I'll admit, at first I thought using Hunter's Mark without concentration was a bit broken, but I've come around. My main worry was people multiclassing for one level into Ranger for it, but I've since realized that only the Fighter would benefit from that. Monks have too many uses of their bonus action to break this feature, Paladins can't afford all the multiclassing requirements, and Barbarians don't usually invest enough in mental stats and even if they did, casting Hunter's Mark means they would have to put off raging for a round, and fights in 5e are often pretty quick.
Thoughts? Is the feature overpowered, or acceptable?
I made a Rogue with the first level in Ranger, and on paper it looks just better in every way. But that's a good point about bonus actions. It might not work as well when monsters start falling and I want to both move the mark and use cunning action. I'll be trying it this weekend and I'll let everyone know how it goes.
We don't know how monk's martial arts and flurry of blows will work. Though even now, casting hunter's mark wins more damage than using a bonus action for an additional attack, and it gets better when you gain extra attack and use flurry of blows on subsequent turns. Can put down a boss really quickly.
I see hunters mark + monk about the same level as Paladin Smite + Bard. Sure it's powerful but there's always an opportunity cost to a multiclass and (IMO) it's rarely as useful as it seems in theorycrafting unless you're starting the game at level 10 rather than level 1 or even level 5.
That being said, if you wanted to really cut it down, limit the number of times it can provide the extra damage based on either the level of the Ranger or the spell level it was cast at. Sure the monk can set it up pre-fight but it's only good for maybe 2-3 hits before it expires. Not a bad amount of extra damage, but not quite as easily abusable and it incentivizes Rangers to stick to Ranger.
End of the day, I just don't worry about it because I don't think it's making it out of UA. It has all the same issues it had last time they offered it up.
I see hunters mark + monk about the same level as Paladin Smite + Bard. Sure it's powerful but there's always an opportunity cost to a multiclass and (IMO) it's rarely as useful as it seems in theorycrafting unless you're starting the game at level 10 rather than level 1 or even level 5.
That being said, if you wanted to really cut it down, limit the number of times it can provide the extra damage based on either the level of the Ranger or the spell level it was cast at. Sure the monk can set it up pre-fight but it's only good for maybe 2-3 hits before it expires. Not a bad amount of extra damage, but not quite as easily abusable and it incentivizes Rangers to stick to Ranger.
End of the day, I just don't worry about it because I don't think it's making it out of UA. It has all the same issues it had last time they offered it up.
It did seem almost intentional. The way they talked about it in the video. It kind of felt like they were saying "So everyone thinks the Ranger sucks huh? Well, here. Have this overpowered one. Is this good enough?"
Which isn't necessarily a bad approach, as long as it isn't just being cheeky for no reason. After failing so many times to balance it, this might be the best way. Go too far, and let the players really focus on the parts that need the most work. They might have suspected we would all think the spells are going too far. But I haven't seen anyone comment on them at all. So maybe the ranger really needed those spells. And the real problem has always been Hunters Mark.
There is a programmer story about the queens duck. https://bwiggs.com/notebook/queens-duck/ There may be a bit of this going on throughout the whole playtest. Players love to give input.
my problem is because of all the focus on hunters mark damage, actual analysis of the rest may be ignored. sure it's a great feature but what about the rest. in current 5e I found exhaustion to be more rare than "being in favored terrain or getting to use PHB favored enemy". I actually find extra movement less useful than ignoring difficult terrain. other people may vary but at least having options was nice.
For classes that can easily apply it after a dip, it's too strong. Heck, I think it's too strong right now. I'd be fine if they added this to the original Favored Enemy. Being able to limit who you can cast it on, without expending a spell slot or requiring concentration, makes sense. Especially when attached to a bonus language.
But being able to cast it on anyone, anytime, is too much for me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'll admit, at first I thought using Hunter's Mark without concentration was a bit broken, but I've come around. My main worry was people multiclassing for one level into Ranger for it, but I've since realized that only the Fighter would benefit from that. Monks have too many uses of their bonus action to break this feature, Paladins can't afford all the multiclassing requirements, and Barbarians don't usually invest enough in mental stats and even if they did, casting Hunter's Mark means they would have to put off raging for a round, and fights in 5e are often pretty quick.
Thoughts? Is the feature overpowered, or acceptable?
I made a Rogue with the first level in Ranger, and on paper it looks just better in every way. But that's a good point about bonus actions. It might not work as well when monsters start falling and I want to both move the mark and use cunning action. I'll be trying it this weekend and I'll let everyone know how it goes.
We don't know how monk's martial arts and flurry of blows will work. Though even now, casting hunter's mark wins more damage than using a bonus action for an additional attack, and it gets better when you gain extra attack and use flurry of blows on subsequent turns. Can put down a boss really quickly.
I see hunters mark + monk about the same level as Paladin Smite + Bard. Sure it's powerful but there's always an opportunity cost to a multiclass and (IMO) it's rarely as useful as it seems in theorycrafting unless you're starting the game at level 10 rather than level 1 or even level 5.
That being said, if you wanted to really cut it down, limit the number of times it can provide the extra damage based on either the level of the Ranger or the spell level it was cast at. Sure the monk can set it up pre-fight but it's only good for maybe 2-3 hits before it expires. Not a bad amount of extra damage, but not quite as easily abusable and it incentivizes Rangers to stick to Ranger.
End of the day, I just don't worry about it because I don't think it's making it out of UA. It has all the same issues it had last time they offered it up.
It did seem almost intentional. The way they talked about it in the video. It kind of felt like they were saying "So everyone thinks the Ranger sucks huh? Well, here. Have this overpowered one. Is this good enough?"
Which isn't necessarily a bad approach, as long as it isn't just being cheeky for no reason. After failing so many times to balance it, this might be the best way. Go too far, and let the players really focus on the parts that need the most work. They might have suspected we would all think the spells are going too far. But I haven't seen anyone comment on them at all. So maybe the ranger really needed those spells. And the real problem has always been Hunters Mark.
That's much easier to focus on and balance.
There is a programmer story about the queens duck. https://bwiggs.com/notebook/queens-duck/ There may be a bit of this going on throughout the whole playtest. Players love to give input.
my problem is because of all the focus on hunters mark damage, actual analysis of the rest may be ignored. sure it's a great feature but what about the rest. in current 5e I found exhaustion to be more rare than "being in favored terrain or getting to use PHB favored enemy". I actually find extra movement less useful than ignoring difficult terrain. other people may vary but at least having options was nice.
For classes that can easily apply it after a dip, it's too strong. Heck, I think it's too strong right now. I'd be fine if they added this to the original Favored Enemy. Being able to limit who you can cast it on, without expending a spell slot or requiring concentration, makes sense. Especially when attached to a bonus language.
But being able to cast it on anyone, anytime, is too much for me.