@@blueveil3277 You can reposition with it, really. That's what makes it better. The dmg difference is minimal most the time, you're a ranger at level 17. You think you doing dmg with a spell is important? Probably not. Volley is nice for free if there is a bunch of low tier monsters, but I don't see the point of what basically amounts to a 3rd level spell in dmg at level 17. Steel wind strike focuses dmg on targets more while also kiting which is more important along with positioning at that point. Usually your wisdom isn't good enough to cast with really, but by that point you can have 20 wis and 20 dex at level 17. (assuming custom or variant human) The two leftover ASIs can be for sharpshooter and crossbow expert if you care. Won't likely have 20 wis since you pick those first anyway though along with Resilient in wisdom or Con, you'd have it by level 20 however which is 3 levels away.
I really like what I saw from Druid, Rogue, and Bard. Fighter, Barb aren't bad. Others Ive seen are meh. Monk is a cruel joke and proves they have always hated monks
The 2nd level feature is weaker than a one level dip into Rogue. Previously this was the value of mono attack Hunter's Mark too, but in 5e it was an optional spell and it scaled the more attacks you got, allowing you to basically multi sneak attack. Food for thought
Caster: I cast wish Wotc: so what do you want to do Caster: nerf All martials and make me god Wotc: .....um you can only do one of those but because I like you I'll chuck it to rule of cool and do both Martials: can I protest? Wotc/caster: no one was talking to you musclebrain
@@LeMayJoseph Hunters Mark and Hex both got nerfed with the playtests, starting with the original OneD&D revisions they were both only applying once per turn instead of on each hit. this trend was also seen with the Tasha's subclasses which i have homebrewed away in my home games to apply on every hit since thats easier to keep track of.
@@LeMayJoseph no, and the worst part is that it was the only good thing about it, hit someone as many times as possible and see the damage go. Now it isn't even worth mentioning, a spell that deals area of effect damge such as hail of thorns or something that adds damage plus an effect like ensarning strikes is way better now.
Upper level features of Hunter subclass at best say "Now choose your SECOND favorite option." Or, they more often say "Now choose an option that you DIDN'T want earlier" or even "We want you to multiclass out at this point." The upper level features are by definition worse than the lower level features because you obviously are picking your favorite options at the lower levels. Class and subclass features should make me want to stay with the path, not encourage me to leave.
not only that but a ranged hunter will only ever pick 2 out of the level 3 options meaning if you're using a bow there is no choice involved. There's at least a little more choice involved for the level 7 options
This is easily my least favorite design decision on any class. Its only appropriate if paired with other features or with more uses of the resource used. Its especially noxious on martials and half casters since they generally have fewer combat options anyway.
That's an excellent point. They were just not imaginative to think up even TWO powerful options. Even one powerful option would have been better than offer to pick a choice that you had already convinced yourself earlier was inferior.
i love the idea of focusing on hunters mark, but needing concentration ruins it over how much forcing concentration sucks. Even just being able to concentrate on a different spell while concentrating on hunters mark would be amazing
When I look at this I think the designers wanted to do something and then some supervisor somewhere said, no it has to be "backwards compatible" and then just gutted it.
@@lejandario7779 Yeah, backwards compatibility with content other than adventures is really affecting the new edition. They really put themselves in a corner here.
I don't love that. Even without concentration. It drives your spellcasting, and if you don't want to be a hunter's mark ranger you get no features. What if I want a dual wielding ranger whose bonus action is already cramped? Or a telekinetic ranger? Screw options. Now ALL rangers use hunter's mark.
I genuinely think that they saw that people really liked the Pf2e ranger and think to copy the concept of having a class that is focused on a "targeted prey" and having extra features when regarding said prey, Unfortunately DND doesn't have the action economy and the assumption that most class ability have infinite uses of Pf2e so they forced the use of a concentration spell to replicate the same feeling.
I have a theory: I think WotC gets their balancing ideas from memes. Think about it, they boost the Wizard into next year because: "Oh well, he dies from paper cuts cause he has low health, dur!" While finding ways to nerf martials because: "Hunt's mark OP! Multi-attack go burr! Monk gotta go fast!" I truly do think at this point that there is a major disconnect between WotC most players.
I also think that there is a major disconnect between a lot of players and the mechanical balance in the game, which will likely impact the feedback. (2014) Rangers were never a bad class (for a martial, mind you) and always better than the non-caster martials, but most players who engage casually online seem to have no idea that this is the case. Yet a lot of people somehow think that Rogues are fine in 5e, despite arguably being the 2nd weakest class in the game. There seem to be no connection between actual mechanical strength in a class and people's perceptions of what is and isn't good. So we have several problems going on. 1) WotC doing internal testing with no transparency, both in how it is being tested and the goal of each class. 2) Players who's take on the mechanics of the game is limited to memes sending feedback. 3) Optimizers and theorycrafters approach the feedback with wildly different assumptions, in large part because we're always working with too little information. Is 50 DPR on a lvl 13 Fighter good? Not if spells in OneD&D is anything like 5e, but we legit don't know if the overpowered spells have been nerfed appropriately (though I doubt it)We only know that Wizards and Sorcerers have been given substantial buffs to their core class features.
@@TheTdroid Rangers aren't martials they are half casters at least as Kobold defines them. Noting that Paladin and Ranger being listed as martials will always be contended. Otherwise Yep you got it it's a mess.
@@erikkesler1739 They're both, strictly speaking, but it is often useful to make the distinction. I just think that the PHB (2014) Ranger is closer to a 3rd caster than it is to the Paladin in practice, and their saving grace is less that they have half-casting (no subclass bonus spells, no prepared casting, no worthwhile class features taking advantage of spellslots) and more that they have a small, curated list of good spells. I feel the Ranger got more into its stride as a half-casters as their spell list expanded, they got subclass bonus spells and Tasha's gave us alternate class features. But my overall point was that even the PHB (2014) Ranger is better than Fighters, Barbarians, Rogues and Monks on a strictly mechanical level, even though the persistent meme is that Rangers are worse than them. Mostly I find that making the distinction between non-caster martials and half-caster martials is most relevant when talking about the martial-caster gap. Because it is stricktly speaking more of a martial
@@TheTdroid Remember it is a GAME, balance is nice and some degree of it is required, but it is supposed to be fun as well! And Rangers are very hard to make fun to play in 5E, where Rouges are good fun with no effort in the build. They are always full of teamwork requirements to get the best out of them and fun features you will actually use (and played right can be hugely powerful, probably the most impactful martial class if you play them right - which usually does require some teamwork). Where being slightly better at navigating in the wilds, or tracking creatures... It is kind of useful for the team, but in no way fun to play - the Ranger has no fun features you actively play around. I do agree Rangers are not actively bad in 5E. But they much maligned and for good reason as they are unfortunately in 5E a base class outshone by a multi class of Druid and Fighter and that combo is thematically basically a D&D Ranger... They don't have a great niche to fill in 5E and feel like they would be better off as a subclass of Fighter than their own class... Though I do think you can do a Ranger justice, giving you a real reason to want to play one mechanically and stay with the D&D lore, it just hasn't been done in 5E, and this looks even worse...
@@foldionepapyrus3441 If we're going to go by making the game fun, I'd say that making it so that the martial classes are not wildly underpowered compared to fulcasters is a necessary first step.
One thing I noticed about Gloomstalker giving fear is that if Frightened works as it does in 5e, there's anti-synergy there because ideally you're in dim light or darkness and using Umbral Sight to be invisible to enemies. Frightened only gives its penalties when they can see the source of the fear; therefore, the fear would do nothing.
The wording is that it requires "line of sight" - it seems unclear whether they actually need to be able to see you or whether they'll still be scared of the sound of you as long as there's nothing in the way
That's fair. I've always interpreted that if you can't see them then you don't have a line of sight, but I could definitely see the argument to the contrary. This still isn't to say that the ability is worthless even interpreting it as "seeing" the source since you won't always be in dim light or darkness, but that is kinda supposed to be what you're doing as a Gloomstalker.
they want to flatten nova damage and thought "people in shadows are scary. Let's use that" without really thinking. Nova damage is only really an issue in 1-2 encounter days. I would bet money that when we see the new monster manual the power of monsters will reflect 1-2 encounter days
@@lucamonticelli267 I'd agree with you if we were just using the English phrase, but Line of Sight is a game term with a precise definition which doesn't mention needing the ability to see. DMG pg 251 Line of Sight: To precisely determine whether there is line of sight between two spaces, pick a corner of one space and trace an imaginary line from that corner to any part of another space. If at least one such line doesn't pass through or touch an object or effect that blocks vision - such as a stone wall, a thick curtain, or a dense cloud of fog - then there is line of sight.
I am currently playing a Drakewarden ranger in 5e, using shillelagh, the magic bonk stick. I am enjoying it. No hunters mark, because my bonus action is busy as is.
By baking HM in and giving it Subclass implementations, you no longer really have a choice of what to do w concentration!! I feel like they’ve been walking in circles w HM and now it’s tangled up in their feet. We’re seeing creative fun stuff w other classes, but Ranger just seems phoned in. I think the design team needs to take a step back and get creative.
They just stopped pretending that Favored Foe was anything other than a poor man's Hunter's Mark. Since so many people complained about 2014 Favored Enemy, but the flavor is really good, I think they keep trying to use that same idea while substituting Hunter's Mark. It's exactly what we saw in Tasha's with the garbage Favored Foe. They even nerfed Hunter's Mark to match the 1/turn limit. I love this iteration of Deft Explorer; they finally put back some of the "wilderness explorer" flavor that was so utterly lacking in the last iteration. I actually really like this iteration of Gloom Stalker. I get that people like nova damage, but it's always annoyed me that after the first round Gloomstalkers basically don't have a subclass anymore. I think the best fix would be to just remove the use limit on Frighten. Maybe make it cost a bonus action.
the real issue is that nova damage is being systematically removed from the game and this is just another example of that. The fact is the only real nova damage remaining is from full casters with their big hitting spells
Not surprising Seems like they only listen to those who whine and worry other classes may steal a little of wizards and sorcerers shine. We'll see if they do anything to those now even further scaled up classes. Gonna assume bard got a boost simply because of Chris Pines starring role in their big money making movie.
I thought about Hunter's Mark (and Hex) and came to this conclusion: Make it a cantrip. Still uses a bonus action to activate and it does use your Concentration. It lets you deal an extra 1d4 damage on your first hit each turn. This should scale like Eldritch Blast and Vicious Mockery: to 2d4 damage at level 5 in ranger. 3d4 damage at level 11 in ranger. 4d4 damage at level 17 in ranger. No "swapping the target as a bonus action if it died" as you can just recast it again. 😉 Do the same to Hex (with scaling bound to warlock levels) and people will start to actually use their spell slots 😏
Nature's Veil is absolutely amazing!!! You become invisible AND STAY INVISIBLE WHILE ATTACKING until the end of your NEXT turn. This is advantage on all attacks (two turns worth), disadvantage from all enemy attacks and prevents you from being targeted by spells that require line of sight. This is basically bonus action improved invisibility for 2 rounds per use without concentration. Effectively rangers will be invisible for the entire duration of every boss fight.
Being honest, I partially agree, after all it can be used to flee, to infiltration (although there are better alternatives), to drink your potions... the being targeted part is... well, it can be useful. But for advantage on attacks? Shortbows and Longbows both have vex, as long as you hit once, you should hit all, forever, specially with a bow. It's decent and works but... I don't know.
@@blueveil3277 I mean... it will scale your damage having advantage on both attacks and really amp your defenses. I read this as "bonus action improved invisibility for 2 turns, no concentration required".
The problem is you would then never be able to apply your hunter's mark which requires a BA to cast. Turn 1: BA to Veil > A to attack, turn 2: you need to BA to reapply the veil as if you apply the mark here then your veil ends at the end of your turn. So, if you apply the HM on turn 1, then yes, you could use your BA to be invisible for 6 consecutive turns or 10 total turns if spaced out. Either way, you are burning your BA each turn to do so, which kind of sucks from an action economy standpoint. Greater invisibility 4th level costs 1 action for 10 rounds of invisibility that won't need your BA to maintain. tl;dr LvL 13 ranger gets Greater invisibility which does everything that veil does but is better for 1 action and veil requires 5 BA's to at LvL 14 and ruins your action economy to mimic a 4th level spell.
I have NO IDEA why WOTC doesn't just make hunters marks damage scale with ranger level (and the number of possible procs per turn). Upcasting would only affects its duration. Its so damn simple. ALSO please remove this from their capstone... just stop making 1st level spell capstones.
YES,, finally people are talking about making hunter's mark a class feature.. now I wish people would start talking about making battle master features a class standard for fighter..
@@dariusshabaiash3861 Yeah, I was expecting *all* fighters in the next edition to have something like battle master maneuvers, and for subclasses to give you additional maneuvers or tweaks to that system. Surprisingly, it seems to be where Rogues are going in OneD&D! 😲
Suggested Ranger Fixes: Lvl 3- give them Channel Nature as a resource like Paldins' Channel Divinity. Pallys can use this to Divine Sense creatures, arguably making them better trackers than Rangers. Give Rangers Primal Sense so they can Sense creatures.Can also use it to summon a pet beast familiar like a Druid. Then, it could be used as a resource to fuel subclass abilities. Clerics & Pallys get Channel Divinity. Druids get Wildshape (aka Channel Nature in playtest 5). Why are Rangers so starved of features? Give em Channel Nature. Lvl5- move Roving to this level. Pallys get Find Steed here. Seems fair. Lvl6- move Tireless feature here & make the Temp hp a bonus action. Pallys get their Aura of Protection at this level. Throw Rangers a bone. Lvl 9- Channel Nature ability called Tangle Foes. An aoe to incapacitate enemies, maybe make some difficult terrain. Pallys get abjure foes at this level. (As you can see, I'm trying to make Ranger as enticing to play as a Pally- only with Nature theme). Lvl 10. Poison immunity, or at least resistance. Rangys spend all that time w plants. They probly know stuff about them. Also move Conjure Barrage here & give em 1 free casting per long rest. Lvl 17- Conjure Volley. Either another free casting, or at least a shared free casting to choose thus or Barrage. Lvl 20- add Ranger level to damage. Or just scrap this festure and make a new Capstone. Hunter's Mark: if it's gonna be concentration & once per turn, then it should scale at 1d6 per spell level, up to 5d6 at 5th level spells. Possibly add a to-hit bonus as well, emphasizing the theme of Ranger weapon prowess, or something.
Also, I think Rangers should be the Premier Ranged combatant in the game. No more debate about Fighter or Bard or Rogue as the best ranged attackers. Ranger. It's in the name. They could manifest this as more attacks, more damage, increased crit range, special attacks ("trick" arrows), increased to-hit.... something. Ranger should be focused on Ranged, with some melee ability. Kinda like how Warlock and Wizard are casters, but have that one melee subclass.
I thought one DND was to fix the game not tear it apart 😭 Fr they only buff wizards at this point. I do hope they'll listen to community and buff everyone but full casters. Also I think they should make everyone depend on short rest to some extent.
Dude, Paladin is one of best classes in this UA, if not the best. It's absurdly strong and I don't understand how they can't make something like that to the Ranger
@@laelnascimento7487 even the basic divine smite can now be counterspelled and unlike before where that was a free action it now uses up your bonus action. Also you can't use divine smite and a smite spell at the same time anymore. The fact you say Paladin is one of the best classes in the UA with these nerfs is very telling
WOOOOOOOOOOWWWW!!!!!!!! 1d6 DAMAGE!!!!!!!!!!! HOLY MOLY!!!!!!!!!!! UPCAST AT 3rd LVL IS 2d6!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOOOOW!!!!!!!!!!🐊 I think its a boring spell.
@@tomraineofmagigor3499 Not at all. Some of them could be close, mechanically, but a spell that gives you more damage, with all the flavor of saying, "imma hunt you now," is boring. You can break any feature down into it's core effects, sure, but hunter's mark is only an uninspired damage buff. Inflicting zombies with the "turn" debuff is boring; channeling the power of God to invoke terror in the undead horde is cool, and leads to roleplay potential. The best roleplay you can do for hunter's mark is pseudo sneak attack, and there's only so much you can say, "I find the enemy's weak points," before you just use the spell for the damage. Maybe the tracking could be cool if it was on a completely different spell...
@@Day-eb9pomy roleplay of Hunter's Mark is literal "channeling the eagerness of hunting down a prey" in a magical mark, like an animal spirit. I used to roleplay as a predators 'obsession imprinted on the Ranger's enemy, because to me, the theme of the Ranger is the tiredless vengeful hunter. They may not be the strongest or the most resourceful, but they are amongst the most resilient and fearless, and they are specialized in taking down whomever they decide that needs to be taken down.
True, but it's technically still a spell which means concentration and bonus action spell restriction still applies. That seems so unnecessary for what this spell does and for how much they push you to use it. Also it would be cool if it did more than just at a little damage once per turn. It's a class exclusive after all.
Instead of HM there should be a simple level 1 feature where as a bonus action you can mark a creature you can see, you heard in the past minute or ones which tracks you are following. This gives you advantage on survival checks to track it and perception checks to spot it as well as stealth checks to hide from it. Later on you can upgrade this to do more damage and each subclass would have different ways of interacting with it. It should be an at will feature. Favored Enemy should be brought back as a seperate thing from HM and add a passive damage bonus. Hunter's Mark should not be concentration as it locks the ranger out of using other concentration spells and with more stuff demanding HM, the rangers spell slots are glorified HM uses. The Hunter subclass was fine enough, i don't understand the nerfs. One possibly interesting design could be that the Hunter subclass gets to apply the at will mark to creatures of the same type. If you marked a goblin, it's treated as all goblins in the area are marked, possibly knowing their numbers as well as making sneaking in their camps easier, a true master hunter knowing exactly what he is dealing with
See, that last part I feel could be a good capstone for the Hunter (or even just the base class since they so badly want to make level 1 spells into capstones...). But maybe instead of applying it to a single creature type, have it be a flat radius around them. "When you cast Hunter's Mark, you can choose yourself as the target instead of a different creature. If you do, you gain one the following benefits: - You have Advantage on Perception, Stealth, and Survival checks to sense, hide from, or find tracks of creatures within 60ft of you. - At the start of your turn you can choose to either add a bonus equal to your PB to any of those three ability checks to make before the end of your turn, or choose to deal extra damage equal to your PB to any creature you damage within 60ft of you. A creature can only take this extra damage once per turn." That way, you can be super great at stalking like a hunter or be great at AoE damage with things like the new always prepped Barrage spells you get. I figure a flat bonus instead of a roll helps solidify that this is your show and you're gonna make it known.
@@Reapor234 That's a neat development of it. However I don't see that as a capstone as it still feels too weak. Maybe something better would be, using a bonus action on a creature with hunters mark to either have his weakness trigger on your next attack or to remove a resistance until the end of your next turn that way a spellcaster could benefit from it. This all assumes that HM is not conentration and probably doesn't use spell slots but is a separate resource, possibly 1 + wis or simply wis mod and you recover it on a short rest. The idea you gave does like a good mid tier ability. Honestly most anything a player comes up with will be better then what WOTC does
At this point hunter's mark should become a ranger exclusive feature like hunters quarry from SW5E. If you're going to design a class around a first level spell, I suppose HM was the best pick, but if you're going to treat it like a feature then make it feel like a feature and not something that makes you unable to use concentration spells without tanking your dps
if they decide to link subclass features to hunters mark it should be concentration free and free to use wisdom or hunters level divided by 3 rounded down times per day (it scales for you as you level)
You know, I get what they're doing with Hunter's Mark and all the features that use it. They definitely want to use Tasha's Favored Foe to turn Ranger into a master "I'mma fight THAT guy in particular" class, which I don't mind. But if that's all they're doing, they need to drop concentration from HM. That's it. They definitely saw HM overperforming last go around and hit it with one too many nerf bats but forgot they were planning on doubling down on it. And that's exactly what I'm putting on the survey Also. The fact that deft explorer specifies a Ranger proficiency instead of ANY proficiency you have is just lame.
The thing with "I'm going to fight that guy" class is fine but the single target nova should be really powerful but they completely failed there. Even Gloomstalker wants you to randomly split damage.
@@PackTactics I can agree on Gloomstalker needing to Nova harder yeah. But if they're trying to make Ranger a consistent damage over time type of play style instead (which I feel they are), they need to stop building the Ranger to punish itself for doing Ranger things. Concentration on Hunter's Mark is dumb if they're trying to turn it into a key feature like Barbarian's Rage
Frightened is actually BETTER the father you are away from a target, since the farther you are away from something frightened of you, the larger the area of effect, meaning the less spaces they can move to to get near you.
Here is how I would write favored foe assuming the 5e version of hunters mark. When you take the attack action as a part of that action you can cast hunters mark on that enemy without expending a spells slot or using concentration. When the enemy dies or when you attack another creature before the duration of hunters mark ends you can reapply it to another creature as a part of that attack action without expending a use of this feature. You can cast hunters mark this way a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus per long rest. The things to note here is that you can change the target of hunters mark before the initial target dies, and by applying it as an attack action is doesn't take up you action economy at all. Also, worth noting is that it doesn't require you to hit your attack only that you take the attack action. This will give rangers a really fun tool which they can use to give them a little bump in DPS.
I feel WotC should have committed to making Hunter's Mark just a feature. Given this Playtest, I'd say the easiest fix would be copying "Slayer's Prey" from the Monster Slayer subclass (maybe make it scale at some levels too); this way it'd be only a "once per turn" damage limitation, but no concentration. I'll never understand their fear of buffing martials, honestly ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
i need you to know that i always watch your videos near a refrigerator that makes a constant hum. that hum just so happens to be a wonderful bass line to your bagpipe playing.
i am happy with playing Pathfinder 1e everything is so number crunchy and strength is absolutely hilarious, making a character takes a bit, but man the game has such a nice flow in combat
@@slydoorkeeper4783 at the moment i am playing a Rakshasa Sorcerer and a standard Monk but he gets Maneuvers (Broken Blade, picked up a few Thrashing dragon Maneuvers for story related reasons) from Path of Wars for Martial Classes by the DM saying it is so much better with it.
Multiple changes happened because some people were upset that they aren't flavorful enough and level shifts were in the spirit of backwards compatibility. Expertise is generic... But better than the land stuff... The old subclasses were compatible they just had a slightly different progression track. So those people won... And ranger is worse, yaaaaaaaaaay!
They should of just redone hunter's mark entirely. Make it have uses based on ranger level, have it either be a d4 or add your wisdom modifier to your all your attacks, remove the concentration, allow you to know direction of target for 24 hours, and finally limit it to weapon attacks only. This ranger would of been biggest letdown if not for the monk.
If anything, Hunters Mark should be like how Paladin and Cleric get different variant of their Divine power Hunter Ranger makes it so everyone in your party member deal extra damage equal to half your proficiency(rounded up) Beast Master makes it so your Animal companion instantly cause a fail on making a enemy roll a saving throw equal to your Proficiency Bonus Gloom Stalker lets you ignore invisbility as long you and your party member are in Darkness Fey Wanderer lets you make enemy insta fail a saving throw from your spells Swarmkeeper lets you cause a Mark explosion dealing AOE Swarm damage
Working on a prehistoric campaign, totem barbarians, hunter rangers, rogue scouts, warlocks of the great old one of chains. Casting time of heals increased to 10 minutes, damage types that double the to hit needed doing stun, movement reduction or bleed. And no spells or cantrips that do magical damage, illusions or summons, the visible magic. Magic stone as good as it gets, but all the spells like suggestion and hold person stay. What you might call a low magic setting and since damage is pretty much all the 3 basic types totem choices other than bear. Melee, range, skills and control. And most can talk to beasts. Feels much better balanced.
yes! I am playing an Horizon Walker and it sucks having to decide whether to use HM or not at the start of every combat. And when the combat revoles around a bunch of small enemies, HM is just not worth as changing target requires yet another BA.
@@azzaelulbrinter i am playing a drakewarden so i did the math and my target have to be alive for atleast 3 turns to be better then just not wasting the spell slot
So I went back and really thought about it, and what I felt was best was to revert hunters mark to its old form. The end. However bake into the ranger base kit features that enhance it. Here are my examples. Hunters focus - 6th level feature (or 5th level) When you cast hunter's mark with a 2nd level or higher spell slot, it gains the following. your weapon attacks score a critical hit on a roll of 19 or 20. If the target is in one of your favorite terrains, your weapon attacks are made with advantage. Hunters prey - 13th level feature When you cast hunter's mark with a 4th level or higher spell slot, it gains the following in addition to your hunter's focus. Once on each of your turns when you attack with an Attack action, you can make one additional weapon attack as part of the same action. If the target is in one of your favorite terrains, your weapon attacks score a critical hit on a roll of 18, 19 or 20. I feel this could incentive rangers to keep focusing on the ranger class, and reward those who don’t multi class.
My homebrew solution to the Hunter's Mark issue: **Ranger's Quarry** *At 2nd level, you call upon your mystical bond with nature to mark a foe as a favored enemy for a time. When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can designate that creature as your quarry. Your designation lasts for one minute, or until your quarry dies, you fall unconscious, or you use this feature again.* *Once on each of your turns, when you hit your quarry with a weapon attack, you deal an additional 1d4 damage to it. This die, known as your Quarry Die increases as you gain levels in this class, as shown in the Quarry Die column of the Ranger table (progression starts at 1d4, and increases by one dice step at every level where your Proficiency Bonus changes).* *Moreover, you can add your Quarry Die to on Wisdom (Survival) checks made to track your quarry as long as it's on the same plane as you.* *You can use this feature a number of times equal to your Wisdom modifier, regaining all expended uses when you finish a long rest.* **Improved Ranger's Quarry (at the same level where (2014 5e) Paladins get their Improved Divine Smite:** Starting at 11th level, you have learned to hunt your marked quarry more efficiently. You can apply your quarry damage to every attack you make against the target, instead of only once per turn. In addition, you can add your Quarry Die to attack rolls you make against your quarry, and you score critical hits against your quarry on a roll of 19-20.
I feel like Hunter's Mark is very fitting to the ranger concept (in my opinion), however I fully understand the frustrations. Out of all this I think I'll homebrew that, for a Ranger, Hunter's Mark: → Is always prepared → Can be cast without spending a spell slot. → Do 1d6 damage per hit (no limit) → Does not require concentration. They do not gain any benefits from higher level casting unless they spend a spell slot, but why would they.
An easy fix for the Hunter's Mark problem: It doesn't require concentration when casting it without a spell slot. This gives you easy access to all the extra features that rely on Hunter's Mark, but because you can't upcast it that way, it avoids the problem of it supposedly being OP.
the secret is it was never OP. One of the things they worried about was people doubling up Hunter's mark and Hex... that's 2 bonus actions per creature... if I'm going to invest 2 bonus actions on one creature then I don't see the problem
An easier fix is to stop trying to make Hunter's Mark the core feature of an entire class. It's a lame spell at higher levels and an even worse class feature.
Wotc just assumed hunters mark and animal companion spells are the only spells Rangers cast. They are very much feeding into the idea that Rangers are the dudes with a dog and a bow
With trying to make the Ranger one-note around Hunter's Mark, I'm reminded of what they did when adding Minotaur as a playable race. In that they are also one-note. As though the only thing they could think of in regards to features they could give it was "it has horns" and "it can use their horns".
Here's how I would propose fixing Hunter's Mark without ruining the flavor of the class: It's obvious they want the class mechanic to be sort of a 'called shot' that enables the other cool stuff but you have to prep for it, or to be useful by directing the team's damage onto the correct target by highlighting who to focus fire. As a result, anything it does on its own is sort of secondary. So, I think HM should do more for teammates who join in on the monster, and the skills that require it to be active need to be WORTH the prep time and resources of applying it before taking your actions. I think HM could be buffed throughout the Ranger's levels by unlocking auras that benefit teammates, rewarding them for slapping your proposed target, without having to make significant changes to HM itself. Sort of the Ranger teaching her or his party members how to take advantage of different beasts' weaknesses over time. HM itself doesn't have to be interesting to cast, but it has to enable interesting interactions to feel valuable.
They're doing the same thing with Warlock and Hex, except they didn't really make Hex all that more appealing either. But yeah lose the requirements for concentration on *both*, and grant more benefits for using it in higher level spell slots beyond duration. (increased damage, greater debuff options, etc.) if they're dead set on trying to force them in.
valor bard with primal spells is my new ranger, they killed the old one. if they bring out swords bard and it is remotely similar to the old one i am going with that one. swift quiver is on the primal list now too. and with expertise i am getting my ranger skills anyway
Hunter's Mark should either be a resourceless feature or cantrip, which you may choose to apply upon hitting or spend a bonus action to apply to a target you are tracking or that you have seen in the past minute (for example, a target that hid during combat or that became invisible). Then you could use it to have advantage in tracking or searching for your target, or to deal scaling damage (either cantrip scaling of more dice, or just each attack dealing +PB damage) in combat.
I actually like that Capstone. Or to be more precise, I wish you got it at around level 6 so the extra hit chance and damage actually helped offset how bad the spell currently is. Also I'm like 90% certain their issues with Hunter's Mark spawned off the DnD Shorts video where he had a first level Ranger with HM, Hex, and dual wielding which is no longer relevant due to all the changes that followed. But you know, WoTC gonna WoTC and giving Ranger average features with concentration requirements is a key point of their design for the class.
Yep. My absolute favourite too. Completely gutted by this, it's almost going back to pre-Tasha's rangers. & yep, what they've done with Hunters Mark really, really sucks - currently playing a Horizon Walker, & use Planar Warrior &/or Favored Foe, so rarely use Hunters Mark & save the slots for absorb elements. Someone at WOTC really doesn't like Rangers (& Monks for that matter) or they've got an intern working on them that just doesn't get them. I'm quite likely to stick to the current versions that muck about with this nonsense if they don't change it next year. Crawford - we're looking at you!
I said this on D4 deep dives channels that if they are going to focus this much around hunters, Mark, then the sub classes should have individual affects for them. So it upgrades through sub class progression and not necessarily through. I agree that the rest of the Ranger still needs to be buffed and because getting to expertise and advantage on tracking through terrain are all ribbon. features for what is supposed to be a martial class
Yeah, I thought it was funny when Jeremy Crawford tried to spin going back to pick another 3rd level Feature at 11th and 7th level feature at 15th as a good thing. If you're picking the 2nd best feature of each of those at 11th and 15th, that means your feature order from best to worst is likely 7th, 15th, 3rd, 11th. That's just weird. I wish he'd get called out on that in those interviews. That would make for a fun video. Yeah, and considering you're probably not going to want to use Hunter's Mark past about 5th level, that's a bummer abilities are tied to it. Now if the Hunter's Mark auto-scaled to 2 dice and 3 dice automatically without expending a higher Spell Slot, that spell might be okay beyond 5th.
I don't watch Crawford or the other guy for these playtests. Those videos aren't useful for the playtest. If the interviewer guy had a list of asked questions from the community then that would be 100 times more useful. Or they can do what Jagex does. They just set up a livestream and talk about it and communicate directly with the community. I don't think Crawford could do it, I think he might be a little to shy but the other guy should be able to. That seems to be his job but I might be wrong. They really need someone that's close to the community working with them. A cheerful smart guy.
@@PackTactics Yeah but there are some funny moments like Jeremy saying all monk needed to be on the level of other classes is a boost to the martial arts die to be 1d6 to 1d12 for about +1 in damage and that's it, then look at the ua and see monks get nerfed as the arts die doesn't work with weapons and with no weapon masteries for fists while being a class focused on punching, bloody brilliant
Couldn’t agree more. My theory is that the reason this ranger is so bad is either A.) there is a complete rework for the class that isn’t ready yet and they need to just put something out or B.) they are intentionally making the ranger class bad so that they can just move it to a fighter subclass. This ranger undoes all the progress of the first UA, doesn’t have any core identity, and actively works against itself on multiple fronts. If the designers are putting this out as a genuine option for the 2024 book, they’ve lost me.
I’ve been toying with all sorts of ideas on how to make hunters mark more “interesting” and the Ranger as a whole. First, I know this may get some haze, but I think zephyr strike should be built into the base ranger kit. However, remove it’s concentration and have it last the round. Remove the spell slot cost, but your allows to use it pb per long rest. However! If you are in one of your “favorite terrains” it it no cost. You have unlimited use of it. As for hunters mark, go back to the old way, however when you upcast it at a 3rd or 4th level you can crit on a 19 or 20. And on a 5th, crit on a 18,19,or 20. Or at 5th level you can make one extra attack as apart of your attack action against your hunters mark. 🤷🏻♂️ I dono, I keep spit balling, I’m just not happy with what I’m seeing for the Ranger, and I fear they will be bastardized just like they were in 2014. 😞
I really wish they made a subclass based on using Hunter's Mark. There's clearly a desire to make Hunter's Mark more useful and worth using your concentration, and a subclass full of these ideas would be really sick to play with as an option. For the player who does want to use Hunter's Mark and tends to only use spells for travel and healing, it could actually be really fun. Instead we just have a bunch of features split around different subclasses so Hunter's Mark is "different in every Ranger's hands" but is still limiting for the use of that one player. Then of course you have the problem of it forcing you to choose between interesting spells vs. using the Class Feat and that's not always an interesting choice. Most of my complaints on the original Druid Playtest was how there's so much focus on Wild Shaping when only one class has benefits towards using Wild Shape outside of stealthing/roleplay and crappy travel. Their revisions made a lot of changes that I felt improved upon that metric and is in a significantly better direction with allowing the choice of focusing on being Martial or more mage. So why is the Ranger instead so focused on being so Hunter's Mark focused despite the class having proved it can be effective while ignoring it?
I was honestly looking forward to concentration free hunters mark, I thought that was a cool unique feature even if some other classes might try to abuse it a little. I'm hoping they bring it back cause I was looking forward to trying a ranger monk multiclass with some light weapons to get tons of bonus attacks.
They should change hunters mark into a channel divinity type thing where it is a class feature you use without concentration as a bonus action that does not necessarily add damage (probably should add like a d6 once per turn) but does other things and then different subclasses let you do different things with it like the hunter with knowing immunities and vulnerabilities, another subclass can teleport to or from the creature, another bonus action deal damage to it, another give it disadvantage on a specific save, etc
It makes sense for rangers to be absolute specialists in aa terrain or two, I hope they keep it, but also give some universal features for travelling in the wilds in general
HM needs a slight buff, but I get what they're doing. Kinda like how Eldritch Blast and Hex are the crux of a bunch of Warlock features, they want HM to be the signature spell for Ranger, so they're giving it a different rider effect for each subclass. I like that idea a lot, but I hope they give it another pass. Make it not cost a spell slot prof times per day or not require concentration at a bonus action, and let you switch targets on kill, and the little it does is enough.
Hunters Mark made sense in 4e, where it was a class feature that acted as the principle means of rangers doing the damage that they were supposed to do as part of their role as a Striker. The 5e Hunters Mark being retained is essentially a call back to that, but making it a spell makes no sense, then having made it a spell trying to make it central to all Ranger builds is just asinine. It's as if the 5e product is being made by people who are trying in fits and starts to build back in the 4e elements that worked well and should never have been thrown out when 5e took on its overtly grognardish original design, but they don't have the ability to do it because they don't have any of the fundamentals that actually made 4e character class design a functional ecosystem. What is the party role of a Ranger in 5e? Are they supposed to be a damage dealer? A skill-bunny? Controlling the battlefield? There's no actual concept of how they're supposed to work at the table and synergise with other character classes. It's as if the designers have forgotten that D&D is a team sport! With every character class created in a vacuum you can't get parity let alone balance, let alone classes designed to interact with each other and the world to offer a specific play experience. It's like Kobald's complaint that there are no AoE features on the Ranger. The rubric at WoTC seems to be that AoE effects are exclusively full caster only via spells, with Martial and Half-Caster characters locked out of them, to single target or at most multi-attack abilities. But there's no logic to WHY this should be the case, because again, they lack a fundamentals idea of a class-ecology. In 4e, AoE effects were found on basically every class, but the largest and most comprehensive were found on full-casters in the Controller niche, because those allowed the maximum battlefield influence, but those abilities/spells then didn't do as much damage as the focused attacks of more target-limited classes. All the institutional knowledge of inter-relational game design that went into 4e was seemingly lost in the transition to 5e, and especially now with the most recent redesign it's showing badly, with this sequence of bad and or baffling design decisions. I started worrying when they admitted that Fireball was deliberately overpowered as a massive AoE that did more damage than it should for its level, because it was 'thematic' or 'traditional' for it to be OP, rather than being part of a rational ecology of related spells and abilities. WoTC seems to revel in the creation of a breeding ground for degenerate strategies, even anointing some of them, like the above mentioned Fireball, or the popular Sentinel/Pole-arm Mastery combo, and then, when people adopt those degenerate strategies, they react by ad-hoc corrections rather than building something more comprehensive.
If they want Hunters Mark to be so important to the ranger, it should be a feature and not a spell. It should be at will, or as a part of the first hit of a creature. With the option to boost with a spell slot, which would make the concentration part make sense, they seem to be horny for weak consentration spells lately. Or have the concentration be variable, and if you choose to concentrate, then the extra damage can be used by any attack instead of just you. Make it more of a team game in this team based story game.
Considering they imagine the previous Concentration free version was too strong, I figured they could bring that back, but nerfing it to apply only once is doubly crude. If you want to base features off of it so badly, give Concentration free Hunter's Mark and then apply the once on your turn limiter. That way you can actually cast something else without actively gimping yourself out of your features and you don't run risks of people going Extra Attack + Bonus Action Attack + Action Surge all benefiting from HM. Also... Frighten serves little purpose when Gloomstalkers are already trying to be in the dark. Can't be a visible source of fear and you already had the advantage/disadvantage loop by being invisible. It's sort of like putting a weaker form of control that clashes with the playstyle from the start.
It feels like adding concentration back to hunter’s mark was a last minute change, or even an accident from when they made the spell Ranger only. All those other features using HM don’t hurt nearly as bad if it doesn’t require you to not be using a better spell at the same time.
The design notes said they got feedback that it was “too powerful”… so they reverted that, nerfed the spell and made it Ranger exclusive for good measure
I'm with you 100%, this ranger sucks, they dropped the ball horribly compared to previous ranger UA and even to current 5e ranger. Convinced they don't know what they are doing anymore.
I think the real feeling is... "I do not understand." I truly believe that there is someone in WoTC who hates Rangers and manages to screw things up... The first version of the Ranger was OK, not really good, it was OK... Now this... is to be pitied.
What also bothers me about the Gloom Stalker changes are 1. Most of the features are passive buffs (which is fine), so it doubly sucks that the only one that lets you actually _do_ something (for most campaigns) is limited in use. 2. They made it a frighten subclass. That should just be Fae Wanderer; we don’t need another one.
Worse is that both are super short range. If you fighting a smart mob and you have a caster on your team, the enemy going spread out more then 10 feet.
IDK why they changed the level 7 defensive feature so much, a level 8 Hunter Ranger can AC tank like a champion. Defense fighting style, studded leather armor(maybe even +1), likely 18+ dex at that level, a shield and a finesse weapon like short sword, scimitar or rapier. At level 4 pump up dex and at level 8 pick up magic adept and learn the shield spell. Easily you're looking at 12+4+2+1= 19 AC with room to grow, and with the option for +9 against multi attacking creatures, 28 ac at level 8, nothing to scoff at. At high level +4 means less than absolutely nothing. Like I might be over selling it because I was in a campaign where a ranger basically meme'd all over a dire troll dodging nearly every attack, but at lower levels flat bonuses are meaningful.
"A Find Familiar Owl is usually strong enough to carry a Kobold" I'm now imagining a Kobold air assault team being carried in by owls and using bows and cross bows.
They need to divorce Expertise from Deft Explorer, give full Expertise in two skills at 3rd level, and again at 9th. If you can swap a favored terrain on a Long Rest, then having 2 at a time is more than enough. I don’t understand why they’re so afraid of Hunter’s Mark. They need to remove concentration from HM. I think they should rework Favored Enemy to grant Ranger exclusive spells in addition to Hunter’s Mark, a La the Paladin’s Smite feature. They could add new stuff but it’s probably easier to just tweak some combination of Hail of Thorns, Ensnaring Strike, Zephyr Strike, Lightning Arrow, Conjure Barrage, Conjure Volley, Steel Wind Strike, and/or Swift Quiver so that the Ranger gets one of these as an additional spell prepared at 2nd, 5th, 9th, 13th, and 17th levels and ensure that each triggers on either melee or ranged weapon attacks. And they should a free casting like the Paladin gets for smites. Not a huge priority but i hope they give the Ranger a summoning spell at level 5 as a mirror to Find Steed either by blending the Summon Beast spell from Tasha’s and the Primal Companion feature from the Beast Master OR by subsuming the Beast Master into the main class. Lastly, I think they need to five the Hunter the Primal Awareness spells from that Tasha’s optional feature as their subclass spells. All Ranger subclasses should be getting additional spells if they’re not getting a companion.
It's laughable how baddly nerfed the monk and ranger are getting in these UAs. They took the two base classes widely viewed as the weakest in the game and nerfed them into the ground, while giving out buffs to the full casters that didn't need any changes to begin with. My ranger fix is simple. I kept in most of the changes from Tasha's, but hunters mark, favored enemy, and favored terrains are gone. Instead at level 1 and the levels rangers would have had to pick a new favored enemy creature type they instead pick a favored mana. They pick one of the Mana colors from Magic the Gathering, or colorless. For each pick they get their Int mod in bonus languages, they have advantage on all Dex, Int, and Wis rolls made in relation to the terrain types, creature types, backgrounds, habitats, classes, and races tied to their favored mana color, and they deal one additional damage die on all weapon attacks against creatures tied to their favored mana color. I'm working on a ranger capstone, but so far it's basically, "You fire an arrow in the sky, and it auto hits and kills any one creature you've hit with another arrow in the last 24 hours so long as they are on the same plane as you." Monk is a harder fix. I'm doing a full rewrite but the gist is I cut stunning strike, took the ki point costs out of most of the base class features that used ki points, and added all the special abilities monks had in the very first Final Fantasy Tactics game. For later levels I'm going through different spell lists and giving the monk features that basically say " burn a few ki points and cast a punch the ground spell." Spells like Destructive Wave, Erupting Earth, Bones of the Earth, and Earthquake.
I was fine with the assimilated subclass levels with my main grievance that if they’d continue doing this then make every subclass give a unique 20th level cap as base class had 18th cap Make everyone have cool paladin-esque caps!
Just remove hunter mark from all spell list and make it a ranger level 2 feature. Something as simple as "when you hit an enemy with a weapon attack, mark them with your hunter mark for 10 turns." Then, they can feel free to make it part of other features because it's already in the core ranger, always around and not competing with anything else.
Still think the Beast Master and Hunter should get a spell list like EVERY OTHER Ranger subclass And yea, Hunter is undercooked, especially the 11th and 15th level features It's just so boring
My guess would be that the obsession with Hunter's Mark is an attempt to rip off the Ranger from Pathfinder 2nd Edition, which has a core class feature called Hunt Prey that a lot of other Ranger feats reference back to (e.g. the Hunted Shot and Twin Takedown feats allow you to make two attacks against your hunted prey in a single action). Of course, the major difference is that Hunt Prey (1) is not a spell and (2) does not prevent you from casting other spells or using other abilities, in the same way that concentrating on Hunter's Mark does. Additionally, a lot of different classes in PF2e have something they need to do regularly to keep their core class feature running (e.g. Swashbucklers need to take certain actions regularly to get their Panache each fight and to restore it after they expend it on a big finisher), so the Ranger's reliance on Hunt Prey fits in neatly with the design principles of other classes in the game.
They nerfd it because crazy people were staking hunters mark and hex on top of each other for extra 2d6 each hit. Which I think they forgot the "like you are concentrating" part on the concentration free HM. Which didn't allow you to stack them. So they played it wrong and makde them nerf it by gaming the system.
Man most of these changes are really uninspired, but also full disclosure, I am glad to see other Rangers besides Gloomstalker being able to compete. The base power dread ambusher provides to any Ranged Multiclass is silly.
I also think they missed the opertunity to better define what the "beast" compaion benefits from feom the base class. Can they turn invisible with you? Does the movement get buffed? Does it get feral senses?
about the subclass progression thing, you said with bard that you liked it :c I think this is a big topic that should be talked more, as apparently WotC is going back to old class progression due to not many people paying attention to it. For me, I got bummed out when they decided to go back. The standarized subclass progression is something i was eager to try.
I'm convinced that WOTC doesn't understand the value of concentration as a resource or well, resource management and action economy in the system in general. In terms of design philosophies it seems like there is a lack of cohesion and resonance within there designs with the ranger and its not the only class that suffers from this, to explain. they essentially create anti synergy within there designs. i.e. putting a big focus on casting Hunters mark, taking up our concentration and then when you get to higher levels and get objectively much more interesting fun and powerful spells to use your concentration on. Hunters mark is just a waste of space and starts to conflict with newer spells due to the fact that it competes for concentration as a resource. another major example of poor cohesion in there designs in the new war domain cleric, The idea that you get spiritual weapon as an always prepared spell, which uses up your bonus action economy and then giving them a feature to do a weapon attack with there bonus action is complete anti synergy, you cannot use both of these features, cos they compete for the same resources, it just feels bad to play.
"what made them nerf everything so hard, i don't understand, was it the feedback? i thought the feedback was positive!" Exactly. That's the point. If you give universally positive feedback, IE: all the players are happy. Then the only conclusion is that the class is overpowered. You then have to nerf it until exactly 50% of the player base are unhappy with how strong it it. That's ballance! /s Seriously though, there legitimately seems to be a strand of thought that works like this. If everyone is saying they are happy with a class it must be because the class is overpowered, because the only thing that players care about it powerful classes right? Not that this ever applies to Wizards, because, to be blunt, the attitude is that Wizard *is supposed to be* the most powerful class. (cue repeated "they're not called 'Rangers of the Coast' are they?" jokes).
the only reason why there's so much hunters mark focus on the new ranger is because the community is obsessed with hunters mark. So many want the ranger to be hunters mark the class for some reason.
I think a core theme is needed for Ranger. Just what are they supposed to be? The rogue with nature spells? A fighter who is a bit druidic? I took a swing at some homebrew to make it the 'pet companion' class seein as how druid lost the option from 3.5
![ALLY - OH MY! [ REACTION ] 'Amarin Nitibhon' #ALLY_OHMY #ALLY #allynitibhon #แอลลี่](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nX9qpHjVfbQ/mqdefault.jpg)
The bonus spells (Barrage and Volley) should each come with a free use per day.
At least one, if not tied to Wisdom modifier in some way.
@@Curleyconconaybe sharing a number of uses per day equal to WIS mod.
Tbh, I wouldn't even use Volley unless it's for free. I'd rather use steel wind strike.
@@GrimHeaperThe why tho?
@@blueveil3277 You can reposition with it, really. That's what makes it better. The dmg difference is minimal most the time, you're a ranger at level 17. You think you doing dmg with a spell is important? Probably not. Volley is nice for free if there is a bunch of low tier monsters, but I don't see the point of what basically amounts to a 3rd level spell in dmg at level 17.
Steel wind strike focuses dmg on targets more while also kiting which is more important along with positioning at that point. Usually your wisdom isn't good enough to cast with really, but by that point you can have 20 wis and 20 dex at level 17. (assuming custom or variant human)
The two leftover ASIs can be for sharpshooter and crossbow expert if you care. Won't likely have 20 wis since you pick those first anyway though along with Resilient in wisdom or Con, you'd have it by level 20 however which is 3 levels away.
"I don't make predictions for OneD&D, because I have no idea what they're doing"
It's okay, Kobold! They don't either!
I really like what I saw from Druid, Rogue, and Bard. Fighter, Barb aren't bad. Others Ive seen are meh. Monk is a cruel joke and proves they have always hated monks
The 2nd level feature is weaker than a one level dip into Rogue. Previously this was the value of mono attack Hunter's Mark too, but in 5e it was an optional spell and it scaled the more attacks you got, allowing you to basically multi sneak attack. Food for thought
Caster: I cast wish
Wotc: so what do you want to do
Caster: nerf All martials and make me god
Wotc: .....um you can only do one of those but because I like you I'll chuck it to rule of cool and do both
Martials: can I protest?
Wotc/caster: no one was talking to you musclebrain
This really seems to be the discourse happening at WOTC...
This UA didn’t hit the *Hunter’s* mark.
r/angryupvote
Doesn't it activate only once per turn now?
@@markhunter3533didn’t it always?
@@LeMayJoseph Hunters Mark and Hex both got nerfed with the playtests, starting with the original OneD&D revisions they were both only applying once per turn instead of on each hit. this trend was also seen with the Tasha's subclasses which i have homebrewed away in my home games to apply on every hit since thats easier to keep track of.
@@LeMayJoseph no, and the worst part is that it was the only good thing about it, hit someone as many times as possible and see the damage go. Now it isn't even worth mentioning, a spell that deals area of effect damge such as hail of thorns or something that adds damage plus an effect like ensarning strikes is way better now.
Upper level features of Hunter subclass at best say "Now choose your SECOND favorite option." Or, they more often say "Now choose an option that you DIDN'T want earlier" or even "We want you to multiclass out at this point." The upper level features are by definition worse than the lower level features because you obviously are picking your favorite options at the lower levels. Class and subclass features should make me want to stay with the path, not encourage me to leave.
not only that but a ranged hunter will only ever pick 2 out of the level 3 options meaning if you're using a bow there is no choice involved. There's at least a little more choice involved for the level 7 options
This is easily my least favorite design decision on any class. Its only appropriate if paired with other features or with more uses of the resource used. Its especially noxious on martials and half casters since they generally have fewer combat options anyway.
That's an excellent point.
They were just not imaginative to think up even TWO powerful options. Even one powerful option would have been better than offer to pick a choice that you had already convinced yourself earlier was inferior.
They should just rename the Ranger to the Marker at this point.
i love the idea of focusing on hunters mark, but needing concentration ruins it over how much forcing concentration sucks. Even just being able to concentrate on a different spell while concentrating on hunters mark would be amazing
When I look at this I think the designers wanted to do something and then some supervisor somewhere said, no it has to be "backwards compatible" and then just gutted it.
@@lejandario7779 Yeah, backwards compatibility with content other than adventures is really affecting the new edition. They really put themselves in a corner here.
I don't love that. Even without concentration. It drives your spellcasting, and if you don't want to be a hunter's mark ranger you get no features. What if I want a dual wielding ranger whose bonus action is already cramped? Or a telekinetic ranger? Screw options. Now ALL rangers use hunter's mark.
@@BlueFrenzy Welcome to the same camp as monk fans
I genuinely think that they saw that people really liked the Pf2e ranger and think to copy the concept of having a class that is focused on a "targeted prey" and having extra features when regarding said prey,
Unfortunately DND doesn't have the action economy and the assumption that most class ability have infinite uses of Pf2e so they forced the use of a concentration spell to replicate the same feeling.
I have a theory: I think WotC gets their balancing ideas from memes. Think about it, they boost the Wizard into next year because: "Oh well, he dies from paper cuts cause he has low health, dur!" While finding ways to nerf martials because: "Hunt's mark OP! Multi-attack go burr! Monk gotta go fast!" I truly do think at this point that there is a major disconnect between WotC most players.
I also think that there is a major disconnect between a lot of players and the mechanical balance in the game, which will likely impact the feedback. (2014) Rangers were never a bad class (for a martial, mind you) and always better than the non-caster martials, but most players who engage casually online seem to have no idea that this is the case. Yet a lot of people somehow think that Rogues are fine in 5e, despite arguably being the 2nd weakest class in the game. There seem to be no connection between actual mechanical strength in a class and people's perceptions of what is and isn't good. So we have several problems going on.
1) WotC doing internal testing with no transparency, both in how it is being tested and the goal of each class.
2) Players who's take on the mechanics of the game is limited to memes sending feedback.
3) Optimizers and theorycrafters approach the feedback with wildly different assumptions, in large part because we're always working with too little information. Is 50 DPR on a lvl 13 Fighter good? Not if spells in OneD&D is anything like 5e, but we legit don't know if the overpowered spells have been nerfed appropriately (though I doubt it)We only know that Wizards and Sorcerers have been given substantial buffs to their core class features.
@@TheTdroid Rangers aren't martials they are half casters at least as Kobold defines them. Noting that Paladin and Ranger being listed as martials will always be contended. Otherwise Yep you got it it's a mess.
@@erikkesler1739 They're both, strictly speaking, but it is often useful to make the distinction. I just think that the PHB (2014) Ranger is closer to a 3rd caster than it is to the Paladin in practice, and their saving grace is less that they have half-casting (no subclass bonus spells, no prepared casting, no worthwhile class features taking advantage of spellslots) and more that they have a small, curated list of good spells.
I feel the Ranger got more into its stride as a half-casters as their spell list expanded, they got subclass bonus spells and Tasha's gave us alternate class features.
But my overall point was that even the PHB (2014) Ranger is better than Fighters, Barbarians, Rogues and Monks on a strictly mechanical level, even though the persistent meme is that Rangers are worse than them.
Mostly I find that making the distinction between non-caster martials and half-caster martials is most relevant when talking about the martial-caster gap. Because it is stricktly speaking more of a martial
@@TheTdroid Remember it is a GAME, balance is nice and some degree of it is required, but it is supposed to be fun as well! And Rangers are very hard to make fun to play in 5E, where Rouges are good fun with no effort in the build. They are always full of teamwork requirements to get the best out of them and fun features you will actually use (and played right can be hugely powerful, probably the most impactful martial class if you play them right - which usually does require some teamwork). Where being slightly better at navigating in the wilds, or tracking creatures... It is kind of useful for the team, but in no way fun to play - the Ranger has no fun features you actively play around.
I do agree Rangers are not actively bad in 5E. But they much maligned and for good reason as they are unfortunately in 5E a base class outshone by a multi class of Druid and Fighter and that combo is thematically basically a D&D Ranger... They don't have a great niche to fill in 5E and feel like they would be better off as a subclass of Fighter than their own class... Though I do think you can do a Ranger justice, giving you a real reason to want to play one mechanically and stay with the D&D lore, it just hasn't been done in 5E, and this looks even worse...
@@foldionepapyrus3441 If we're going to go by making the game fun, I'd say that making it so that the martial classes are not wildly underpowered compared to fulcasters is a necessary first step.
One thing I noticed about Gloomstalker giving fear is that if Frightened works as it does in 5e, there's anti-synergy there because ideally you're in dim light or darkness and using Umbral Sight to be invisible to enemies. Frightened only gives its penalties when they can see the source of the fear; therefore, the fear would do nothing.
The wording is that it requires "line of sight" - it seems unclear whether they actually need to be able to see you or whether they'll still be scared of the sound of you as long as there's nothing in the way
Classic DnD blunter, right up with "of course see invisibility do not negate the advantage/disadvantage of the invisibility condition"
That's fair. I've always interpreted that if you can't see them then you don't have a line of sight, but I could definitely see the argument to the contrary. This still isn't to say that the ability is worthless even interpreting it as "seeing" the source since you won't always be in dim light or darkness, but that is kinda supposed to be what you're doing as a Gloomstalker.
they want to flatten nova damage and thought "people in shadows are scary. Let's use that" without really thinking. Nova damage is only really an issue in 1-2 encounter days. I would bet money that when we see the new monster manual the power of monsters will reflect 1-2 encounter days
@@lucamonticelli267 I'd agree with you if we were just using the English phrase, but Line of Sight is a game term with a precise definition which doesn't mention needing the ability to see.
DMG pg 251
Line of Sight: To precisely determine whether there is line of sight between two spaces, pick a corner of one space and trace an imaginary line from that corner to any part of another space. If at least one such line doesn't pass through or touch an object or effect that blocks vision - such as a stone wall, a thick curtain, or a dense cloud of fog - then there is line of sight.
I am currently playing a Drakewarden ranger in 5e, using shillelagh, the magic bonk stick. I am enjoying it. No hunters mark, because my bonus action is busy as is.
By baking HM in and giving it Subclass implementations, you no longer really have a choice of what to do w concentration!!
I feel like they’ve been walking in circles w HM and now it’s tangled up in their feet. We’re seeing creative fun stuff w other classes, but Ranger just seems phoned in. I think the design team needs to take a step back and get creative.
Yeah, they either need to remove concentration or just remove it from subclass features outside of like 1 subclass that could build around it.
@@plannedtuna8293 "or just remove it from subclass features" This.
Favored terrain should give adv on certain skill checks and to initiative. In my opinion. Make the ranger really good at what they do.
They just stopped pretending that Favored Foe was anything other than a poor man's Hunter's Mark. Since so many people complained about 2014 Favored Enemy, but the flavor is really good, I think they keep trying to use that same idea while substituting Hunter's Mark. It's exactly what we saw in Tasha's with the garbage Favored Foe. They even nerfed Hunter's Mark to match the 1/turn limit.
I love this iteration of Deft Explorer; they finally put back some of the "wilderness explorer" flavor that was so utterly lacking in the last iteration.
I actually really like this iteration of Gloom Stalker. I get that people like nova damage, but it's always annoyed me that after the first round Gloomstalkers basically don't have a subclass anymore. I think the best fix would be to just remove the use limit on Frighten. Maybe make it cost a bonus action.
the real issue is that nova damage is being systematically removed from the game and this is just another example of that. The fact is the only real nova damage remaining is from full casters with their big hitting spells
Not surprising
Seems like they only listen to those who whine and worry other classes may steal a little of wizards and sorcerers shine. We'll see if they do anything to those now even further scaled up classes.
Gonna assume bard got a boost simply because of Chris Pines starring role in their big money making movie.
Bards in One D&D are just better Monks with the dancer subclass and it's just sad.
@deancarruthers444
And that subclass isn’t even good, so that really puts things into perspective!
I thought about Hunter's Mark (and Hex) and came to this conclusion:
Make it a cantrip.
Still uses a bonus action to activate and it does use your Concentration.
It lets you deal an extra 1d4 damage on your first hit each turn.
This should scale like Eldritch Blast and Vicious Mockery: to 2d4 damage at level 5 in ranger.
3d4 damage at level 11 in ranger.
4d4 damage at level 17 in ranger.
No "swapping the target as a bonus action if it died" as you can just recast it again. 😉
Do the same to Hex (with scaling bound to warlock levels) and people will start to actually use their spell slots 😏
Nature's Veil is absolutely amazing!!! You become invisible AND STAY INVISIBLE WHILE ATTACKING until the end of your NEXT turn. This is advantage on all attacks (two turns worth), disadvantage from all enemy attacks and prevents you from being targeted by spells that require line of sight. This is basically bonus action improved invisibility for 2 rounds per use without concentration. Effectively rangers will be invisible for the entire duration of every boss fight.
Being honest, I partially agree, after all it can be used to flee, to infiltration (although there are better alternatives), to drink your potions... the being targeted part is... well, it can be useful.
But for advantage on attacks? Shortbows and Longbows both have vex, as long as you hit once, you should hit all, forever, specially with a bow.
It's decent and works but... I don't know.
@@blueveil3277 I mean... it will scale your damage having advantage on both attacks and really amp your defenses. I read this as "bonus action improved invisibility for 2 turns, no concentration required".
@@blueveil3277 Longbows have slow, you need the fighter feature to change a mastery to give it vex. Other than that your point stands.
@@silvinity4939 my bad. It was one of the crossbows that has it then.
The problem is you would then never be able to apply your hunter's mark which requires a BA to cast.
Turn 1: BA to Veil > A to attack, turn 2: you need to BA to reapply the veil as if you apply the mark here then your veil ends at the end of your turn.
So, if you apply the HM on turn 1, then yes, you could use your BA to be invisible for 6 consecutive turns or 10 total turns if spaced out. Either way, you are burning your BA each turn to do so, which kind of sucks from an action economy standpoint. Greater invisibility 4th level costs 1 action for 10 rounds of invisibility that won't need your BA to maintain.
tl;dr LvL 13 ranger gets Greater invisibility which does everything that veil does but is better for 1 action and veil requires 5 BA's to at LvL 14 and ruins your action economy to mimic a 4th level spell.
I have NO IDEA why WOTC doesn't just make hunters marks damage scale with ranger level (and the number of possible procs per turn). Upcasting would only affects its duration. Its so damn simple. ALSO please remove this from their capstone... just stop making 1st level spell capstones.
You're right, no reason for it being a spell if it's so vital in the whole class features ecosystem
YES,, finally people are talking about making hunter's mark a class feature.. now I wish people would start talking about making battle master features a class standard for fighter..
@@dariusshabaiash3861 Yeah, I was expecting *all* fighters in the next edition to have something like battle master maneuvers, and for subclasses to give you additional maneuvers or tweaks to that system. Surprisingly, it seems to be where Rogues are going in OneD&D! 😲
It's scaling with upcasting now, not that this make the spell any better.
I disagree, the spell is as powerful as it should be, I just think the Ranger should be able to cast it without needing concentration.
Suggested Ranger Fixes:
Lvl 3- give them Channel Nature as a resource like Paldins' Channel Divinity. Pallys can use this to Divine Sense creatures, arguably making them better trackers than Rangers. Give Rangers Primal Sense so they can Sense creatures.Can also use it to summon a pet beast familiar like a Druid. Then, it could be used as a resource to fuel subclass abilities.
Clerics & Pallys get Channel Divinity. Druids get Wildshape (aka Channel Nature in playtest 5). Why are Rangers so starved of features? Give em Channel Nature.
Lvl5- move Roving to this level. Pallys get Find Steed here. Seems fair.
Lvl6- move Tireless feature here & make the Temp hp a bonus action. Pallys get their Aura of Protection at this level. Throw Rangers a bone.
Lvl 9- Channel Nature ability called Tangle Foes. An aoe to incapacitate enemies, maybe make some difficult terrain. Pallys get abjure foes at this level. (As you can see, I'm trying to make Ranger as enticing to play as a Pally- only with Nature theme).
Lvl 10. Poison immunity, or at least resistance. Rangys spend all that time w plants. They probly know stuff about them. Also move Conjure Barrage here & give em 1 free casting per long rest.
Lvl 17- Conjure Volley. Either another free casting, or at least a shared free casting to choose thus or Barrage.
Lvl 20- add Ranger level to damage. Or just scrap this festure and make a new Capstone.
Hunter's Mark: if it's gonna be concentration & once per turn, then it should scale at 1d6 per spell level, up to 5d6 at 5th level spells. Possibly add a to-hit bonus as well, emphasizing the theme of Ranger weapon prowess, or something.
Also, I think Rangers should be the Premier Ranged combatant in the game. No more debate about Fighter or Bard or Rogue as the best ranged attackers. Ranger. It's in the name.
They could manifest this as more attacks, more damage, increased crit range, special attacks ("trick" arrows), increased to-hit.... something.
Ranger should be focused on Ranged, with some melee ability. Kinda like how Warlock and Wizard are casters, but have that one melee subclass.
I thought one DND was to fix the game not tear it apart 😭
Fr they only buff wizards at this point.
I do hope they'll listen to community and buff everyone but full casters. Also I think they should make everyone depend on short rest to some extent.
Rogue has been exclusively buffed in the most recent ua
Dude, Paladin is one of best classes in this UA, if not the best. It's absurdly strong and I don't understand how they can't make something like that to the Ranger
@@laelnascimento7487they did! (Somewhat). It's just they backtracked exponentially since then (the Expert Classes UA).
@@laelnascimento7487 They did ruin divine smite, if they wanted to nerf it they could have just made it once a turn or something
@@laelnascimento7487 even the basic divine smite can now be counterspelled and unlike before where that was a free action it now uses up your bonus action. Also you can't use divine smite and a smite spell at the same time anymore. The fact you say Paladin is one of the best classes in the UA with these nerfs is very telling
The entire concept of Hunter's Mark is just so video gamey.
literally the same argument can be made about ANY feature. Saying something is "video gamey" is such a dumb and snobbish argument
WOOOOOOOOOOWWWW!!!!!!!! 1d6 DAMAGE!!!!!!!!!!! HOLY MOLY!!!!!!!!!!! UPCAST AT 3rd LVL IS 2d6!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOOOOW!!!!!!!!!!🐊
I think its a boring spell.
@@tomraineofmagigor3499
Not at all. Some of them could be close, mechanically, but a spell that gives you more damage, with all the flavor of saying, "imma hunt you now," is boring.
You can break any feature down into it's core effects, sure, but hunter's mark is only an uninspired damage buff. Inflicting zombies with the "turn" debuff is boring; channeling the power of God to invoke terror in the undead horde is cool, and leads to roleplay potential.
The best roleplay you can do for hunter's mark is pseudo sneak attack, and there's only so much you can say, "I find the enemy's weak points," before you just use the spell for the damage.
Maybe the tracking could be cool if it was on a completely different spell...
agreed. Unfortunately, the community is very much for hunter's mark as it is.
@@Day-eb9pomy roleplay of Hunter's Mark is literal "channeling the eagerness of hunting down a prey" in a magical mark, like an animal spirit. I used to roleplay as a predators 'obsession imprinted on the Ranger's enemy, because to me, the theme of the Ranger is the tiredless vengeful hunter.
They may not be the strongest or the most resourceful, but they are amongst the most resilient and fearless, and they are specialized in taking down whomever they decide that needs to be taken down.
At this point they should just make Hunter's Mark a class feature with it's own resource rather than a spell
I mean, they kind of did that here already.
True, but it's technically still a spell which means concentration and bonus action spell restriction still applies. That seems so unnecessary for what this spell does and for how much they push you to use it.
Also it would be cool if it did more than just at a little damage once per turn. It's a class exclusive after all.
Instead of HM there should be a simple level 1 feature where as a bonus action you can mark a creature you can see, you heard in the past minute or ones which tracks you are following. This gives you advantage on survival checks to track it and perception checks to spot it as well as stealth checks to hide from it. Later on you can upgrade this to do more damage and each subclass would have different ways of interacting with it. It should be an at will feature. Favored Enemy should be brought back as a seperate thing from HM and add a passive damage bonus. Hunter's Mark should not be concentration as it locks the ranger out of using other concentration spells and with more stuff demanding HM, the rangers spell slots are glorified HM uses. The Hunter subclass was fine enough, i don't understand the nerfs. One possibly interesting design could be that the Hunter subclass gets to apply the at will mark to creatures of the same type. If you marked a goblin, it's treated as all goblins in the area are marked, possibly knowing their numbers as well as making sneaking in their camps easier, a true master hunter knowing exactly what he is dealing with
See, that last part I feel could be a good capstone for the Hunter (or even just the base class since they so badly want to make level 1 spells into capstones...). But maybe instead of applying it to a single creature type, have it be a flat radius around them.
"When you cast Hunter's Mark, you can choose yourself as the target instead of a different creature. If you do, you gain one the following benefits:
- You have Advantage on Perception, Stealth, and Survival checks to sense, hide from, or find tracks of creatures within 60ft of you.
- At the start of your turn you can choose to either add a bonus equal to your PB to any of those three ability checks to make before the end of your turn, or choose to deal extra damage equal to your PB to any creature you damage within 60ft of you. A creature can only take this extra damage once per turn."
That way, you can be super great at stalking like a hunter or be great at AoE damage with things like the new always prepped Barrage spells you get. I figure a flat bonus instead of a roll helps solidify that this is your show and you're gonna make it known.
@@Reapor234 That's a neat development of it. However I don't see that as a capstone as it still feels too weak. Maybe something better would be, using a bonus action on a creature with hunters mark to either have his weakness trigger on your next attack or to remove a resistance until the end of your next turn that way a spellcaster could benefit from it. This all assumes that HM is not conentration and probably doesn't use spell slots but is a separate resource, possibly 1 + wis or simply wis mod and you recover it on a short rest. The idea you gave does like a good mid tier ability. Honestly most anything a player comes up with will be better then what WOTC does
At this point hunter's mark should become a ranger exclusive feature like hunters quarry from SW5E. If you're going to design a class around a first level spell, I suppose HM was the best pick, but if you're going to treat it like a feature then make it feel like a feature and not something that makes you unable to use concentration spells without tanking your dps
if they decide to link subclass features to hunters mark it should be concentration free and free to use wisdom or hunters level divided by 3 rounded down times per day (it scales for you as you level)
You know, I get what they're doing with Hunter's Mark and all the features that use it. They definitely want to use Tasha's Favored Foe to turn Ranger into a master "I'mma fight THAT guy in particular" class, which I don't mind. But if that's all they're doing, they need to drop concentration from HM. That's it.
They definitely saw HM overperforming last go around and hit it with one too many nerf bats but forgot they were planning on doubling down on it. And that's exactly what I'm putting on the survey
Also. The fact that deft explorer specifies a Ranger proficiency instead of ANY proficiency you have is just lame.
The thing with "I'm going to fight that guy" class is fine but the single target nova should be really powerful but they completely failed there. Even Gloomstalker wants you to randomly split damage.
@@PackTactics I can agree on Gloomstalker needing to Nova harder yeah. But if they're trying to make Ranger a consistent damage over time type of play style instead (which I feel they are), they need to stop building the Ranger to punish itself for doing Ranger things. Concentration on Hunter's Mark is dumb if they're trying to turn it into a key feature like Barbarian's Rage
Frightened is actually BETTER the father you are away from a target, since the farther you are away from something frightened of you, the larger the area of effect, meaning the less spaces they can move to to get near you.
Add this to another gutted class in OneD&D where martail characters are put down .
Here is how I would write favored foe assuming the 5e version of hunters mark.
When you take the attack action as a part of that action you can cast hunters mark on that enemy without expending a spells slot or using concentration. When the enemy dies or when you attack another creature before the duration of hunters mark ends you can reapply it to another creature as a part of that attack action without expending a use of this feature. You can cast hunters mark this way a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus per long rest.
The things to note here is that you can change the target of hunters mark before the initial target dies, and by applying it as an attack action is doesn't take up you action economy at all. Also, worth noting is that it doesn't require you to hit your attack only that you take the attack action. This will give rangers a really fun tool which they can use to give them a little bump in DPS.
I wish Hunter's Mark was turned into a cantrip or a class feature.
I feel WotC should have committed to making Hunter's Mark just a feature. Given this Playtest, I'd say the easiest fix would be copying "Slayer's Prey" from the Monster Slayer subclass (maybe make it scale at some levels too); this way it'd be only a "once per turn" damage limitation, but no concentration.
I'll never understand their fear of buffing martials, honestly ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
i need you to know that i always watch your videos near a refrigerator that makes a constant hum. that hum just so happens to be a wonderful bass line to your bagpipe playing.
I'm nor sure what Wizards wants to see out of Ranger.
They don't want people playing ranger it's that simple.
Or Monk
They don't want any one to play anything other than a fullcaster
i am happy with playing Pathfinder 1e everything is so number crunchy and strength is absolutely hilarious, making a character takes a bit, but man the game has such a nice flow in combat
Play a slayer, they're so good.
@@slydoorkeeper4783 at the moment i am playing a Rakshasa Sorcerer and a standard Monk but he gets Maneuvers (Broken Blade, picked up a few Thrashing dragon Maneuvers for story related reasons) from Path of Wars for Martial Classes by the DM saying it is so much better with it.
Multiple changes happened because some people were upset that they aren't flavorful enough and level shifts were in the spirit of backwards compatibility. Expertise is generic... But better than the land stuff... The old subclasses were compatible they just had a slightly different progression track. So those people won... And ranger is worse, yaaaaaaaaaay!
They should of just redone hunter's mark entirely. Make it have uses based on ranger level, have it either be a d4 or add your wisdom modifier to your all your attacks, remove the concentration, allow you to know direction of target for 24 hours, and finally limit it to weapon attacks only. This ranger would of been biggest letdown if not for the monk.
If anything, Hunters Mark should be like how Paladin and Cleric get different variant of their Divine power
Hunter Ranger makes it so everyone in your party member deal extra damage equal to half your proficiency(rounded up)
Beast Master makes it so your Animal companion instantly cause a fail on making a enemy roll a saving throw equal to your Proficiency Bonus
Gloom Stalker lets you ignore invisbility as long you and your party member are in Darkness
Fey Wanderer lets you make enemy insta fail a saving throw from your spells
Swarmkeeper lets you cause a Mark explosion dealing AOE Swarm damage
Working on a prehistoric campaign, totem barbarians, hunter rangers, rogue scouts, warlocks of the great old one of chains.
Casting time of heals increased to 10 minutes, damage types that double the to hit needed doing stun, movement reduction or bleed. And no spells or cantrips that do magical damage, illusions or summons, the visible magic. Magic stone as good as it gets, but all the spells like suggestion and hold person stay. What you might call a low magic setting and since damage is pretty much all the 3 basic types totem choices other than bear.
Melee, range, skills and control.
And most can talk to beasts.
Feels much better balanced.
They really needed to post the subclasses that do take your BA because they do not work with HM at all and are generally better off not using it
yes! I am playing an Horizon Walker and it sucks having to decide whether to use HM or not at the start of every combat. And when the combat revoles around a bunch of small enemies, HM is just not worth as changing target requires yet another BA.
@@azzaelulbrinter i am playing a drakewarden so i did the math and my target have to be alive for atleast 3 turns to be better then just not wasting the spell slot
So I went back and really thought about it, and what I felt was best was to revert hunters mark to its old form. The end. However bake into the ranger base kit features that enhance it. Here are my examples.
Hunters focus - 6th level feature (or 5th level)
When you cast hunter's mark with a 2nd level or higher spell slot, it gains the following.
your weapon attacks score a critical hit on a roll of 19 or 20.
If the target is in one of your favorite terrains, your weapon attacks are made with advantage.
Hunters prey - 13th level feature
When you cast hunter's mark with a 4th level or higher spell slot, it gains the following in addition to your hunter's focus.
Once on each of your turns when you attack with an Attack action, you can make one additional weapon attack as part of the same action.
If the target is in one of your favorite terrains, your weapon attacks score a critical hit on a roll of 18, 19 or 20.
I feel this could incentive rangers to keep focusing on the ranger class, and reward those who don’t multi class.
"Casters OP? Better nerf Ranger."
My homebrew solution to the Hunter's Mark issue:
**Ranger's Quarry**
*At 2nd level, you call upon your mystical bond with nature to mark a foe as a favored enemy for a time. When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can designate that creature as your quarry. Your designation lasts for one minute, or until your quarry dies, you fall unconscious, or you use this feature again.*
*Once on each of your turns, when you hit your quarry with a weapon attack, you deal an additional 1d4 damage to it. This die, known as your Quarry Die increases as you gain levels in this class, as shown in the Quarry Die column of the Ranger table (progression starts at 1d4, and increases by one dice step at every level where your Proficiency Bonus changes).*
*Moreover, you can add your Quarry Die to on Wisdom (Survival) checks made to track your quarry as long as it's on the same plane as you.*
*You can use this feature a number of times equal to your Wisdom modifier, regaining all expended uses when you finish a long rest.*
**Improved Ranger's Quarry (at the same level where (2014 5e) Paladins get their Improved Divine Smite:**
Starting at 11th level, you have learned to hunt your marked quarry more efficiently. You can apply your quarry damage to every attack you make against the target, instead of only once per turn. In addition, you can add your Quarry Die to attack rolls you make against your quarry, and you score critical hits against your quarry on a roll of 19-20.
wotc: why don't people like our content
also wotc: *makes their game less fun, intentionally, for no discernable reason, repeatedly for years*
again wotc: *buffing the op casters and nerfing martial, also not listening to what the players actually want*
I feel like Hunter's Mark is very fitting to the ranger concept (in my opinion), however I fully understand the frustrations.
Out of all this I think I'll homebrew that, for a Ranger, Hunter's Mark:
→ Is always prepared
→ Can be cast without spending a spell slot.
→ Do 1d6 damage per hit (no limit)
→ Does not require concentration.
They do not gain any benefits from higher level casting unless they spend a spell slot, but why would they.
An easy fix for the Hunter's Mark problem: It doesn't require concentration when casting it without a spell slot. This gives you easy access to all the extra features that rely on Hunter's Mark, but because you can't upcast it that way, it avoids the problem of it supposedly being OP.
the secret is it was never OP. One of the things they worried about was people doubling up Hunter's mark and Hex... that's 2 bonus actions per creature... if I'm going to invest 2 bonus actions on one creature then I don't see the problem
An easier fix is to stop trying to make Hunter's Mark the core feature of an entire class. It's a lame spell at higher levels and an even worse class feature.
Wotc just assumed hunters mark and animal companion spells are the only spells Rangers cast. They are very much feeding into the idea that Rangers are the dudes with a dog and a bow
With trying to make the Ranger one-note around Hunter's Mark, I'm reminded of what they did when adding Minotaur as a playable race. In that they are also one-note. As though the only thing they could think of in regards to features they could give it was "it has horns" and "it can use their horns".
Here's how I would propose fixing Hunter's Mark without ruining the flavor of the class:
It's obvious they want the class mechanic to be sort of a 'called shot' that enables the other cool stuff but you have to prep for it, or to be useful by directing the team's damage onto the correct target by highlighting who to focus fire. As a result, anything it does on its own is sort of secondary. So, I think HM should do more for teammates who join in on the monster, and the skills that require it to be active need to be WORTH the prep time and resources of applying it before taking your actions. I think HM could be buffed throughout the Ranger's levels by unlocking auras that benefit teammates, rewarding them for slapping your proposed target, without having to make significant changes to HM itself. Sort of the Ranger teaching her or his party members how to take advantage of different beasts' weaknesses over time. HM itself doesn't have to be interesting to cast, but it has to enable interesting interactions to feel valuable.
Remember to do the gosh dang survey!
They're doing the same thing with Warlock and Hex, except they didn't really make Hex all that more appealing either.
But yeah lose the requirements for concentration on *both*, and grant more benefits for using it in higher level spell slots beyond duration. (increased damage, greater debuff options, etc.) if they're dead set on trying to force them in.
valor bard with primal spells is my new ranger, they killed the old one. if they bring out swords bard and it is remotely similar to the old one i am going with that one. swift quiver is on the primal list now too. and with expertise i am getting my ranger skills anyway
Hunter's Mark should either be a resourceless feature or cantrip, which you may choose to apply upon hitting or spend a bonus action to apply to a target you are tracking or that you have seen in the past minute (for example, a target that hid during combat or that became invisible).
Then you could use it to have advantage in tracking or searching for your target, or to deal scaling damage (either cantrip scaling of more dice, or just each attack dealing +PB damage) in combat.
I actually like that Capstone. Or to be more precise, I wish you got it at around level 6 so the extra hit chance and damage actually helped offset how bad the spell currently is. Also I'm like 90% certain their issues with Hunter's Mark spawned off the DnD Shorts video where he had a first level Ranger with HM, Hex, and dual wielding which is no longer relevant due to all the changes that followed. But you know, WoTC gonna WoTC and giving Ranger average features with concentration requirements is a key point of their design for the class.
Yep. My absolute favourite too. Completely gutted by this, it's almost going back to pre-Tasha's rangers. & yep, what they've done with Hunters Mark really, really sucks - currently playing a Horizon Walker, & use Planar Warrior &/or Favored Foe, so rarely use Hunters Mark & save the slots for absorb elements. Someone at WOTC really doesn't like Rangers (& Monks for that matter) or they've got an intern working on them that just doesn't get them. I'm quite likely to stick to the current versions that muck about with this nonsense if they don't change it next year. Crawford - we're looking at you!
WotC: They want you to play Wizards and Dragons(Even if you have to get polymorphed).
I said this on D4 deep dives channels that if they are going to focus this much around hunters, Mark, then the sub classes should have individual affects for them. So it upgrades through sub class progression and not necessarily through. I agree that the rest of the Ranger still needs to be buffed and because getting to expertise and advantage on tracking through terrain are all ribbon. features for what is supposed to be a martial class
Yeah, I thought it was funny when Jeremy Crawford tried to spin going back to pick another 3rd level Feature at 11th and 7th level feature at 15th as a good thing. If you're picking the 2nd best feature of each of those at 11th and 15th, that means your feature order from best to worst is likely 7th, 15th, 3rd, 11th. That's just weird. I wish he'd get called out on that in those interviews. That would make for a fun video. Yeah, and considering you're probably not going to want to use Hunter's Mark past about 5th level, that's a bummer abilities are tied to it. Now if the Hunter's Mark auto-scaled to 2 dice and 3 dice automatically without expending a higher Spell Slot, that spell might be okay beyond 5th.
I don't watch Crawford or the other guy for these playtests. Those videos aren't useful for the playtest. If the interviewer guy had a list of asked questions from the community then that would be 100 times more useful. Or they can do what Jagex does. They just set up a livestream and talk about it and communicate directly with the community. I don't think Crawford could do it, I think he might be a little to shy but the other guy should be able to. That seems to be his job but I might be wrong.
They really need someone that's close to the community working with them. A cheerful smart guy.
@@PackTactics Yeah but there are some funny moments like Jeremy saying all monk needed to be on the level of other classes is a boost to the martial arts die to be 1d6 to 1d12 for about +1 in damage and that's it, then look at the ua and see monks get nerfed as the arts die doesn't work with weapons and with no weapon masteries for fists while being a class focused on punching, bloody brilliant
"I have no idea what they're doing"
I'm not convinced they know what they're doing
Couldn’t agree more. My theory is that the reason this ranger is so bad is either A.) there is a complete rework for the class that isn’t ready yet and they need to just put something out or B.) they are intentionally making the ranger class bad so that they can just move it to a fighter subclass.
This ranger undoes all the progress of the first UA, doesn’t have any core identity, and actively works against itself on multiple fronts. If the designers are putting this out as a genuine option for the 2024 book, they’ve lost me.
I’ve been toying with all sorts of ideas on how to make hunters mark more “interesting” and the Ranger as a whole.
First, I know this may get some haze, but I think zephyr strike should be built into the base ranger kit. However, remove it’s concentration and have it last the round. Remove the spell slot cost, but your allows to use it pb per long rest. However! If you are in one of your “favorite terrains” it it no cost. You have unlimited use of it. As for hunters mark, go back to the old way, however when you upcast it at a 3rd or 4th level you can crit on a 19 or 20. And on a 5th, crit on a 18,19,or 20. Or at 5th level you can make one extra attack as apart of your attack action against your hunters mark. 🤷🏻♂️ I dono, I keep spit balling, I’m just not happy with what I’m seeing for the Ranger, and I fear they will be bastardized just like they were in 2014. 😞
I really wish they made a subclass based on using Hunter's Mark. There's clearly a desire to make Hunter's Mark more useful and worth using your concentration, and a subclass full of these ideas would be really sick to play with as an option. For the player who does want to use Hunter's Mark and tends to only use spells for travel and healing, it could actually be really fun.
Instead we just have a bunch of features split around different subclasses so Hunter's Mark is "different in every Ranger's hands" but is still limiting for the use of that one player. Then of course you have the problem of it forcing you to choose between interesting spells vs. using the Class Feat and that's not always an interesting choice.
Most of my complaints on the original Druid Playtest was how there's so much focus on Wild Shaping when only one class has benefits towards using Wild Shape outside of stealthing/roleplay and crappy travel. Their revisions made a lot of changes that I felt improved upon that metric and is in a significantly better direction with allowing the choice of focusing on being Martial or more mage. So why is the Ranger instead so focused on being so Hunter's Mark focused despite the class having proved it can be effective while ignoring it?
I was honestly looking forward to concentration free hunters mark, I thought that was a cool unique feature even if some other classes might try to abuse it a little. I'm hoping they bring it back cause I was looking forward to trying a ranger monk multiclass with some light weapons to get tons of bonus attacks.
I thought damage couldn't trigger more than once per round in the current version.
@@4200Felixyou're probably right that's even more of a reason to make it concentration free
They should change hunters mark into a channel divinity type thing where it is a class feature you use without concentration as a bonus action that does not necessarily add damage (probably should add like a d6 once per turn) but does other things and then different subclasses let you do different things with it like the hunter with knowing immunities and vulnerabilities, another subclass can teleport to or from the creature, another bonus action deal damage to it, another give it disadvantage on a specific save, etc
7:53 "I have no idea what they doing"
Apperantly, neither do they
It makes sense for rangers to be absolute specialists in aa terrain or two, I hope they keep it, but also give some universal features for travelling in the wilds in general
HM needs a slight buff, but I get what they're doing. Kinda like how Eldritch Blast and Hex are the crux of a bunch of Warlock features, they want HM to be the signature spell for Ranger, so they're giving it a different rider effect for each subclass. I like that idea a lot, but I hope they give it another pass. Make it not cost a spell slot prof times per day or not require concentration at a bonus action, and let you switch targets on kill, and the little it does is enough.
Honestly, I find it extremely funny, that when the old hunters mark was already a dps loss for some situations, they decided to make it even worse.
Hunters Mark made sense in 4e, where it was a class feature that acted as the principle means of rangers doing the damage that they were supposed to do as part of their role as a Striker.
The 5e Hunters Mark being retained is essentially a call back to that, but making it a spell makes no sense, then having made it a spell trying to make it central to all Ranger builds is just asinine.
It's as if the 5e product is being made by people who are trying in fits and starts to build back in the 4e elements that worked well and should never have been thrown out when 5e took on its overtly grognardish original design, but they don't have the ability to do it because they don't have any of the fundamentals that actually made 4e character class design a functional ecosystem.
What is the party role of a Ranger in 5e? Are they supposed to be a damage dealer? A skill-bunny? Controlling the battlefield? There's no actual concept of how they're supposed to work at the table and synergise with other character classes.
It's as if the designers have forgotten that D&D is a team sport! With every character class created in a vacuum you can't get parity let alone balance, let alone classes designed to interact with each other and the world to offer a specific play experience.
It's like Kobald's complaint that there are no AoE features on the Ranger. The rubric at WoTC seems to be that AoE effects are exclusively full caster only via spells, with Martial and Half-Caster characters locked out of them, to single target or at most multi-attack abilities.
But there's no logic to WHY this should be the case, because again, they lack a fundamentals idea of a class-ecology. In 4e, AoE effects were found on basically every class, but the largest and most comprehensive were found on full-casters in the Controller niche, because those allowed the maximum battlefield influence, but those abilities/spells then didn't do as much damage as the focused attacks of more target-limited classes.
All the institutional knowledge of inter-relational game design that went into 4e was seemingly lost in the transition to 5e, and especially now with the most recent redesign it's showing badly, with this sequence of bad and or baffling design decisions.
I started worrying when they admitted that Fireball was deliberately overpowered as a massive AoE that did more damage than it should for its level, because it was 'thematic' or 'traditional' for it to be OP, rather than being part of a rational ecology of related spells and abilities.
WoTC seems to revel in the creation of a breeding ground for degenerate strategies, even anointing some of them, like the above mentioned Fireball, or the popular Sentinel/Pole-arm Mastery combo, and then, when people adopt those degenerate strategies, they react by ad-hoc corrections rather than building something more comprehensive.
In the thumbnail, Kobold attempts "Blue Steel" as patterned by Zoolander. Look carefully, and you'll see how Kobold is wounded in his soul.
while the range stuff makes me sad, knowing Kolbald watches Elythi makes me smile
If they want Hunters Mark to be so important to the ranger, it should be a feature and not a spell. It should be at will, or as a part of the first hit of a creature. With the option to boost with a spell slot, which would make the concentration part make sense, they seem to be horny for weak consentration spells lately. Or have the concentration be variable, and if you choose to concentrate, then the extra damage can be used by any attack instead of just you. Make it more of a team game in this team based story game.
Considering they imagine the previous Concentration free version was too strong, I figured they could bring that back, but nerfing it to apply only once is doubly crude. If you want to base features off of it so badly, give Concentration free Hunter's Mark and then apply the once on your turn limiter. That way you can actually cast something else without actively gimping yourself out of your features and you don't run risks of people going Extra Attack + Bonus Action Attack + Action Surge all benefiting from HM.
Also... Frighten serves little purpose when Gloomstalkers are already trying to be in the dark. Can't be a visible source of fear and you already had the advantage/disadvantage loop by being invisible. It's sort of like putting a weaker form of control that clashes with the playstyle from the start.
It feels like adding concentration back to hunter’s mark was a last minute change, or even an accident from when they made the spell Ranger only. All those other features using HM don’t hurt nearly as bad if it doesn’t require you to not be using a better spell at the same time.
The design notes said they got feedback that it was “too powerful”… so they reverted that, nerfed the spell and made it Ranger exclusive for good measure
I'm with you 100%, this ranger sucks, they dropped the ball horribly compared to previous ranger UA and even to current 5e ranger. Convinced they don't know what they are doing anymore.
I would like to see your version of each class. Let's say you can use anything published for the class in 5e and the playtests. It would be fun.
I think the real feeling is...
"I do not understand."
I truly believe that there is someone in WoTC who hates Rangers and manages to screw things up...
The first version of the Ranger was OK, not really good, it was OK...
Now this... is to be pitied.
What also bothers me about the Gloom Stalker changes are
1. Most of the features are passive buffs (which is fine), so it doubly sucks that the only one that lets you actually _do_ something (for most campaigns) is limited in use.
2. They made it a frighten subclass. That should just be Fae Wanderer; we don’t need another one.
At this point I just figured no one that already plays the game is moving to this version. I have yet to see something that justifies it.
Wait, the level 11 gloomstalker feature is activated by the limited resource frighten thing. So they dont even get a consistent damage boost at 11?
Worse is that both are super short range. If you fighting a smart mob and you have a caster on your team, the enemy going spread out more then 10 feet.
IDK why they changed the level 7 defensive feature so much, a level 8 Hunter Ranger can AC tank like a champion.
Defense fighting style, studded leather armor(maybe even +1), likely 18+ dex at that level, a shield and a finesse weapon like short sword, scimitar or rapier.
At level 4 pump up dex and at level 8 pick up magic adept and learn the shield spell.
Easily you're looking at 12+4+2+1= 19 AC with room to grow, and with the option for +9 against multi attacking creatures, 28 ac at level 8, nothing to scoff at.
At high level +4 means less than absolutely nothing.
Like I might be over selling it because I was in a campaign where a ranger basically meme'd all over a dire troll dodging nearly every attack, but at lower levels flat bonuses are meaningful.
"A Find Familiar Owl is usually strong enough to carry a Kobold"
I'm now imagining a Kobold air assault team being carried in by owls and using bows and cross bows.
They need to divorce Expertise from Deft Explorer, give full Expertise in two skills at 3rd level, and again at 9th. If you can swap a favored terrain on a Long Rest, then having 2 at a time is more than enough.
I don’t understand why they’re so afraid of Hunter’s Mark. They need to remove concentration from HM. I think they should rework Favored Enemy to grant Ranger exclusive spells in addition to Hunter’s Mark, a La the Paladin’s Smite feature. They could add new stuff but it’s probably easier to just tweak some combination of Hail of Thorns, Ensnaring Strike, Zephyr Strike, Lightning Arrow, Conjure Barrage, Conjure Volley, Steel Wind Strike, and/or Swift Quiver so that the Ranger gets one of these as an additional spell prepared at 2nd, 5th, 9th, 13th, and 17th levels and ensure that each triggers on either melee or ranged weapon attacks. And they should a free casting like the Paladin gets for smites.
Not a huge priority but i hope they give the Ranger a summoning spell at level 5 as a mirror to Find Steed either by blending the Summon Beast spell from Tasha’s and the Primal Companion feature from the Beast Master OR by subsuming the Beast Master into the main class.
Lastly, I think they need to five the Hunter the Primal Awareness spells from that Tasha’s optional feature as their subclass spells. All Ranger subclasses should be getting additional spells if they’re not getting a companion.
That Hunter's Leap ability is word for word a copy of the Scout Rogue's Skirmisher ability.
It's laughable how baddly nerfed the monk and ranger are getting in these UAs. They took the two base classes widely viewed as the weakest in the game and nerfed them into the ground, while giving out buffs to the full casters that didn't need any changes to begin with.
My ranger fix is simple. I kept in most of the changes from Tasha's, but hunters mark, favored enemy, and favored terrains are gone. Instead at level 1 and the levels rangers would have had to pick a new favored enemy creature type they instead pick a favored mana. They pick one of the Mana colors from Magic the Gathering, or colorless. For each pick they get their Int mod in bonus languages, they have advantage on all Dex, Int, and Wis rolls made in relation to the terrain types, creature types, backgrounds, habitats, classes, and races tied to their favored mana color, and they deal one additional damage die on all weapon attacks against creatures tied to their favored mana color.
I'm working on a ranger capstone, but so far it's basically, "You fire an arrow in the sky, and it auto hits and kills any one creature you've hit with another arrow in the last 24 hours so long as they are on the same plane as you."
Monk is a harder fix. I'm doing a full rewrite but the gist is I cut stunning strike, took the ki point costs out of most of the base class features that used ki points, and added all the special abilities monks had in the very first Final Fantasy Tactics game. For later levels I'm going through different spell lists and giving the monk features that basically say " burn a few ki points and cast a punch the ground spell." Spells like Destructive Wave, Erupting Earth, Bones of the Earth, and Earthquake.
I was fine with the assimilated subclass levels with my main grievance that if they’d continue doing this then make every subclass give a unique 20th level cap as base class had 18th cap
Make everyone have cool paladin-esque caps!
It's okay, Kobold, I don't think they know what they're doing, either.
Just remove hunter mark from all spell list and make it a ranger level 2 feature.
Something as simple as "when you hit an enemy with a weapon attack, mark them with your hunter mark for 10 turns."
Then, they can feel free to make it part of other features because it's already in the core ranger, always around and not competing with anything else.
Shafted bout as hard as monks. Theres a bardic college that replaces them easily. Monk & ranger both committed the "not-a-wixard" sin.
Still think the Beast Master and Hunter should get a spell list like EVERY OTHER Ranger subclass
And yea, Hunter is undercooked, especially the 11th and 15th level features
It's just so boring
My guess would be that the obsession with Hunter's Mark is an attempt to rip off the Ranger from Pathfinder 2nd Edition, which has a core class feature called Hunt Prey that a lot of other Ranger feats reference back to (e.g. the Hunted Shot and Twin Takedown feats allow you to make two attacks against your hunted prey in a single action). Of course, the major difference is that Hunt Prey (1) is not a spell and (2) does not prevent you from casting other spells or using other abilities, in the same way that concentrating on Hunter's Mark does. Additionally, a lot of different classes in PF2e have something they need to do regularly to keep their core class feature running (e.g. Swashbucklers need to take certain actions regularly to get their Panache each fight and to restore it after they expend it on a big finisher), so the Ranger's reliance on Hunt Prey fits in neatly with the design principles of other classes in the game.
They nerfd it because crazy people were staking hunters mark and hex on top of each other for extra 2d6 each hit. Which I think they forgot the "like you are concentrating" part on the concentration free HM. Which didn't allow you to stack them. So they played it wrong and makde them nerf it by gaming the system.
Man most of these changes are really uninspired, but also full disclosure, I am glad to see other Rangers besides Gloomstalker being able to compete. The base power dread ambusher provides to any Ranged Multiclass is silly.
I also think they missed the opertunity to better define what the "beast" compaion benefits from feom the base class. Can they turn invisible with you? Does the movement get buffed? Does it get feral senses?
about the subclass progression thing, you said with bard that you liked it :c
I think this is a big topic that should be talked more, as apparently WotC is going back to old class progression due to not many people paying attention to it.
For me, I got bummed out when they decided to go back. The standarized subclass progression is something i was eager to try.
Are we not going to talk about beast master requiring an action for its beast to attack again instead of a bonus action?
They're doing jack to get me interested in 6e
I'm convinced that WOTC doesn't understand the value of concentration as a resource or well, resource management and action economy in the system in general. In terms of design philosophies it seems like there is a lack of cohesion and resonance within there designs with the ranger and its not the only class that suffers from this, to explain. they essentially create anti synergy within there designs. i.e. putting a big focus on casting Hunters mark, taking up our concentration and then when you get to higher levels and get objectively much more interesting fun and powerful spells to use your concentration on. Hunters mark is just a waste of space and starts to conflict with newer spells due to the fact that it competes for concentration as a resource. another major example of poor cohesion in there designs in the new war domain cleric, The idea that you get spiritual weapon as an always prepared spell, which uses up your bonus action economy and then giving them a feature to do a weapon attack with there bonus action is complete anti synergy, you cannot use both of these features, cos they compete for the same resources, it just feels bad to play.
"what made them nerf everything so hard, i don't understand, was it the feedback? i thought the feedback was positive!"
Exactly. That's the point. If you give universally positive feedback, IE: all the players are happy. Then the only conclusion is that the class is overpowered. You then have to nerf it until exactly 50% of the player base are unhappy with how strong it it. That's ballance! /s
Seriously though, there legitimately seems to be a strand of thought that works like this. If everyone is saying they are happy with a class it must be because the class is overpowered, because the only thing that players care about it powerful classes right? Not that this ever applies to Wizards, because, to be blunt, the attitude is that Wizard *is supposed to be* the most powerful class. (cue repeated "they're not called 'Rangers of the Coast' are they?" jokes).
the only reason why there's so much hunters mark focus on the new ranger is because the community is obsessed with hunters mark. So many want the ranger to be hunters mark the class for some reason.
I think a core theme is needed for Ranger. Just what are they supposed to be? The rogue with nature spells? A fighter who is a bit druidic? I took a swing at some homebrew to make it the 'pet companion' class seein as how druid lost the option from 3.5