Did I miss people complaining about paladins over the same issues that Rangers had before Tasha's? Because it's rather well-documented there were problems with Rangers having too many concentration based spells. But I don't remember people complaining about paladins having the same problem. Or is it more because nobody cares about the paladins spell list because all they ever think to do is use them for the smight ability?
I think it's more about the (perceived) reliance on Concentration spells than on the number of them, combined with the Ranger class being considered weak and/or poorly designed in terms of the first level abilities. Plenty of people apparently feel the Ranger needs Hunter's Mark to keep pace with other classes, while the Paladin generally is considered one of the stronger classes. Having to choose what to concentrate on is a first world problem for the Paladin but a design flaw for the Ranger, is the argument. I don't entirely agree with this assessment, but a similar problem mattering less to a strong class than a weak one is just common sense.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Concentration is for spells that have effects for multiple turns and have to be maintained. Both in the ranger and the paladin spell list I'm not finding any spells labeled with concentration that don't fit this criteria.
This is only broken by pure caster classes like wizard with spells like mage armor, shape earth/water and disguise self which compared to bark skin doesn't require concentration. But then again mages don't get to attack more then 1 time at 5ht level unless they take a specific subclass to do so. Makes sense they get some bonus utility in return for the loss of attacks.
The problem with rangers specifically is that hunters mark being able to jump from target to target on a bonus action is just strong. Hunter's mark blatantly increases your damage output by 1d6 on everything you attack, where as something like ensnaring strike just ends when the target dies.
Paladins have this same option between divine favor and any of the smite spells, however I assume that most low level characters will just burn their slots on divine smite instead. (*I don't take much interest in paladin so I have a hard time identifying their problems)
I think the difference is that a paladin doesn't need to rely on concentration spells to stand out. They have their class Smite ability which doesn't use concentration like the Smite spells do, and they have Lay on Hands and Channel Divinity. It's not so much to ask for them to also only keep one concentration spell up at once, whereas Rangers get comparatively little combat bonus that's not situational, and their main damage-dealing functionality is Hunter's Mark (later subclass additions help slightly, but most of the combat boost you get from these subclasses is once per turn) . Since most Ranger spells are concentration and you pretty much need Hunter's Mark to compete damage-wise with other classes, you're often forced as a ranger to choose between dealing damage or using your other spells in a way that Palladins aren't.
The problem with rangers specifically is that hunters mark being able to jump from target to target on a bonus action is just strong. Hunter's mark blatantly increases your damage output by 1d6 on everything you attack, where as something like ensnaring strike just ends when the target dies.
I don't see this as a problem and have never heard it presented as such. Hunter's Mark is factored into how a Ranger who is focused on damage is intended to perform. It has several mitigating factors, the main two being that the bonus action to cast and move competes with several other bonus action options, and the concentration requirement.
In fact, I think a large part of the Ranger concentration complaint is related to the fact that HM is practically a class feature of Ranger, and people want that just baked in so they can cast other stuff. You could see a hint of this in the UA version of class feature variants where they gave HM as a feature, to be cast without slots or concentration [WIS mod] times per day. But I think most felt that was a bit too strong (and I agree - although it was pretty fun).
Another issue is that this balancing factor of concentration is not evenly applied over the class - a melee ranger is much more likely to be foiled than a ranged one. I'd argue the true dual-wielding melee ranger archetype is not yet supported to the level that the ranged archetype is. I don't think archer rangers typically are the ones complaining about concentration.
As for comparisons to Paladin, keep in mind that Paladins have proficiency in CON saves and get CHA mod on top of that at level 6. So aside from the fact they can just smite if all they want to do is damage, they are just way better at concentration checks in general. It's not uncommon to be sitting at +8 or higher by 6, while a comparable Ranger is at +2. That Paladin has a 95% chance to pass his check unless he's absolutely walloped, while the Ranger is at 65%, typically with lower AC.
Paladin spells are basically extensions of their class abilities. Smites, auras, healing, magic senses, etc. No matter what you choose to concentrate on, you'll always have those base abilities to fall back on. Or if you never take any concentration spells, it really doesn't hurt your ability to function as a paladin either.
All in all, people don't complain about the paladin because that class is so well put together that you can adjust your style as needed to work with the Concentration spells you like.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Did I miss people complaining about paladins over the same issues that Rangers had before Tasha's? Because it's rather well-documented there were problems with Rangers having too many concentration based spells. But I don't remember people complaining about paladins having the same problem. Or is it more because nobody cares about the paladins spell list because all they ever think to do is use them for the smight ability?
I think it's more about the (perceived) reliance on Concentration spells than on the number of them, combined with the Ranger class being considered weak and/or poorly designed in terms of the first level abilities. Plenty of people apparently feel the Ranger needs Hunter's Mark to keep pace with other classes, while the Paladin generally is considered one of the stronger classes. Having to choose what to concentrate on is a first world problem for the Paladin but a design flaw for the Ranger, is the argument. I don't entirely agree with this assessment, but a similar problem mattering less to a strong class than a weak one is just common sense.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Join the club. I've had a beef with their overused concentration tag from the very beginning. So many spells that simply don't need to be conc.
I actually find it a bigger issue for the Paladin than the Ranger. But I love Rangers and didn't have an issue with them before Tasha's.
Birgit | Shifter | Sorcerer | Dragonlords
Shayone | Hobgoblin | Sorcerer | Netherdeep
Concentration is for spells that have effects for multiple turns and have to be maintained. Both in the ranger and the paladin spell list I'm not finding any spells labeled with concentration that don't fit this criteria.
This is only broken by pure caster classes like wizard with spells like mage armor, shape earth/water and disguise self which compared to bark skin doesn't require concentration. But then again mages don't get to attack more then 1 time at 5ht level unless they take a specific subclass to do so. Makes sense they get some bonus utility in return for the loss of attacks.
The problem with rangers specifically is that hunters mark being able to jump from target to target on a bonus action is just strong. Hunter's mark blatantly increases your damage output by 1d6 on everything you attack, where as something like ensnaring strike just ends when the target dies.
Paladins have this same option between divine favor and any of the smite spells, however I assume that most low level characters will just burn their slots on divine smite instead. (*I don't take much interest in paladin so I have a hard time identifying their problems)
I think the difference is that a paladin doesn't need to rely on concentration spells to stand out. They have their class Smite ability which doesn't use concentration like the Smite spells do, and they have Lay on Hands and Channel Divinity. It's not so much to ask for them to also only keep one concentration spell up at once, whereas Rangers get comparatively little combat bonus that's not situational, and their main damage-dealing functionality is Hunter's Mark (later subclass additions help slightly, but most of the combat boost you get from these subclasses is once per turn) . Since most Ranger spells are concentration and you pretty much need Hunter's Mark to compete damage-wise with other classes, you're often forced as a ranger to choose between dealing damage or using your other spells in a way that Palladins aren't.
I don't see this as a problem and have never heard it presented as such. Hunter's Mark is factored into how a Ranger who is focused on damage is intended to perform. It has several mitigating factors, the main two being that the bonus action to cast and move competes with several other bonus action options, and the concentration requirement.
In fact, I think a large part of the Ranger concentration complaint is related to the fact that HM is practically a class feature of Ranger, and people want that just baked in so they can cast other stuff. You could see a hint of this in the UA version of class feature variants where they gave HM as a feature, to be cast without slots or concentration [WIS mod] times per day. But I think most felt that was a bit too strong (and I agree - although it was pretty fun).
Another issue is that this balancing factor of concentration is not evenly applied over the class - a melee ranger is much more likely to be foiled than a ranged one. I'd argue the true dual-wielding melee ranger archetype is not yet supported to the level that the ranged archetype is. I don't think archer rangers typically are the ones complaining about concentration.
As for comparisons to Paladin, keep in mind that Paladins have proficiency in CON saves and get CHA mod on top of that at level 6. So aside from the fact they can just smite if all they want to do is damage, they are just way better at concentration checks in general. It's not uncommon to be sitting at +8 or higher by 6, while a comparable Ranger is at +2. That Paladin has a 95% chance to pass his check unless he's absolutely walloped, while the Ranger is at 65%, typically with lower AC.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Paladins don't have proficiency in CON saves. They have WIS and CHA.
Birgit | Shifter | Sorcerer | Dragonlords
Shayone | Hobgoblin | Sorcerer | Netherdeep
Though they do get their auras that give them and everyone within 10 feet a +Cha bonus to all saves