridge too far.
Its a simple list problem. Ranger share spell list with druid. To be named now the Primal spell-list. Most of the (best) spells on this list are concentration. This is also probably the most concentration heavy list of the 3.
Ranger have access to an heavy concentration spell list. Concentration is an heavy caster thing. They need dedicated concentration free spell, or that list is basically not usable efficiently for them as half casters.
They'ree already basically having that list btw with the new updates. Except for that hunter mark thing that I'm not using cause its 0 fun.
I think we miss reinforcement spell type. Like polyvalent or slightly defensive buff for half caster. Given the limited spell slot and their martiality, this is just ... logical. Above any thing they would make the best use of it. Paladin has some as a defender but they re more supporty than self efficient buff. Also ranger miss some of that.
Having full concentration offensive spell isnt really fitting the survival theme.
I think you downplay alot of class uniqueness. Every class has at least 2 unique traits that make the mechanics and theme interface together. Examples: wizards have special ritual casting, Clerics have Chanel divinity, and rogues get reliable talent and cunning action (which are more uniqely class-defining than sneak imo) Even the ones that can be feat looted are lesser versions or naratively tied to the original source.
Now ranger has various themes and trying to mechanically reinforce them all would be impossible. Some forced established elements are good while others are too restricted/forced naratives. Establishing 5e ranger as a spellcaster was probably a good locked in choice But a locked in primary spell forces a style and interferes with individual fantasy. The other fantasy supporting elements.(tracking spells, movement boons etc) are also weak in theme enforcement.
I still argue players got more combat movement benefits out of ignoring difficult difficult terrain rather than extra speed. Now this is at least partially dm encounter design dependant. But then why not allow the option (especially since movement is available via multiple other methods but difficult terrain is hard to ignore)
The "unique" invisibility from nature's veil could have been a really ranger trait but it becomes overlaps the boon to hm and is still lesser than greater invisibility and maintainsmost of its weaknesses. Still a real revision to hips would have made it stand out as a ranger feature.
Imagine if paladins needed to give up both a bonus action and concentration to smite. Or roogues needed to give up a bonus action to sneak attack?
Its horrible game design that rangers must give up both concentration and use bonus actions to use a basic ability (hunters mark) that the class is built around.
Smite burns a spell slot every time it's used. Hunter's Mark provides a damage increase across multiple hits - against a sturdy enough foe, it might even apply for the entire combat. It needing concentration is justified, especially since other Ranger spells are being confirmed to lose concentration in the 2024 PHB.
I'm not a fan of Hunter's mark as a framework ability but bonus action is only sometimes used. concentration is also good control metric for "super synergies"
The design of Hunter's mark has been fine but using it creates subsequent restrictions. Hence it should be a choice to use it or not. Tasha's favored foe actually removed some of those restrictions but in turn its damage was reduced. Overall favored foe was better designed than the 2024 ranger.
And for context i(as in my personal style) still can get more use out of favored enemy + sometimes hm over either 2024 or Tasha's . We really appear to have been better off with phb + Tasha's as it was the Best satisfaction rate so far.
I really don't understand the logic that we were better off with Favored Foe (concentration, once per round, weak static scaling) than with 2024 Favored Enemy (concentration, every hit, scales with # of attacks, has out of combat uses.) To say nothing of the other things Tasha + 2014 lack like Weapon Mastery, spell preparation, 2 fewer expertises, and rituals.
Favored Foe really had some unique elements. it's timing allowed for concentration swapping. We have lots of threads on how it's better than it first appears.
Expertise is still one of the greatest fallacy of the ranger because getting double prof on [5-9 skills +tools sometimes] maths out better than guessing at the expertise skills you chose. Especially since 2024 you only get one for most of the average campaign length.
The free castings of primeval awareness took alot of the "situational trade" out spells and made preparation amost unnecessary. Not to mention just working with a good faith dm who understands players choice.
Ritual casting is nice but slot resources were rarely the complanits about 2014 or Tasha's. If you need it..... take the ritual caster druid feat and get some spells levels earlier. (Beastsense)
Not HAVING to take Ritual Caster, and not needing Primal Awareness because I just have more base preparations to begin with, are advantages you and others keep overlooking. Burning a feat on Ritual Caster instead of literally anything else a Ranger can benefit from is a huge disadvantage.
It's the same as the silly "Druids can just take Skill Expert" argument. Yeah, they can, but they have way better things to be using that feat on - Resilient Con, Fey Touched, Telekinetic, Metamagic Adept, Warcaster etc. Stuff that makes them better at being a druid, rather than trying and failing to be rangers just to prove a point.
And I don't care how easy it is to swap from FF to something else, it's still 1d6 per round in most campaigns. HM easily delivers 3x that minimum.
No actually it doesn't. At least not in the current version of D&D.
In current D&D getting Adv on ranged attacks is pretty rare, and often the Ranger will be using Sharpshooter which gives them 50% chance to hit.
If the Ranger makes 2 attacks per round (e.g. using BA for Hunter's Mark) then Hunter's Mark on average adds 0.5*2*3.5 = 3.5 damage, whereas FF adds (1-0.5^2)*3.5 = 2.6 damage.
If the Ranger makes 3 attacks per round (e.g. using XbowXpert) then Hunter's Mark on average adds 0.5*3*3.5 = 5.35 damage, whereas FF adds 3.1 damage.
Now if we consider that 1 attack with SS is 8.25 damage (excluding HM/FF), then your enemy has to survive for 4 rounds for HM's extra damage above FF to surpass the loss of that 1 bonus action attack.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2024 D&D this changes significantly, since with Vex and Topple the chance of each attack hitting goes way up, meanwhile SS's damage bonus is no more. So in 2024 damage per attack is far far more valuable than it was in 2014, and making more attacks is even more valuable. There's a reason Treantmonk did a melee Ranger for his build under 2024 rules but did ranged builds for all his previous Rangers. I just finished updating my DPR spreadsheet to include WM & nerfed SS/GWM and a two-weapon using Ranger-Beastmaster deals ~10 more damage per round across all levels than a XbowXpert using Ranger-Hunter.
I always love people who live in a world where there is always 10 minutes to ritual-cast a spell. Yes, the animal you want to speak to totally isn't going to run away before your finish.
(What's that? Druids can innately talk to animals anyway now? Gee, so much for that.)
The reason ranged builds are screwed in 2024 5e is because every melee martial will prioritize spamming Topple, because everyone getting advantage on all attacks until the monster's next turn is the obvious optional strategy in any situation.
Topple (and other added prone-ing effects) double screws them. Next on my list will be PoB vs EB-ing warlock, but I suspect PoB will similarly come out way ahead. From a cursory look from an optimization view point, I suspect we will have melee-martials and spellcasters using saving-throw spells and that's about it.
You know this is the UA forum right?
You know '24 Druids don't just have that ability passively right? They have the spell always prepared, which means if they don't want to burn slots on it, they're ritual-casting it just like everyone else.
As for "the animal is going to run away before you finish" - generally speaking, when you use this you're outdoors. Find another animal. Most biomes have more than one.
That might is the biggest problem with HM. It’s your main feature and it might be great or it might be lost the same round you use it, which means it might not add any damage if you miss your attack. Smite uses a spell slot each time you use it but it does better damage than a single round of HM and activates on a hit. While I hate that smites use your bonus action moving forward, it’s still better than HM. HM shouldn’t be a spell and shouldn’t need concentration. It should be a feature that last 1 hour and just does the ribbon ability of tracking ability. Then add a sentence that reads, “once on your turn when you hit a marked creature with a weapon attack you may expend a spell slot to deal your Wis +1d6 per spell slot level expended force damage.” That way it’s different than smites, but is better than current HM.
You know how to follow a conversation right?
The parts that are relevant, sure.
You can make that same argument about Hex, Agonizing Blast, Spirit Shroud, Conjure Minor Elementals and many other on-hit damage spells. All a miss chance does is lower their average DPR increase by a percentage, it doesn't negate the benefits entirely (unless your miss chance is 100% on every hit.)
Turning HM into a pseudo-smite is not something I'd be in favor of. The Ranger list has way, way more utility magic than the paladin list, so being more slot-efficient is in their best interests.
Don't you find it weird then that most people given the choice choose smites over sustained damage? Paladin has Divine Favour which works basically the same as Hunter's Mark (but doesn't require the mark to be moved all the time) but have you ever seen a Paladin cast it? (Vengeance Paladin even gets Hunter's Mark but rarely have I seen one use it). Similarly Warlock gets some fantastic sustained damage spells: Hex, Spirit Shroud, Shadow of Moil, but most Hexblades will still take and use Eldritch Smite instead.
I'm not sure where your "most people" usage statistics are coming from, but when I see Divine Favor not picked, it's usually because the paladin is prioritizing defensive buffs like Protection from Evil, Shied of Faith, Heroism etc. When defense isn't needed, I've seen Divine Favor used. And I'm not sure where this false dichotomy between smites or a concentration buff is coming from when paladins and hexblades can do both simultaneously (with vanilla smite anyway in 2014; in 2024, most of them will be concentration-free), though Eldritch Smite doesn't strike me as an especially good use of a Hexblade's very limited pact slots either.
This isn't to say that some kind of smite ability couldn't work on Ranger. But again, I see them as having more utility uses for their slots, and more powerful offensive concentration spells than Paladin gets too, like Summon Beast or Conjure Animals or Spike Growth, so coming up with some nature-themed smite ability for them just isn't needed.
Yes, but they aren’t the main feature of the class. This wasn’t as big of a problem in 2014 when HM was just the best spell for a Ranger in most situations because of how it worked. In 2024 it is a Ranger feature. It’s silly to be slot efficient when all those utility spells are Druid spells. Let the Druid cast them. Also you would be being more slot efficient since you would only use the slot on a hit and it would do more damage. Most of the unique Ranger spells are combat focused and concentration (at least in 2014 and I doubt they removed concentration from those). You know like Ensnaring Strike, Zypher Strike, Hail of Thorns. So in 2024 using your main supported feature means you can’t use any of your unique spells.
Divine Smite simply functioned better as a feature. It should have been once a turn in 2014, but now they over corrected that for 2024. WotC did not have to make HM the Rangers main feature. There were other paths to improve the Ranger. Since they chose the HM path they should have done something better with it.
EDIT:
Wait if this is true
The 2024 Ranger having HM as a main feature is really bad since concentration competes with their ability to use summon beast or any of those spells. A 2014 smite like feature would simply be better.
HM was never the "best spell" for a 2014 Ranger. Spike Growth, Conjure Animals, Conjure Woodland Beings, and Swift Quiver all outdamaged it, and those were just core. What 2024 is doing is acknowledging that fact by giving you a bunch of free uses, letting you use the harder hitting spells for your toughest fights, and HM as a fallback in the other ones.
Putting aside that you might not even have a Druid and a Ranger in the same party - even in the cases where you do, redundancy is a good thing because of how opportunity cost and specialization work in this game. Your Ranger dropping their concentration on HM to Pass Without Trace the party, or Locate Object, or chat up a nearby squirrel, means the Druid is free to keep concentrating on something more valuable like Polymorph, or a powerful summon, or Find The Path etc that your ranger either can't do or can't do nearly as well. And even for spells that both of you can do, some of them involve or improve ability checks that the Ranger will be better at because of Expertise, higher Dex, or both.
We don't know which Ranger spells will still have concentration in 2024, but we do know that it was removed from some of them. Let's wait a couple more days before we declare that Rangers are the bottom of the barrel.
But even if every single Ranger concentration spell in 2014 was still one in 2024 I'd still say they were better off, because of the free HM uses. Dropping HM to concentrate on something else is effectively free, or at the very least you'll have enough uses that it will be a viable strategy.
As above, you can just drop your concentration on HM when those more powerful spells are needed. No muss, no fuss.
As for why no smite, even putting the saminess of that approach aside, giving them both a smite feature and a bunch of summons that paladins don't get is likely a bridge too far.
Its a simple list problem.
Ranger share spell list with druid. To be named now the Primal spell-list.
Most of the (best) spells on this list are concentration. This is also probably the most concentration heavy list of the 3.
Ranger have access to an heavy concentration spell list.
Concentration is an heavy caster thing.
They need dedicated concentration free spell, or that list is basically not usable efficiently for them as half casters.
They'ree already basically having that list btw with the new updates.
Except for that hunter mark thing that I'm not using cause its 0 fun.
I think we miss reinforcement spell type. Like polyvalent or slightly defensive buff for half caster. Given the limited spell slot and their martiality, this is just ... logical. Above any thing they would make the best use of it. Paladin has some as a defender but they re more supporty than self efficient buff. Also ranger miss some of that.
Having full concentration offensive spell isnt really fitting the survival theme.