Its crazy to think that if they just put the Ranger in UA one more time they would have got it right. Because thats what happened with Barbarian, Rogue & Monk. It really just needed one more UA.
They simple answer is they probably panicked when the first UA Ranger was overperforming, which reinforced their belief that HM (and by extension Hex) are too strong to be concentration free. This caused them to ignore the fact that this was only an issue at early levels and other classes would eventually catch up so all they really needed to do was delay at what point HM became concentration free so it fit with the other classes power bumps.
@@M9Seradon i feel the class will perform pretty good. I have not ran the math or anything but i bet it will scale good into late game. I dont think the class is weak its just… well, lame. And that capstone makes me laugh every time I remember it.
Mfw their design decision for 5.5e was "let’s delete 70% of ranger core feature and copy paste tashas’ one. Make sure they are at a higher level tho! Ranger will be too strong otherwise.." poor man’s rogue, poor man’s druid, now can’t even go 'oh right i have this feature!" In the niche moment where it worked (it always feels better to have more ability in the back pocket especially FLAVOR wise. Yes flavor is free but there will always be a difference between using a feature and using a skill check.) Now the class gotta focus on sneak attack jobless cousin... They shouldn’t have removed any feature and instead leaned more into a supportish class, ccing enemies instead of trying to compete for damage (or just give it ranger invocation.)
The idea of late-level abilities being aspirational does make a lot of sense, and WOTC seems to have leaned into it with the martial characters, particularly Barbarian, Monk, and Rogue, adding a lot of later level abilities that sound really powerful, fun, or both. The ones that seem to struggle now with not having a lot of late-level abilities to look forward to are the half-casters. The philosophy seems to be that after the first few levels, the prospect of higher level spells will be enough of an incentive to keep going with Ranger or Paladin, ignoring the fact that if higher level spells were enough of a draw, both classes could do it better by multiclassing into one of the full casters. You go over Ranger pretty thoroughly, but similar questions can be posed regarding Paladin. After level 6, when you pick up Aura of Protection, what awesome things do the Paladin players really have to look forward to if they stick with Paladin, beyond spell levels? Abjure Foes is cool, but is it worth spending 3 additional levels to get it when you could potentially supercharge your power by putting those levels into Bard, Sorcerer, or Warlock instead? Is it worth it to stick to Oath of Vengeance for another 9 levels to pick up two subclass abilities that combine to basically form the Sentinel feat? If you really love the idea of being a stalwart knight riding a pegasus, why wait until level 13 to be able to upcast Find Steed high enough to summon one when you can do it 3-4 levels earlier by switching to Sorcerer after level 5 or 6? Especially if the campaign is unlikely to go past level 10, because in that situation the Sorcadin will get their flying mount, but the single-class Paladin will not.
I am honestly surprised it even occured to them to center a class around a spell with concentration. We have seen in the past that subclasses giving you a spell that is 1 hour duration with concentration has the option to cast it with 1 minute duration no concentration. I was sure they understood this idea, that if a spell is central to a class, it shouldn't require concentration because it locks you out of so many other spells. So I am baffled on that one.
If you cast Hunter’s Mark with a third level or higher spell slot you should be able to do it without concentration. I think that’d smooth things over a lot.
@@booklover4078that’s just wrong since new beastmaster can hat additional damage form both the pet and your own attacks and can sacrifice one of your attacks to command your beast to set it up while applying hunters mark
@thomasquesada7248 your beast get 1d6 extra plus it is off wisdom it is most likely lower then your own attacks. So at best hm does 3d6 for you or 10.5 damage with to hit modifiers, but most often the difference will just be that instead of your 2nd attack gets the HM your pet will. Meanwhile your attack you are giving up is what based on a d8 plus like 4 assuming you are also keeping up with wisdom for your pet. So that is 8.5. And we haven't even factored in any concentration spells you could use instead and the difference is only 1.5 to 2.5 without calculating to hit chance. But most often you are beating your HM damage by not casting it because your 8.5 or 9.5 is better then the 7 HM can give you with 1 attack from you and the 1d6 your pet gets. And if you all gang up on enemies they aren't gonna last long enough for you to get your 2nd attack to make HM worth it. And here we haven't gone into anything else you could use your concentration on this have only been about the bonus action. This is why I will run my campaign with heavily modified HM so it is less BA dependent.
WotC really missed an opportunity by not giving Ranger archetype features the way they did with Cleric and Druid. Choose between 1. Archer: Hunters Mark buffed 2. Melee: Heavy armour and temp HP 3. Caster: bonus action invisibility to help with concentration
4. Support. Cleric heavy options in its spell list, reaction abilities to save allies from dangerous situations. Hell I would straight up transfer some Mastermind features like ranged Help, but as a reaction. I've always felt that Rangers should have a subclass that focuses much more heavily on back line support than burst damage. Extra attack and d10 die makes them pretty reliable for sustained damage on the backline at base and a support heavy class fits right in there, standing near to protect any wizard or sorcerer directly if appropriate or middle line for the front line characters.
The bg3 ranger feels really awesome at level 1 largely because you get a nice flavorful decision for features similar to what you described. - Most of the bg3 changes are for the better honestly (ignoring the ones that straight up don’t work outside a computer game)
@@wavecycle rangers wearing heavy armor is the oath of ancients Paladin and rangers already have invisibility without concentration that lasts until their next turn.
Late Ranger isn't the only problem. 80% of the features monks get after 10th level are either ribbon abilities or they're copies of spells that full casters get at level 3. The "aspirational" argument is just proof that the game is poorly designed. If half the levels on the class chart are never meant to be used then you've wasted design time and resources. Either redesign the game so all the features are squeezed into the ten levels the game is meant to see play at, or redesign the game so that XP and level progress allow players to reach the level cap.
I agree with you. Features that are reliant on taking a particular spell force a certain style of play and the choices you make during play if you want any benefit from these features. The concentration complaint I keep seeing is not the issue IMO. Not making Hunters Mark concentration and allowing it to stack with other spells would probably be too powerful . Features that only function when combined with a certain spell is an issue.
if it's going to be required to get the most out of a class, it should be modified so that it doesn't interfere with your play style. they understood this with warlocks, giving you a lot more flexibility and allowing you to apply eldritch invocations to more than just eldritch blast. going back on this to this extent with ranger isn't bizarre because I think it's necessarily terrible (Tasha's ranger is pretty good actually imo) but because it doesn't match any of the design ethos they've been discussing for months for this update
I'm just glad Rangers can swap one leveled spell every long rest, but I'm Really Really glad that the HALF CASTER no longer has LESS SPELLS than the Third Casters, who ALSO get Cantrips.
Also Hail of Thorns and Lightning Arrow not requiring concentration is rad, and more Expertise than just one is cool too. Also Weapon Mastery and 30ft Blindsight, instead of the 10ft they had. Spellcasting at first level is also cool.
When I get my chance to rewrite D&D (it’s aspirational), I intend to lean hard into the Tiers of Play concept. Whether a caster or martial… Levels 1-5: At this level, you are probably working for your village elder and facing nothing more dangerous than a few cocaine bears. 6-10: Around this level, you graduate to defending your kingdom. You probably have been recruited by a noble. Your class features make you able to function as an army unit or special forces. 11-15: At this level you are probably working for a divine being and defending your world. This is the tier at which your party could stomp the average army and you face ancient world ending prophecies. 16-20: Now you are likely the champions of a pantheon, and regularly fight titans, travel planes, and face threats to entire realms. You likely have an HQ in Sigil.
As a long time DM, this is kind of how I build campaigns. Having experience playing and DMing high level, this mind set is very good. Here is to your aspirations.🎉
I really struggled to put this script into words, it took me months to write it, like I mentioned. It’s been a thought that I’ve had for a long time but getting down was challenging.
@@InsightCheck you're completely correct on capstone abilities having a strong influence on a player's choices when building a character. ( I wrote a much longer reply but it cleared before I posted and so I am left defeated.) The feel and the atmosphere of having something like that to look forward to can make the appreciation of current play even greater. When that capstone is lackluster or an.. *cough ranger* undesirable play style, that can really affect your perception on the class as a whole.
Also, epic boons and the improved 10+ level features have me convinced that high level play will be enjoyed more often in the future. This makes bad progression and capstones in this range even more drastic in their affect.@@InsightCheck
Hot take… Class lanes are horrible RPG design to begin with. If I’m 6th level, I want access to 6th level features regardless of class. If all the ingredients crucial to my character concept always being 5+ levels deep into some other stupid class. There are not enough crossover subclasses to cover all fantasies, and sometimes the crossover subclasses make the problem/want for deep features even more scattered and out of reach. Feat versatility is good. Multiclass requirements are bad. Combined spell slot progression is good. Spell preparation limited by class depth instead of slot level is bad. Cantrip scaling by character level is good. Extra Attack not arriving at 5 levels of any martial is bad. The only good class laned features are resources and dice that scale all the way from zero to 20 at extremely regular interval, instead of being a randomized isolated super power at a randomly shuffled level. Stuff like sneak attack, sorcery points, spell slots, and ki points. The reward for committing depth is simple correlation on one big feature, not a whole bunch of random stuff you’d wish you could cherry pick under s different character concept. Fundamentally, it’s “you get to play a premade template” game design instead of “you can build any character with total conceptual freedom, and the power level will balance according to character level regardless of how you slice it” game design The game tells us, if your desired set of tools and mechanics dont fit the prebuilt classes, it isnt valid. People craft snd optimize multiclass builds because problem/constraint solving can be addictive and fun, not because class based restrictions are the better RPG design. Class based constraint solving is a metagame, a puzzle game, not an RPG game.
🥳🫂👍🏿 We’ve been treating Hunters Mark like Smite lately - if you hit, sac a spell slot to generate the effect that is not a spell and does not require concentration - of course now I have to say I’m referencing the 5e smite, not the 5.5 one 🤦🏿♀️
@@InsightCheck many thanks - it’s been working out great and they get an extra dice against favored enemies, so you actually get a combat benefit from that choice - also been tooling around with expending additional spell slots / spending damage dice to gain additional effects, similar to cunning strike - can’t report on the results yet tho - I’ll let you know
Some interesting opservations: The two high level hunters mark ranger festures were dead levels before so rangers got 2 extra class features that are dependent on a first level spell. Another is that the adventure says it is 10-20 but I understand it to be that the end of the adventure is 20th level but that is bacause you are just asked to level your character to that point during the last act of the adventure in addition I have seen nothing but scorn from people who have tried it saying that it is barely functional and that too few things sre accounted for. I hope WotC will produce some high quality adventures for high levels but Vecna eye of ruin is not it son. And as is the case with capitalism the chance of them trying again when eve of ruin gets bad reviews and probably isnt that bought is low.
Oh the hubris of saying the Ranger did not need a 3rd pass. I have some plans for house rules to make Hunter's Mark work. My 3rd level fix would be 1) verbal is option for Ranger & 2) 1 per turn during Ranger's Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction the Ranger can cast Hunter's Mark for free or change Hunter's Mark Target. Next fix I need the new rules to figure what level that pain point is but Hunter's Mark can be maintained with a second Ranger spell needing Concentration. Not sure what else a Ranger might need beyond maybe Extra Attack (2) at some much higher level
I am considering giving the effect of circlet of concentration to the animal companion of a beast master at a certain point (was planning when they reach lvl 10). That way the companion feels more relevant and the ranger isn’t as limited.
This is easily the one of my favorite videos you've ever put out. No idea if it will do well, but THIS is what im here for. Thank you for making thoughtful content that actually adds to the conversation around our favorite imagination game.
This actually means so much to me, thank you for this! This video is one that I’m most proud of too and is exactly the kind of discussions I made this channel to have. As far as TH-cam goes, no, it’s not performing all that well but I’m still super happy to have got it out because I find it such a fascinating topic! Thanks again :)
Curious to me that the 2024 book has features for clerics and druids to focus on either spellcasting or fighting, ostensibly to avoid pigeonholing the players into one specific route of play. And then, the ranger has multiple features requiring the use of Hunter’s Mark. I wonder why the two different design philosophies?
Only the hunter sub class really relies on HM. The other sub classes don’t have that crunch until higher levels. Fey wanderer has conjure Fey for no concentration so a lot of the complaints are coming from players who don’t really play the class IMO. As a player, I play the Tasha’s version of class and enjoy it. I like what they did with it for 2024 and the spell list…. That to me makes all of the difference.
@@syvajarvi2289 Very true, but I still think it's curious that they have features at all, even later level ones, that rely on something so specific as a single spell. Given that the druids and clerics were given those features that let you pick two different playstyle options, I would've expected the Ranger to maybe get something similar just for consistency. Maybe a feature that would let you focus on spellcasting (like HM upgrades as you reach higher levels) or on weaponry
@@daneroberts1996 The reliance on HM actually saves a 4th lvl spell slot that I, and other Ranger players, would otherwise use for guardians of nature once advantage is gained at lvl 17. I see this as a win except fighting a creature with magic immunity….. then I still have to use that 4th lvl spell slot to buff myself, even then it’s rare that Rakastas and other creatures with limited spell immunity show up unless it’s a home brewed campaign.
Interesting topic for ttrpg theory crafting. When I start a new PC for, say Living Arcanis which has lots of flavor that is specific to the setting, I never look at the end point. I usually have a 5 level build in mind, but I always leave room for character development related to the adventures. Almost never does my build continue along the path I initially plotted. I grew up in southwest Michigan and am now of an age when I can say I'm of an age where I remember the Old Hats who made this hobby possible. Those grognards, fatbeards, the one woman who paved the way for all the other women today, those folks played PCs beyond what the AD&D DMG levels. In that edition there were rules for continuing beyond what TSR published. There was once a time when there weren't so many options, bells and whistles for D&D. So we would grab rules from any system we came across, throw it into the box of rules we called D&D and just played. Aspirational. I do not think that word means what they think is does. Aspirational should not let me know 20 levels exist, but INSPIRE me to attain those levels. I often feel many gaming geeks would have benefited from organized team sports for nerds and give the REAL team coaching so they can understand what it means to aspire to improve and be better today than you were yesterday. My biggest issue with any the Ranger in any edition is: Why is there a Ranger class at all? With the declaration of WotC to in essence abandon the ttrpg portion of their player base and focus on the online transaction based gaming the high level play will become more appealing because an AI can do all the number crunching and track all the conditionals. The issue with high level play in D&D is that it becomes a super hero game and that's not what D&D players want to play. You continue to create good theory craft and I appreciate your time and effort.
One other thing the high-level features do, that is generally harder to deal with: Limit homebrewers' design space while creating a framework for power levels. Where I see this the strongest is Knowledge domain Cleric's Level 17 feature, Visions of the Past, giving you two options I know from a Vampire: the Masquerade themed larp as Genius Rei (Object reading) and Genius Loci (Area Reading). Those features are very cool, useful and allow for a rather deep roleplaying and engagement with the world - but they are locked behind a single subclass at Level 17. They'd make a very nice feature for about Level 10 that would play really well (after all, they behave similarly as the Commune spell group and have wider, but far shallower utility than Legend Lore, all Level 5 spells). But this way, it feels _wrong_ to give those (or highly similar) features to your other character options (I can see them be a thing with Auramancer Sorcerer or similar subclasses to use), especially if you were to use them at the point they would actually be useful (which is high Tier 2 to low Tier 3 play, not at the demigod level).
I think you're correct. Except you made it sound like most people multiclass. Is that true for you? Most people I know don't multiclass, pretty much ever. I personally think it's lame. Some people see classes as just bundles of features arbitrarily stitched together and so maybe you have to multiclass to get all the ones you want for this perfectly sculpted character, but some people see classes as the very thing they're playing, like it's something real in-universe, and it breaks their immersion to be like, "I'm a drow ranger, my friend here is a halfling sorcerer, and that girl over there is a...variant human barbarian dipping into fighter and...I think she's getting something else later depending on what magic item you give us as a reward for saving the princess!"
For clarity, I never meant to suggest that “most people multiclass” but rather that it is a common option for many that are also looking to optimize for power. No character I have ever made has been a multiclass and in my party only 1 of my players has done it.
I believe the idea for something like the Ranger was expressed by Crawford when he was discussing Fighting Styles for 5.5E originally, and that idea was to have simple but still effective things to do for a player who isn't into optimizing and multiclassing so they don't feel like they're a drag compared to a player that does. A fine enough goal, to be sure, but I'll also fully admit that they pretty much failed to do that with Ranger, especially with Hunter's Mark never becoming concentrationless (like not even for a number of times equal to your proficiency modifier).
My group's last campaign went up to 16th level, and our current campaign is now level 13, and will likely end around 16 also. I feel like I'm going to have to homebrew the high level features for both our Ranger and Barbarian... Though maybe they'll change their mind and start using Reckless Attacks with the new rules (they basically never do now).
This is always such a weird conversation to me. I love going late level. I played a game that went all the way to Level 20. I can't stress how much the upper levels are easy to scale when you are defeating bigger and bigger baddies. You level up fast, and things get crazy fast. Upper level play isn't the best balanced, but it is fun, and it isn't too hard to get there.
First and foremost, I think you have some amazing insight and make some very strong points. I've long held the belief that Official DnD content should be capped at either level 12 (6th level spells) or level 14 (7th level spells). The reasons are many: 1) By their own metrics, this is the range where the majority of their content is actually used. There's no shame in shortening the "expected" experience threshold; and then providing additional snippets for an "extended" threshold from 12/14 to 20. 2) By doing so, I feel they could better balance the power gains so they aren't so front loaded. There's nothing wrong with multi-classing; but there also shouldn't be anything wrong with playing a monolithic class. They should be much more closer in power at most levels of play. 3) It does away with some of the most overpowered spells in the game, which in fact mostly serve a counter purpose. Many of the spells make it extremely difficult to balance high end play; and let's be honest: simply saying "x spell is banned" is horrible for ALL involved. Unrelated, but I do feel multiclassing should be changed up a bit as well. For instance, if they designed ALL features to be handed out at exactly the same levels, then it becomes more of a kiss/curse. You choose which class's features you take, and which ones you leave behind. You should also be able to multiclass into the same classes subclasses. For instance, is it more believable that my wizard found religion and can now wield a shield and medium armor; or that my swashbuckler rogue has started to dip their toes into assassination rogue? Cheers!
I've played more 5e at high levels - 10-20 - than at any other lvls. Playing online with rotating DMs in a shared setting was how i've played and since it was during the pandemic and I needed something to quiet my anxiety I've played many times per week, sometimes more than once per day, so I've got to lvl 20 pretty fast and stayed there for some time. D&D works pretty fine if you close a couple of infinite loopholes like coffeelock (that's not even RAW) and Simulacrum/Wish (that's for sure not RAI). It does require more experienced DMs specially because you can't rely too heavily on the officially published monsters except for minions though.
I would make the features get larger the farther you go into the class, like rogue getting 2 dice of sneak attack after 10th level. Your 20th level capstone should be amazing. You should never think : "why bother? I'll just multi and get a level of x instead."
100% yes! If you put 20 lvls worth of features you need to make them good and wanted. Multi classing is optional for the table and the player decision. I multi class for abilities that are fun or interesting fyi so i might not understand fully for the power of ranger dps. But lvl 20 features shouldnt be like +4 STR and CON OR your lvl 1 spell now deals 1d10 instead of 1d6. These are not at all compatible like how are these in the same book?! I care because even if you never get to level 20 you should WANT TO?!
It might have been an interesting redesign of D&D to have it so there are rules for playing levels 1-20, but each class only has 10 levels. So, in the more common level 1-10 campaigns, you could multi-class, or you could play your chosen class to its full potential, but for campaigns going beyond level 10, you *have* to multi-class in some way. I think it provides an intriguing idea because then it's necessary to streamline the design of the classes so there are no dead levels, there's a different incentive in balancing abilities between classes because the game would get designed with multiclassing in mind, and reaching the pinnacle of a particular class's power becomes a real consideration instead of more of a nebulous aspiration.
So here's the thing about Rage, it's a custom resource. Same with Bardic Inspiration. They did give rangers one unique interaction with a resource: exhaustion. What if Rangers had power ups associated with having and spending exhaustion? How would that work, I'm not sure. But if Rangers could inflict exhaustion and/or gain and then wipe it away on themselves then they would be tireless as a core identity.
Ive been in one campaign that went to 20 and a little beyond, though to make it more interesting, we tacked on stuff from the game Godbound and stuff from The Immortals Handbook
It sounds like you’ve misinterpreted the intent of the video. This is, in no way, a video “complaining” about high levels. It’s a discussion about the influence that incredibly rarely used features actually still have on the game.
@@InsightCheck no sorry my bad I don't think you are complaining, this video is solid but you kinda bring up people that complain about high level and I was thinking of them ^^
First... 20th level IS already a big pull back from Basic D&D where you could reach level 35, and then play as a god (immortal)... 2nd... If you want to play Tiers 3 and 4 all you need to is join the Adventuerer's league and get a PC in each tier.. plenty of servers exist... 3rd DMs guild and other sources offer many tier 3 and 4 modules. 4th... My fav level is 20! I love shapechange...So Much! I truly don't understand the appeal of playing below level 3, nor why people wouldn't routinely go all the way to 20 ( again, already a blunting of the potential of the original game)
there is some wonderful third party material if you're interested, I'm soon starting a campaign with a book called epic legacy where you have levels 21-30
They took the epic level choices from 3.5 and baked it into sub classes. I think there is room for prestige classes beyond lvl 20 for 5.5e but I’m not sure how they would progress it except for extraplanar god tier campaigns.
This isn't really a big shock, but a lot of newer ttrpgs are either being designed for short bursts of play or have level caps closer to 10 rather than 20. As someone who has never even gotten close to 6th level, I think that's a fine direction to go in.
12 levels, that should be the aim. Class abilities every 3 levels Subclass features every 3 levels ASI every 3 levels Casters split into all sort of progressions (full, half, one or two thirds, one or three quarters). Average spells cap at 6th level. And waaaay more space for high magic, legendary items and epic boons
While it's 10 levels of straight features and 10 more for Talents and Epic Boons (and less martial/caster progressions, but with Talents to compensate to make it your own), you pretty much just described the class philosophy of the DC20 system by The Dungeon Coach (currently in Beta and I'm totally going to run that).
Imagine the change in this discussion if at 6th level, Hunter's Mark no longer uses your concentration. I agree, the issue is design. And the design team missed the mark. To bad they aren't Rangers irl.
I think the claims that Hunters Mark invalidates Spell Casting is a bit disingenuous. You can still cast spells, just not concentration spells. I haven't seen the updated spell list, but this may or may not be significantly impactful for Rangers. Comparatively to Rage, I think the Ranger comes out ahead as the Barbarian is so limited on rage as a resource compared to the number of spell slots a hunter has. I will agree that it seems like the architecture of linking so much of the Ranger features to Hunters Mark does seem a little counter intuitive given the design goals. But I'll wait to see it on the table before making up my mind. And I say this as a person who in the last 5 years has played in two campaigns up to 20 and ran 3 up to 20 (currently running two more tables on long campaigns that will hit 20). High level features are impactful to my tables. If I were running a table not under organized play rules, I'd be tempted to remove the concentration requirement of Hunters Mark, but I'd also remove the requirement to sacrifice advantage on Brutal Strikes and just make it once per turn.
My brother and friends we love 5e and cyberpunk systems and we most of the things that we dont like in a rule we changed for example for the new ranger we did make HM not use concentration (lvl13th) but at the same time my brother thinks ranger looks a class to multiclass out of it at lvl 5 😂 (the new lvl 1 2 spells for ranger helps on that)
I am still convinced more games would go to higher level if wizards cared more for balance. They have touched up some of the whacky spells. But just the existance of wall of force in its' current form makes it almost impossible to play high level stuff without homebrew. Past level 9, you cannot have a boss monster that doesn't have a counter to wall of force (assuming the party has a wizard that knows what he is doing). I think that is why many campaigns end around that point, because balance goes so far out the window, that the DM basically has to homebrew all the monsters.
Everyone acting like if your not casting HM every time it expires in combat then your 100% not playing it right. Well you can only cast it like twice a long rest at level 1 I think? So I feel like they intended this to be 'Ranger's Bardic Inspiration" something you'll be known for spamming but everyone knows it can't be infinite. So maybe we try treating it as like Favored Enemy procing at will stead of 'literally everything about class revolves around this being active at all times"
I would argue the following: Foe Slayer (the new Ranger capstone) is a mechanical design issue like brutal critical was. The new ranger’s 13th and 17th level features are NOT a mechanical design issue, they’re a psychological design issue. Why? Because a half-caster would not otherwise get any features at 13 and 17; that’s when you get 4th and 5th level spells. The features might be bad, but they *are* free real estate. The issue here is psychological, in that it is significantly more offensive to receive a gift you deem bad than it is to not receive a gift at all, even if it’s free.
The folks targeting the ranger more than likely have never played the class, let alone at high levels. I have played a lvl 15 Shadar Kai Horizon Walker in a one shot and became the AC tank alongside a Zealot barbarian damage magnet. My dpr was higher and more consistent than the lvl 15 spell casters and second only to the paladins in the group. That was with the concentration handicap of the 2014/Tasha’s version. What they did with the 2024 version of the ranger is take away some of the concentration handicaps in the spell list while leaving the sub classes relatively unchanged, so the damage scaling is still on par with and in some cases better than the Paladin, which historically was always the case.
Probably going to change hunters mark so it doesn't require bonus actions to select a new target or so you can use the same bonus action on abilities from feats and subclasses. And instead of you can't drop concentration from damage it doesn't require concentration anymore
If you let a Hunter Ranger do +1 damage per level to a specific type of enemy is it really that unbalancing? This is the way it was in 1st Edition and I don't see it as too crazy. You choose giants (an example) as your chosen enemy, and at 3rd level you start doing +1 per level. +10 damage to giants and only giants at 10th level doesn't seem unreasonable. Even letting the player change enemy type at a later level doesn't seem unbalanced to me. It seems so simple an answer. Let the Beastmaster have an animal that can attack on it's own. It shouldn't take a full action to command an animal and it doesn't seem any worse than smiting. For that matter let the Beastmaster beast gain advantage against the ranger's chosen enemy type. The beast gets the sense that this type of enemy really upsets the ranger in some way and becomes more ferocious. These little tweaks don't seem that unbalancing to me.
Not hardly. I’ve had conversations with DMs who have seen me play the Tasha’s ranger in several one shots. They asked my if they should drop concentration on HM or scale the damage by spell slot. My only question was “do you want a ranged smiter that has another set of damage dice built into their sub classes that can be stacked with hail of thorns or lightning arrow? Oh, and the damage is all force or in some cases psychic damage?”
Why do you think the kept the ranger? It has sucked for 10+ years. It seems like the worst part if the worst venn diagram. What class would you replace it with? Seems to me it is here just because 11 classes would be weird?
I've gotten to where you start talking about Brutal Strike, and I just have to stop and express my frustrations with your phrasing, because it undercuts your point by being straight up false. At the least egregious you said "half your abilities rely on Hunter's Mark". That is a lie. 2024 Rangers get 13 base class features and between 4 and 6 subclass abilities. The Hunter for example has 5 subclass abilities, for a total of 18 abilities. They also have the most Hunter's Mark abilities coming in at a grand total of six hunter's mark abilities. That is 1/3rd of their abilities. For something like the Gloomstalker who has 19 abilities and only gets 4 Hunter's Mark abilities, that is closer to 1/5. And that is ignoring the fact that you get four feats and an Epic Boon. Counting those you go up to 23 abilities and 24 abilities, changing them to about 1/4 and 1/6 your total abilities. Now, you can argue about whether or not that is better, but it is demonstrably not the only thing the Ranger has. And while I know the point of the video is that late game doesn't excuse it, and I won't excuse the capstone... I think I can excuse some of the others. The level 1 ability gives you Hunter's Mark for free, and a few free castings of it. Is that truly more class defining than spellcasting, weapon mastery, martial weapons, and medium armor + shields? At level 2 you get expertise, bonus languages, and a fighting style. Level three if you play a hunter you have a choice between two different bonuses in one ability (arguably, you have two abilities here) and you get a bonus for using Hunter's Mark... But is Hunter's Mark defining you? It is one spell out of five that you have, with a few free castings and a bonus information gathering if you use it. Meanwhile your choice of dual-wielding or a bow gives you masteries, fighting styles, and maybe you begin taking feats to work with these. Sure, technically I have two abilities devoted to Hunter's Mark, but that is casting Hunter's Mark and getting extra information. Meanwhile I have four abilities related to using weapons and five different skills at a minimum. And none of this covers the species abilities! All with the absolute highest number of Hunter's Mark abilities you can get by level 3. Yes, it feels bad that the Capstone sucks. Yes, it would be nice to have a way to get rid of concentration by the higher levels of the class. But sit down, build a 13th or 14th level ranger, and just count how many abilities and options you have. Are half of them REALLY just hunter's mark? No. The class wasn't designed around Hunter's Mark any more than the Barbarian was designed around unarmored defense. They have it, it's nice, but you can easily not use it and not feel that bad about that fact.
I still think that you make a fundemental mistake in your analysis when you try to separate "design" from "power". They are tied to each other. You cant talk one without talking about the other and trying to separate them is an act of futility. A design that is fundementally flawed BUT compensates with a high power level will still be seen as a perfectly good choice. And I do think discussing if a feature is BAD is fundemental to the question of whether someone will stick to a class or not. You want to focus so narrowly that you lose all context. Its the same issue you had with Templates for Wild Shapes. There was a core idea, lets use templates for wild shapes. Then there was the DESIGN which was here are how the templates would work. Then there was the power, ie numbers associated with the feature, such as HP, AC, etc. You thought the design was in the template idea and that isnt true, the design was how they structured the template. And it failed miserably because the a. the structure of the template was trash and b. the POWER of the templates were trash. You could tweak the numbers and that might have alleviated the concern for some, but not all cause again the structure was trash. What you really wanted was for people to give the IDEA/Core Concept of using Templates a second shot. Of course, that was also panned, but you confused the idea with the design in your defense of them. As for whatever Jeremy says, I believe very very little of it. His goal with some of the classes was in his words, not mess them up...then proceeded to mess them up, looking at you Paladin and they came REAL close to screwing up the Rogue as well the Class they SAID was the MOST satisfied among the player base. I realize you are invested in trying to silo every discussion between design and power, but I just dont think that is possible. I think one can compensate for the weakness of the other or be dragged down by the other. I think its better to consider both these elements when making evaluations because if you want a feature to work a certain way, I can understand thinking you need to balance the power output, or if you want to be very powerful, that might constrain your design space in how the feature actually works. And the 2024 Ranger is trash not because the main classes features center around Hunter's Mark but because of how lackluster the spell is for this Class at base and the so called improvements are terribly underpowered. Giving them a d10 at level 20 rather than a d6 is a power issue. It could have worked if they scaled the damage over time like most cantrips, then at lvl 20 give them 5 d6 extra damage per hit...THAT might be worth using at that level.
Alright, on second thought, I'll bite. Full disclosure, I only read until "perfectly good choice" because those few sentences were so wild, I just don't think I could take any more. Asserting that because two things are linked that they can't be discussed independently is, frankly, crazy. Wealth and happiness are often linked but you can certainly have one without the other. High happiness does not guarantee wealth and, likewise, high wealth does not guarantee happiness either. Though either can certainly contribute to the other. Even in the context of D&D, this is a very easily disproved claim. If Hunter's Mark did 100d10 damage, it would be an extremely powerful spell and it would make the Ranger class features "better" as far as power is concerned. However, that does *not* necessarily mean the design is "good". The player is still being largely funneled toward a particular play style at the expense of others because it's how the class is designed. If anything, it makes the design "worse" since it "compensates" for poor design by saying "at least you're gonna wreck everything". Similarly, if it did like 1 damage every time, it would be massively underpowered *and* would still be a bad design for all the same reasons as above, except now you don't get any reward for the bad design at all. Finally, if it was perfectly and appropriately damaged that's great. It means that the spell is doing what it is supposed to do. However, the player is still being pushed toward a play style because of the *design* of the class since this version functionally eliminates the quality of the spell from the equation. Design and power are linked, you are absolutely correct about that but they certainly do not have a direct and positive correlation which you seem to think they do. If your idea of "good design" is simply having incredibly powerful options available at any given time that functionally eliminates any challenge and disregards the rest of the game then... sure... that's definitely a choice. But you'll be hard pressed to find many that consider that to be "good design". Again, because they are separable. An appropriate power level can absolutely contribute to a good design, but it does not define it. Honestly, the fact that you don't see how these can be discussed independently of one another explains so much of your comments over the last two years.
@@InsightCheck And as I said, both things being tied and discussed as a whole covers the case you mention…but when silod you fall into the trap of focusing too much on one over the other. Look I get what you are trying to say, but by leaving out the power as part of the totality, it’s only half the story. Ok how about this…left say the design is both how the feature work and the power. Does that make it easier to get my pt…and I absolutely think that how a thing works or how powerful it is can lead one to think the whole is a good or poor design…possibly hiding the weakness of either piece. I would also say that on base level, I don’t know if a class being design to funnel to a particular playstyle is bad design. It could be a niche option, but that do3snt make it bad, esp if the way it does it really supports the underlining themes. Yes some classes are going to be very very open style, but having some that are more focused isn’t terrible. The ranger isn’t a poor design because hunters mark is the focal ability, it’s terrible cause it’s an underpowered and underwhelming spell that doesn’t scale well at all…if they wanted to center the class around it they could have done sooooo much more with it. In my career I see this simplification all the time, people only considering one piece in what they are evaluating but that doesn’t lead to a good assessment if we want to really judge a thing. If you are not considering the power as well the how then I don’t think you are talking about the design, just an element of it.
I think the fundamental problem is this sentence: "A design that is fundementally flawed BUT compensates with a high power level will still be seen as a perfectly good choice." Seen as a perfectly good choice by who? Not fellow designers as it is they who acknowledge the design _is_ flawed, lol. No amount of "power" will make a flawed idea be any less than flawed. A flawed system that works despite its flaws, is still a flawed system. What profession are you in which using obviously flawed systems, which work counter to the design _intent_ of the system to be "good" in your experience? The 2024 Ranger's main class features center around Hunter's Mark forcing the player to focus on the Hunter's Mark at the expense of their sub-class abilities or ignore Hunter's Mark in favour of their sub-class. If the player focuses on their sub-class over Hunter's Mark, then those abilities are _useless_ to them. Remember, the entire objective of class abilities is to increase the options the player has, not to limit them. As you said, they could have made Hunter's Mark scale like a cantrip, increasing its effectiveness at higher levels while freeing the designers to give the Ranger additional abilities, which provide synergy with the Ranger concept, at higher levels. Thereby increasing the options the player has instead of narrowing them down. You have an entire section regarding Wild Shape Templates. "Its the same issue you had with Templates for Wild Shapes. There was a core idea, lets use templates for wild shapes. Then there was the DESIGN which was here are how the templates would work. Then there was the power, ie numbers associated with the feature, such as HP, AC, etc. You thought the design was in the template idea and that isnt true, the design was how they structured the template. And it failed miserably because the a. the structure of the template was trash and b. the POWER of the templates were trash. You could tweak the numbers and that might have alleviated the concern for some, but not all cause again the structure was trash. What you really wanted was for people to give the IDEA/Core Concept of using Templates a second shot. Of course, that was also panned, but you confused the idea with the design in your defense of them." I don't recall exactly what Insight Check said about them. However, the _concept_ of using templates is a great idea. I agree the execution was poor and the power for higher levels was entirely missing. But that doesn't mean providing players with easy to access, easy to understand templates, as a concept, was bad. All WotC needed to do was fix the _layout_ of the templates and increase their power at higher levels... but, nope. The surveys came in and most people weren't happy, so they dropped the concept of templates entirely. So... where do you make the case that the idea of templates shouldn't have been revisited? I don't see it. I just you accusing a person of... something that has no bearing on the points you bring up. TL;DR The function of a feature isn't the same as the power of the feature. While the two are connected, they can be viewed independently of each other. When a feature functions poorly, then no amount of power will make it function properly. The power might mask the issues, but it doesn't absolve the feature's poor functions.
@aralornwolf3140 you have no idea of the joy that this comment brings me lol. Sincerely, thank you. As for Wild Shape templates, I essentially said exactly what you did. The idea and concept of them were great but the execution was very poor which caused people to toss out the entire idea because they were bad… which they were. A quote I said in that video was “power is so easy to tweak when it’s couched in the right design” and that was absolutely the case of Wild Shape Templates. The design was intuitive, simple and met their stated goals for what they were trying to accomplish, but the execution was just bad. Anyway, thank you for understanding that two linked things can still be discussed independently. I fear for his coworkers if he thinks that the best way to analyze something is by either its totality or only the things he finds important. I never say power isn’t important in my videos, it’s just not what I choose to focus on.
… yes? I’m not sure how I gave the impression that I said it was about balance. I even explicitly said multiple times how it’s not a question of power but rather game design. It’s just about how the late game features that are often never used still have much more of an influence than most would expect.
Yes, but for some reason, only casters get at least somethat epic features at higher levels. And martial classes get either boring, or straight up bad things.
I know you are saying this in relation to character features, and in relation to that, i agree. But in relation to challenges the characters face i disagree, i don't think it is epic to squash Vecna( a God) in one turn. Treantmonk has a video detailing this. But i don't put the blame on the class features, i put it on the game support( monsters stats maybe?), demon lords, ancient dragons and what we consider the apex of monsters aren't good challenges for this tier of game.
![เจ็บที่ยังฮัก - ม่อน วรวิทย์ [ Official Mv ] จอนนี่มิวสิค](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KALIGSRSjFs/mqdefault.jpg)
Its crazy to think that if they just put the Ranger in UA one more time they would have got it right. Because thats what happened with Barbarian, Rogue & Monk. It really just needed one more UA.
They simple answer is they probably panicked when the first UA Ranger was overperforming, which reinforced their belief that HM (and by extension Hex) are too strong to be concentration free. This caused them to ignore the fact that this was only an issue at early levels and other classes would eventually catch up so all they really needed to do was delay at what point HM became concentration free so it fit with the other classes power bumps.
@@M9Seradon i feel the class will perform pretty good. I have not ran the math or anything but i bet it will scale good into late game. I dont think the class is weak its just… well, lame. And that capstone makes me laugh every time I remember it.
Weird to mention 4e, cause the players had 30 levels in it.
On top of that is the one system that I had multiple 30-level campaigns.
1:24 I would love another dedicated video ripping into the Ranger lol.
LOL
Mfw their design decision for 5.5e was "let’s delete 70% of ranger core feature and copy paste tashas’ one. Make sure they are at a higher level tho! Ranger will be too strong otherwise.." poor man’s rogue, poor man’s druid, now can’t even go 'oh right i have this feature!" In the niche moment where it worked (it always feels better to have more ability in the back pocket especially FLAVOR wise. Yes flavor is free but there will always be a difference between using a feature and using a skill check.) Now the class gotta focus on sneak attack jobless cousin...
They shouldn’t have removed any feature and instead leaned more into a supportish class, ccing enemies instead of trying to compete for damage (or just give it ranger invocation.)
I hadn't realised how unimaginative and uninspiring the 20th level abilities are in 5e.
The idea of late-level abilities being aspirational does make a lot of sense, and WOTC seems to have leaned into it with the martial characters, particularly Barbarian, Monk, and Rogue, adding a lot of later level abilities that sound really powerful, fun, or both. The ones that seem to struggle now with not having a lot of late-level abilities to look forward to are the half-casters. The philosophy seems to be that after the first few levels, the prospect of higher level spells will be enough of an incentive to keep going with Ranger or Paladin, ignoring the fact that if higher level spells were enough of a draw, both classes could do it better by multiclassing into one of the full casters.
You go over Ranger pretty thoroughly, but similar questions can be posed regarding Paladin. After level 6, when you pick up Aura of Protection, what awesome things do the Paladin players really have to look forward to if they stick with Paladin, beyond spell levels? Abjure Foes is cool, but is it worth spending 3 additional levels to get it when you could potentially supercharge your power by putting those levels into Bard, Sorcerer, or Warlock instead? Is it worth it to stick to Oath of Vengeance for another 9 levels to pick up two subclass abilities that combine to basically form the Sentinel feat? If you really love the idea of being a stalwart knight riding a pegasus, why wait until level 13 to be able to upcast Find Steed high enough to summon one when you can do it 3-4 levels earlier by switching to Sorcerer after level 5 or 6? Especially if the campaign is unlikely to go past level 10, because in that situation the Sorcadin will get their flying mount, but the single-class Paladin will not.
I am honestly surprised it even occured to them to center a class around a spell with concentration. We have seen in the past that subclasses giving you a spell that is 1 hour duration with concentration has the option to cast it with 1 minute duration no concentration. I was sure they understood this idea, that if a spell is central to a class, it shouldn't require concentration because it locks you out of so many other spells. So I am baffled on that one.
If you cast Hunter’s Mark with a third level or higher spell slot you should be able to do it without concentration. I think that’d smooth things over a lot.
Except for the beastmaster, drakewarden and horizon walker who all will do more damage or equivalent by never using hunters mark because bonus actions
@@booklover4078that’s just wrong since new beastmaster can hat additional damage form both the pet and your own attacks and can sacrifice one of your attacks to command your beast to set it up while applying hunters mark
@thomasquesada7248 your beast get 1d6 extra plus it is off wisdom it is most likely lower then your own attacks. So at best hm does 3d6 for you or 10.5 damage with to hit modifiers, but most often the difference will just be that instead of your 2nd attack gets the HM your pet will. Meanwhile your attack you are giving up is what based on a d8 plus like 4 assuming you are also keeping up with wisdom for your pet. So that is 8.5. And we haven't even factored in any concentration spells you could use instead and the difference is only 1.5 to 2.5 without calculating to hit chance. But most often you are beating your HM damage by not casting it because your 8.5 or 9.5 is better then the 7 HM can give you with 1 attack from you and the 1d6 your pet gets. And if you all gang up on enemies they aren't gonna last long enough for you to get your 2nd attack to make HM worth it.
And here we haven't gone into anything else you could use your concentration on this have only been about the bonus action.
This is why I will run my campaign with heavily modified HM so it is less BA dependent.
I'm not exaggerating. I have no idea what any class abilities are past level 9 or 10. Been playing for 40 years.
I fully respect this lol
WotC really missed an opportunity by not giving Ranger archetype features the way they did with Cleric and Druid.
Choose between
1. Archer: Hunters Mark buffed
2. Melee: Heavy armour and temp HP
3. Caster: bonus action invisibility to help with concentration
4. Support. Cleric heavy options in its spell list, reaction abilities to save allies from dangerous situations. Hell I would straight up transfer some Mastermind features like ranged Help, but as a reaction. I've always felt that Rangers should have a subclass that focuses much more heavily on back line support than burst damage. Extra attack and d10 die makes them pretty reliable for sustained damage on the backline at base and a support heavy class fits right in there, standing near to protect any wizard or sorcerer directly if appropriate or middle line for the front line characters.
The bg3 ranger feels really awesome at level 1 largely because you get a nice flavorful decision for features similar to what you described.
-
Most of the bg3 changes are for the better honestly (ignoring the ones that straight up don’t work outside a computer game)
@@wavecycle rangers wearing heavy armor is the oath of ancients Paladin and rangers already have invisibility without concentration that lasts until their next turn.
Late Ranger isn't the only problem. 80% of the features monks get after 10th level are either ribbon abilities or they're copies of spells that full casters get at level 3.
The "aspirational" argument is just proof that the game is poorly designed. If half the levels on the class chart are never meant to be used then you've wasted design time and resources. Either redesign the game so all the features are squeezed into the ten levels the game is meant to see play at, or redesign the game so that XP and level progress allow players to reach the level cap.
I agree with you. Features that are reliant on taking a particular spell force a certain style of play and the choices you make during play if you want any benefit from these features. The concentration complaint I keep seeing is not the issue IMO. Not making Hunters Mark concentration and allowing it to stack with other spells would probably be too powerful . Features that only function when combined with a certain spell is an issue.
Yeah I’m totally with you on this. You’re very heavily pushed toward one style of play if you want to be able to actually utilize features.
if it's going to be required to get the most out of a class, it should be modified so that it doesn't interfere with your play style. they understood this with warlocks, giving you a lot more flexibility and allowing you to apply eldritch invocations to more than just eldritch blast. going back on this to this extent with ranger isn't bizarre because I think it's necessarily terrible (Tasha's ranger is pretty good actually imo) but because it doesn't match any of the design ethos they've been discussing for months for this update
My only issue with UA Expert class Ranger was Concentration free Hunter's Mark was too good of a 1 level dip
I'm just glad Rangers can swap one leveled spell every long rest,
but I'm Really Really glad that the HALF CASTER no longer has LESS SPELLS than the Third Casters, who ALSO get Cantrips.
Also Hail of Thorns and Lightning Arrow not requiring concentration is rad, and more Expertise than just one is cool too.
Also Weapon Mastery and 30ft Blindsight, instead of the 10ft they had.
Spellcasting at first level is also cool.
@@TonyFunsuiYou forgot Ritual Casting. Granted, Ritual Casting is available to everyone, Ranger's have a lot of variety. 😊
When I get my chance to rewrite D&D (it’s aspirational), I intend to lean hard into the Tiers of Play concept.
Whether a caster or martial…
Levels 1-5: At this level, you are probably working for your village elder and facing nothing more dangerous than a few cocaine bears.
6-10: Around this level, you graduate to defending your kingdom. You probably have been recruited by a noble. Your class features make you able to function as an army unit or special forces.
11-15: At this level you are probably working for a divine being and defending your world. This is the tier at which your party could stomp the average army and you face ancient world ending prophecies.
16-20: Now you are likely the champions of a pantheon, and regularly fight titans, travel planes, and face threats to entire realms. You likely have an HQ in Sigil.
As a long time DM, this is kind of how I build campaigns. Having experience playing and DMing high level, this mind set is very good. Here is to your aspirations.🎉
This is something I was experiencing, but wasn't putting into words
I really struggled to put this script into words, it took me months to write it, like I mentioned. It’s been a thought that I’ve had for a long time but getting down was challenging.
@@InsightCheck you're completely correct on capstone abilities having a strong influence on a player's choices when building a character. ( I wrote a much longer reply but it cleared before I posted and so I am left defeated.)
The feel and the atmosphere of having something like that to look forward to can make the appreciation of current play even greater. When that capstone is lackluster or an.. *cough ranger* undesirable play style, that can really affect your perception on the class as a whole.
Also, epic boons and the improved 10+ level features have me convinced that high level play will be enjoyed more often in the future. This makes bad progression and capstones in this range even more drastic in their affect.@@InsightCheck
@bladeRoller Absolutely! This is completely spot on and exactly what I spent so long trying to formulate into words lol!
Hot take… Class lanes are horrible RPG design to begin with. If I’m 6th level, I want access to 6th level features regardless of class. If all the ingredients crucial to my character concept always being 5+ levels deep into some other stupid class. There are not enough crossover subclasses to cover all fantasies, and sometimes the crossover subclasses make the problem/want for deep features even more scattered and out of reach.
Feat versatility is good. Multiclass requirements are bad. Combined spell slot progression is good. Spell preparation limited by class depth instead of slot level is bad. Cantrip scaling by character level is good. Extra Attack not arriving at 5 levels of any martial is bad.
The only good class laned features are resources and dice that scale all the way from zero to 20 at extremely regular interval, instead of being a randomized isolated super power at a randomly shuffled level. Stuff like sneak attack, sorcery points, spell slots, and ki points. The reward for committing depth is simple correlation on one big feature, not a whole bunch of random stuff you’d wish you could cherry pick under s different character concept.
Fundamentally, it’s “you get to play a premade template” game design instead of “you can build any character with total conceptual freedom, and the power level will balance according to character level regardless of how you slice it” game design
The game tells us, if your desired set of tools and mechanics dont fit the prebuilt classes, it isnt valid.
People craft snd optimize multiclass builds because problem/constraint solving can be addictive and fun, not because class based restrictions are the better RPG design. Class based constraint solving is a metagame, a puzzle game, not an RPG game.
🥳🫂👍🏿
We’ve been treating Hunters Mark like Smite lately - if you hit, sac a spell slot to generate the effect that is not a spell and does not require concentration - of course now I have to say I’m referencing the 5e smite, not the 5.5 one 🤦🏿♀️
That’s kind of an interesting take, not sure I’ve come across that before.
@@InsightCheck many thanks - it’s been working out great and they get an extra dice against favored enemies, so you actually get a combat benefit from that choice - also been tooling around with expending additional spell slots / spending damage dice to gain additional effects, similar to cunning strike - can’t report on the results yet tho - I’ll let you know
Wisdom save proficiency is even worth spending a Feat on. It's an absolutely worthwhile class feature.
Some interesting opservations:
The two high level hunters mark ranger festures were dead levels before so rangers got 2 extra class features that are dependent on a first level spell.
Another is that the adventure says it is 10-20 but I understand it to be that the end of the adventure is 20th level but that is bacause you are just asked to level your character to that point during the last act of the adventure in addition I have seen nothing but scorn from people who have tried it saying that it is barely functional and that too few things sre accounted for.
I hope WotC will produce some high quality adventures for high levels but Vecna eye of ruin is not it son. And as is the case with capitalism the chance of them trying again when eve of ruin gets bad reviews and probably isnt that bought is low.
Oh the hubris of saying the Ranger did not need a 3rd pass. I have some plans for house rules to make Hunter's Mark work. My 3rd level fix would be 1) verbal is option for Ranger & 2) 1 per turn during Ranger's Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction the Ranger can cast Hunter's Mark for free or change Hunter's Mark Target. Next fix I need the new rules to figure what level that pain point is but Hunter's Mark can be maintained with a second Ranger spell needing Concentration. Not sure what else a Ranger might need beyond maybe Extra Attack (2) at some much higher level
I am considering giving the effect of circlet of concentration to the animal companion of a beast master at a certain point (was planning when they reach lvl 10). That way the companion feels more relevant and the ranger isn’t as limited.
This is easily the one of my favorite videos you've ever put out. No idea if it will do well, but THIS is what im here for. Thank you for making thoughtful content that actually adds to the conversation around our favorite imagination game.
This actually means so much to me, thank you for this! This video is one that I’m most proud of too and is exactly the kind of discussions I made this channel to have. As far as TH-cam goes, no, it’s not performing all that well but I’m still super happy to have got it out because I find it such a fascinating topic!
Thanks again :)
Curious to me that the 2024 book has features for clerics and druids to focus on either spellcasting or fighting, ostensibly to avoid pigeonholing the players into one specific route of play. And then, the ranger has multiple features requiring the use of Hunter’s Mark. I wonder why the two different design philosophies?
Only the hunter sub class really relies on HM. The other sub classes don’t have that crunch until higher levels. Fey wanderer has conjure Fey for no concentration so a lot of the complaints are coming from players who don’t really play the class IMO. As a player, I play the Tasha’s version of class and enjoy it. I like what they did with it for 2024 and the spell list…. That to me makes all of the difference.
@@syvajarvi2289 Very true, but I still think it's curious that they have features at all, even later level ones, that rely on something so specific as a single spell. Given that the druids and clerics were given those features that let you pick two different playstyle options, I would've expected the Ranger to maybe get something similar just for consistency. Maybe a feature that would let you focus on spellcasting (like HM upgrades as you reach higher levels) or on weaponry
@@daneroberts1996 The reliance on HM actually saves a 4th lvl spell slot that I, and other Ranger players, would otherwise use for guardians of nature once advantage is gained at lvl 17. I see this as a win except fighting a creature with magic immunity….. then I still have to use that 4th lvl spell slot to buff myself, even then it’s rare that Rakastas and other creatures with limited spell immunity show up unless it’s a home brewed campaign.
Interesting topic for ttrpg theory crafting.
When I start a new PC for, say Living Arcanis which has lots of flavor that is specific to the setting, I never look at the end point. I usually have a 5 level build in mind, but I always leave room for character development related to the adventures. Almost never does my build continue along the path I initially plotted.
I grew up in southwest Michigan and am now of an age when I can say I'm of an age where I remember the Old Hats who made this hobby possible. Those grognards, fatbeards, the one woman who paved the way for all the other women today, those folks played PCs beyond what the AD&D DMG levels. In that edition there were rules for continuing beyond what TSR published. There was once a time when there weren't so many options, bells and whistles for D&D. So we would grab rules from any system we came across, throw it into the box of rules we called D&D and just played.
Aspirational. I do not think that word means what they think is does. Aspirational should not let me know 20 levels exist, but INSPIRE me to attain those levels. I often feel many gaming geeks would have benefited from organized team sports for nerds and give the REAL team coaching so they can understand what it means to aspire to improve and be better today than you were yesterday.
My biggest issue with any the Ranger in any edition is: Why is there a Ranger class at all?
With the declaration of WotC to in essence abandon the ttrpg portion of their player base and focus on the online transaction based gaming the high level play will become more appealing because an AI can do all the number crunching and track all the conditionals. The issue with high level play in D&D is that it becomes a super hero game and that's not what D&D players want to play.
You continue to create good theory craft and I appreciate your time and effort.
One other thing the high-level features do, that is generally harder to deal with: Limit homebrewers' design space while creating a framework for power levels. Where I see this the strongest is Knowledge domain Cleric's Level 17 feature, Visions of the Past, giving you two options I know from a Vampire: the Masquerade themed larp as Genius Rei (Object reading) and Genius Loci (Area Reading). Those features are very cool, useful and allow for a rather deep roleplaying and engagement with the world - but they are locked behind a single subclass at Level 17. They'd make a very nice feature for about Level 10 that would play really well (after all, they behave similarly as the Commune spell group and have wider, but far shallower utility than Legend Lore, all Level 5 spells). But this way, it feels _wrong_ to give those (or highly similar) features to your other character options (I can see them be a thing with Auramancer Sorcerer or similar subclasses to use), especially if you were to use them at the point they would actually be useful (which is high Tier 2 to low Tier 3 play, not at the demigod level).
I think you're correct.
Except you made it sound like most people multiclass. Is that true for you? Most people I know don't multiclass, pretty much ever. I personally think it's lame. Some people see classes as just bundles of features arbitrarily stitched together and so maybe you have to multiclass to get all the ones you want for this perfectly sculpted character, but some people see classes as the very thing they're playing, like it's something real in-universe, and it breaks their immersion to be like, "I'm a drow ranger, my friend here is a halfling sorcerer, and that girl over there is a...variant human barbarian dipping into fighter and...I think she's getting something else later depending on what magic item you give us as a reward for saving the princess!"
I remember when multiclassing was the exception, not the norm. It's the computer game influence is my theory.
For clarity, I never meant to suggest that “most people multiclass” but rather that it is a common option for many that are also looking to optimize for power. No character I have ever made has been a multiclass and in my party only 1 of my players has done it.
@@InsightCheck Oh wow, I wasn't expecting that. I guess I just misunderstood. My mistake.
@Malumultimus no mistake, you’re good :) I can totally see how that could have come across!
I believe the idea for something like the Ranger was expressed by Crawford when he was discussing Fighting Styles for 5.5E originally, and that idea was to have simple but still effective things to do for a player who isn't into optimizing and multiclassing so they don't feel like they're a drag compared to a player that does. A fine enough goal, to be sure, but I'll also fully admit that they pretty much failed to do that with Ranger, especially with Hunter's Mark never becoming concentrationless (like not even for a number of times equal to your proficiency modifier).
My group's last campaign went up to 16th level, and our current campaign is now level 13, and will likely end around 16 also.
I feel like I'm going to have to homebrew the high level features for both our Ranger and Barbarian... Though maybe they'll change their mind and start using Reckless Attacks with the new rules (they basically never do now).
This is always such a weird conversation to me. I love going late level. I played a game that went all the way to Level 20. I can't stress how much the upper levels are easy to scale when you are defeating bigger and bigger baddies. You level up fast, and things get crazy fast. Upper level play isn't the best balanced, but it is fun, and it isn't too hard to get there.
First and foremost, I think you have some amazing insight and make some very strong points. I've long held the belief that Official DnD content should be capped at either level 12 (6th level spells) or level 14 (7th level spells). The reasons are many:
1) By their own metrics, this is the range where the majority of their content is actually used. There's no shame in shortening the "expected" experience threshold; and then providing additional snippets for an "extended" threshold from 12/14 to 20.
2) By doing so, I feel they could better balance the power gains so they aren't so front loaded. There's nothing wrong with multi-classing; but there also shouldn't be anything wrong with playing a monolithic class. They should be much more closer in power at most levels of play.
3) It does away with some of the most overpowered spells in the game, which in fact mostly serve a counter purpose. Many of the spells make it extremely difficult to balance high end play; and let's be honest: simply saying "x spell is banned" is horrible for ALL involved.
Unrelated, but I do feel multiclassing should be changed up a bit as well. For instance, if they designed ALL features to be handed out at exactly the same levels, then it becomes more of a kiss/curse. You choose which class's features you take, and which ones you leave behind. You should also be able to multiclass into the same classes subclasses. For instance, is it more believable that my wizard found religion and can now wield a shield and medium armor; or that my swashbuckler rogue has started to dip their toes into assassination rogue?
Cheers!
I've played more 5e at high levels - 10-20 - than at any other lvls. Playing online with rotating DMs in a shared setting was how i've played and since it was during the pandemic and I needed something to quiet my anxiety I've played many times per week, sometimes more than once per day, so I've got to lvl 20 pretty fast and stayed there for some time. D&D works pretty fine if you close a couple of infinite loopholes like coffeelock (that's not even RAW) and Simulacrum/Wish (that's for sure not RAI). It does require more experienced DMs specially because you can't rely too heavily on the officially published monsters except for minions though.
I would make the features get larger the farther you go into the class, like rogue getting 2 dice of sneak attack after 10th level. Your 20th level capstone should be amazing. You should never think : "why bother? I'll just multi and get a level of x instead."
100% yes! If you put 20 lvls worth of features you need to make them good and wanted. Multi classing is optional for the table and the player decision.
I multi class for abilities that are fun or interesting fyi so i might not understand fully for the power of ranger dps. But lvl 20 features shouldnt be like +4 STR and CON OR your lvl 1 spell now deals 1d10 instead of 1d6. These are not at all compatible like how are these in the same book?!
I care because even if you never get to level 20 you should WANT TO?!
I feel this in my bones haha!
It might have been an interesting redesign of D&D to have it so there are rules for playing levels 1-20, but each class only has 10 levels. So, in the more common level 1-10 campaigns, you could multi-class, or you could play your chosen class to its full potential, but for campaigns going beyond level 10, you *have* to multi-class in some way.
I think it provides an intriguing idea because then it's necessary to streamline the design of the classes so there are no dead levels, there's a different incentive in balancing abilities between classes because the game would get designed with multiclassing in mind, and reaching the pinnacle of a particular class's power becomes a real consideration instead of more of a nebulous aspiration.
So here's the thing about Rage, it's a custom resource. Same with Bardic Inspiration. They did give rangers one unique interaction with a resource: exhaustion. What if Rangers had power ups associated with having and spending exhaustion? How would that work, I'm not sure. But if Rangers could inflict exhaustion and/or gain and then wipe it away on themselves then they would be tireless as a core identity.
Ive been in one campaign that went to 20 and a little beyond, though to make it more interesting, we tacked on stuff from the game Godbound and stuff from The Immortals Handbook
I really don't understand people complaining about high levels, it's an option that's out there, it's strictly better than having no such option
It sounds like you’ve misinterpreted the intent of the video. This is, in no way, a video “complaining” about high levels. It’s a discussion about the influence that incredibly rarely used features actually still have on the game.
@@InsightCheck no sorry my bad I don't think you are complaining, this video is solid but you kinda bring up people that complain about high level and I was thinking of them ^^
@Antimonium ahhh ok my mistake! Apologies :)
In that case, yes, I’m totally with you haha!
First... 20th level IS already a big pull back from Basic D&D where you could reach level 35, and then play as a god (immortal)...
2nd... If you want to play Tiers 3 and 4 all you need to is join the Adventuerer's league and get a PC in each tier.. plenty of servers exist...
3rd DMs guild and other sources offer many tier 3 and 4 modules.
4th... My fav level is 20! I love shapechange...So Much!
I truly don't understand the appeal of playing below level 3, nor why people wouldn't routinely go all the way to 20 ( again, already a blunting of the potential of the original game)
I played 1st and 2nd and BX. We barely made it past 3rd level. 😂But! We also had levels past 20! We could become Gods in early edition dnd.
I never understood why WotC never made an epic level handbook for 5e
It probably wouldn’t sell all that well. I would love it though!
there is some wonderful third party material if you're interested, I'm soon starting a campaign with a book called epic legacy where you have levels 21-30
I’m playing through it right now, and my gosh it’s fun! We’re level 23, and I’m enjoying it more than base 5e lol
They took the epic level choices from 3.5 and baked it into sub classes. I think there is room for prestige classes beyond lvl 20 for 5.5e but I’m not sure how they would progress it except for extraplanar god tier campaigns.
This isn't really a big shock, but a lot of newer ttrpgs are either being designed for short bursts of play or have level caps closer to 10 rather than 20. As someone who has never even gotten close to 6th level, I think that's a fine direction to go in.
12 levels, that should be the aim.
Class abilities every 3 levels
Subclass features every 3 levels
ASI every 3 levels
Casters split into all sort of progressions (full, half, one or two thirds, one or three quarters). Average spells cap at 6th level.
And waaaay more space for high magic, legendary items and epic boons
While it's 10 levels of straight features and 10 more for Talents and Epic Boons (and less martial/caster progressions, but with Talents to compensate to make it your own), you pretty much just described the class philosophy of the DC20 system by The Dungeon Coach (currently in Beta and I'm totally going to run that).
Imagine the change in this discussion if at 6th level, Hunter's Mark no longer uses your concentration. I agree, the issue is design. And the design team missed the mark. To bad they aren't Rangers irl.
I think the claims that Hunters Mark invalidates Spell Casting is a bit disingenuous. You can still cast spells, just not concentration spells. I haven't seen the updated spell list, but this may or may not be significantly impactful for Rangers. Comparatively to Rage, I think the Ranger comes out ahead as the Barbarian is so limited on rage as a resource compared to the number of spell slots a hunter has.
I will agree that it seems like the architecture of linking so much of the Ranger features to Hunters Mark does seem a little counter intuitive given the design goals. But I'll wait to see it on the table before making up my mind.
And I say this as a person who in the last 5 years has played in two campaigns up to 20 and ran 3 up to 20 (currently running two more tables on long campaigns that will hit 20). High level features are impactful to my tables.
If I were running a table not under organized play rules, I'd be tempted to remove the concentration requirement of Hunters Mark, but I'd also remove the requirement to sacrifice advantage on Brutal Strikes and just make it once per turn.
My brother and friends we love 5e and cyberpunk systems and we most of the things that we dont like in a rule we changed for example for the new ranger we did make HM not use concentration (lvl13th) but at the same time my brother thinks ranger looks a class to multiclass out of it at lvl 5 😂 (the new lvl 1 2 spells for ranger helps on that)
I am still convinced more games would go to higher level if wizards cared more for balance. They have touched up some of the whacky spells. But just the existance of wall of force in its' current form makes it almost impossible to play high level stuff without homebrew. Past level 9, you cannot have a boss monster that doesn't have a counter to wall of force (assuming the party has a wizard that knows what he is doing). I think that is why many campaigns end around that point, because balance goes so far out the window, that the DM basically has to homebrew all the monsters.
Hunter's Mark evolving is Ranger's identity.
But I tell you what, its about the journey, not destination.
Everyone acting like if your not casting HM every time it expires in combat then your 100% not playing it right. Well you can only cast it like twice a long rest at level 1 I think? So I feel like they intended this to be 'Ranger's Bardic Inspiration" something you'll be known for spamming but everyone knows it can't be infinite. So maybe we try treating it as like Favored Enemy procing at will stead of 'literally everything about class revolves around this being active at all times"
So that's why they didn't ditch Concentration on Hunter's Mark for the Ranger since the beginning.
It's because Ranger would then become the #1 multiclass to get extra damage plus some add'l 1st level spells.
@@fortunatus1 Warlock and Cleric still exist.
I would argue the following:
Foe Slayer (the new Ranger capstone) is a mechanical design issue like brutal critical was.
The new ranger’s 13th and 17th level features are NOT a mechanical design issue, they’re a psychological design issue.
Why? Because a half-caster would not otherwise get any features at 13 and 17; that’s when you get 4th and 5th level spells. The features might be bad, but they *are* free real estate. The issue here is psychological, in that it is significantly more offensive to receive a gift you deem bad than it is to not receive a gift at all, even if it’s free.
The folks targeting the ranger more than likely have never played the class, let alone at high levels. I have played a lvl 15 Shadar Kai Horizon Walker in a one shot and became the AC tank alongside a Zealot barbarian damage magnet. My dpr was higher and more consistent than the lvl 15 spell casters and second only to the paladins in the group. That was with the concentration handicap of the 2014/Tasha’s version.
What they did with the 2024 version of the ranger is take away some of the concentration handicaps in the spell list while leaving the sub classes relatively unchanged, so the damage scaling is still on par with and in some cases better than the Paladin, which historically was always the case.
Probably going to change hunters mark so it doesn't require bonus actions to select a new target or so you can use the same bonus action on abilities from feats and subclasses. And instead of you can't drop concentration from damage it doesn't require concentration anymore
Maybe DnD classes should only go up to level 10 but you can go up to level 30 or 40, you just have to multiclass after level 10.
This is why DC20 has such potential, we get class keystone abilities at level ten and even if you multi class you still will hit your keystone powers.
If you let a Hunter Ranger do +1 damage per level to a specific type of enemy is it really that unbalancing? This is the way it was in 1st Edition and I don't see it as too crazy. You choose giants (an example) as your chosen enemy, and at 3rd level you start doing +1 per level. +10 damage to giants and only giants at 10th level doesn't seem unreasonable. Even letting the player change enemy type at a later level doesn't seem unbalanced to me. It seems so simple an answer. Let the Beastmaster have an animal that can attack on it's own. It shouldn't take a full action to command an animal and it doesn't seem any worse than smiting. For that matter let the Beastmaster beast gain advantage against the ranger's chosen enemy type. The beast gets the sense that this type of enemy really upsets the ranger in some way and becomes more ferocious. These little tweaks don't seem that unbalancing to me.
New ranger bad grr
Not hardly. I’ve had conversations with DMs who have seen me play the Tasha’s ranger in several one shots. They asked my if they should drop concentration on HM or scale the damage by spell slot. My only question was “do you want a ranged smiter that has another set of damage dice built into their sub classes that can be stacked with hail of thorns or lightning arrow? Oh, and the damage is all force or in some cases psychic damage?”
Why do you think the kept the ranger? It has sucked for 10+ years. It seems like the worst part if the worst venn diagram. What class would you replace it with? Seems to me it is here just because 11 classes would be weird?
I've gotten to where you start talking about Brutal Strike, and I just have to stop and express my frustrations with your phrasing, because it undercuts your point by being straight up false. At the least egregious you said "half your abilities rely on Hunter's Mark". That is a lie.
2024 Rangers get 13 base class features and between 4 and 6 subclass abilities. The Hunter for example has 5 subclass abilities, for a total of 18 abilities. They also have the most Hunter's Mark abilities coming in at a grand total of six hunter's mark abilities. That is 1/3rd of their abilities. For something like the Gloomstalker who has 19 abilities and only gets 4 Hunter's Mark abilities, that is closer to 1/5. And that is ignoring the fact that you get four feats and an Epic Boon. Counting those you go up to 23 abilities and 24 abilities, changing them to about 1/4 and 1/6 your total abilities. Now, you can argue about whether or not that is better, but it is demonstrably not the only thing the Ranger has.
And while I know the point of the video is that late game doesn't excuse it, and I won't excuse the capstone... I think I can excuse some of the others.
The level 1 ability gives you Hunter's Mark for free, and a few free castings of it. Is that truly more class defining than spellcasting, weapon mastery, martial weapons, and medium armor + shields? At level 2 you get expertise, bonus languages, and a fighting style. Level three if you play a hunter you have a choice between two different bonuses in one ability (arguably, you have two abilities here) and you get a bonus for using Hunter's Mark...
But is Hunter's Mark defining you? It is one spell out of five that you have, with a few free castings and a bonus information gathering if you use it. Meanwhile your choice of dual-wielding or a bow gives you masteries, fighting styles, and maybe you begin taking feats to work with these. Sure, technically I have two abilities devoted to Hunter's Mark, but that is casting Hunter's Mark and getting extra information. Meanwhile I have four abilities related to using weapons and five different skills at a minimum.
And none of this covers the species abilities! All with the absolute highest number of Hunter's Mark abilities you can get by level 3.
Yes, it feels bad that the Capstone sucks. Yes, it would be nice to have a way to get rid of concentration by the higher levels of the class. But sit down, build a 13th or 14th level ranger, and just count how many abilities and options you have. Are half of them REALLY just hunter's mark? No. The class wasn't designed around Hunter's Mark any more than the Barbarian was designed around unarmored defense. They have it, it's nice, but you can easily not use it and not feel that bad about that fact.
I still think that you make a fundemental mistake in your analysis when you try to separate "design" from "power". They are tied to each other. You cant talk one without talking about the other and trying to separate them is an act of futility. A design that is fundementally flawed BUT compensates with a high power level will still be seen as a perfectly good choice. And I do think discussing if a feature is BAD is fundemental to the question of whether someone will stick to a class or not. You want to focus so narrowly that you lose all context. Its the same issue you had with Templates for Wild Shapes. There was a core idea, lets use templates for wild shapes. Then there was the DESIGN which was here are how the templates would work. Then there was the power, ie numbers associated with the feature, such as HP, AC, etc. You thought the design was in the template idea and that isnt true, the design was how they structured the template. And it failed miserably because the a. the structure of the template was trash and b. the POWER of the templates were trash. You could tweak the numbers and that might have alleviated the concern for some, but not all cause again the structure was trash. What you really wanted was for people to give the IDEA/Core Concept of using Templates a second shot. Of course, that was also panned, but you confused the idea with the design in your defense of them.
As for whatever Jeremy says, I believe very very little of it. His goal with some of the classes was in his words, not mess them up...then proceeded to mess them up, looking at you Paladin and they came REAL close to screwing up the Rogue as well the Class they SAID was the MOST satisfied among the player base.
I realize you are invested in trying to silo every discussion between design and power, but I just dont think that is possible. I think one can compensate for the weakness of the other or be dragged down by the other. I think its better to consider both these elements when making evaluations because if you want a feature to work a certain way, I can understand thinking you need to balance the power output, or if you want to be very powerful, that might constrain your design space in how the feature actually works.
And the 2024 Ranger is trash not because the main classes features center around Hunter's Mark but because of how lackluster the spell is for this Class at base and the so called improvements are terribly underpowered. Giving them a d10 at level 20 rather than a d6 is a power issue. It could have worked if they scaled the damage over time like most cantrips, then at lvl 20 give them 5 d6 extra damage per hit...THAT might be worth using at that level.
OK
Alright, on second thought, I'll bite. Full disclosure, I only read until "perfectly good choice" because those few sentences were so wild, I just don't think I could take any more.
Asserting that because two things are linked that they can't be discussed independently is, frankly, crazy. Wealth and happiness are often linked but you can certainly have one without the other. High happiness does not guarantee wealth and, likewise, high wealth does not guarantee happiness either. Though either can certainly contribute to the other.
Even in the context of D&D, this is a very easily disproved claim. If Hunter's Mark did 100d10 damage, it would be an extremely powerful spell and it would make the Ranger class features "better" as far as power is concerned. However, that does *not* necessarily mean the design is "good". The player is still being largely funneled toward a particular play style at the expense of others because it's how the class is designed. If anything, it makes the design "worse" since it "compensates" for poor design by saying "at least you're gonna wreck everything".
Similarly, if it did like 1 damage every time, it would be massively underpowered *and* would still be a bad design for all the same reasons as above, except now you don't get any reward for the bad design at all.
Finally, if it was perfectly and appropriately damaged that's great. It means that the spell is doing what it is supposed to do. However, the player is still being pushed toward a play style because of the *design* of the class since this version functionally eliminates the quality of the spell from the equation.
Design and power are linked, you are absolutely correct about that but they certainly do not have a direct and positive correlation which you seem to think they do.
If your idea of "good design" is simply having incredibly powerful options available at any given time that functionally eliminates any challenge and disregards the rest of the game then... sure... that's definitely a choice. But you'll be hard pressed to find many that consider that to be "good design". Again, because they are separable. An appropriate power level can absolutely contribute to a good design, but it does not define it.
Honestly, the fact that you don't see how these can be discussed independently of one another explains so much of your comments over the last two years.
@@InsightCheck And as I said, both things being tied and discussed as a whole covers the case you mention…but when silod you fall into the trap of focusing too much on one over the other. Look I get what you are trying to say, but by leaving out the power as part of the totality, it’s only half the story. Ok how about this…left say the design is both how the feature work and the power. Does that make it easier to get my pt…and I absolutely think that how a thing works or how powerful it is can lead one to think the whole is a good or poor design…possibly hiding the weakness of either piece. I would also say that on base level, I don’t know if a class being design to funnel to a particular playstyle is bad design. It could be a niche option, but that do3snt make it bad, esp if the way it does it really supports the underlining themes. Yes some classes are going to be very very open style, but having some that are more focused isn’t terrible. The ranger isn’t a poor design because hunters mark is the focal ability, it’s terrible cause it’s an underpowered and underwhelming spell that doesn’t scale well at all…if they wanted to center the class around it they could have done sooooo much more with it. In my career I see this simplification all the time, people only considering one piece in what they are evaluating but that doesn’t lead to a good assessment if we want to really judge a thing. If you are not considering the power as well the how then I don’t think you are talking about the design, just an element of it.
I think the fundamental problem is this sentence:
"A design that is fundementally flawed BUT compensates with a high power level will still be seen as a perfectly good choice."
Seen as a perfectly good choice by who? Not fellow designers as it is they who acknowledge the design _is_ flawed, lol.
No amount of "power" will make a flawed idea be any less than flawed. A flawed system that works despite its flaws, is still a flawed system. What profession are you in which using obviously flawed systems, which work counter to the design _intent_ of the system to be "good" in your experience?
The 2024 Ranger's main class features center around Hunter's Mark forcing the player to focus on the Hunter's Mark at the expense of their sub-class abilities or ignore Hunter's Mark in favour of their sub-class. If the player focuses on their sub-class over Hunter's Mark, then those abilities are _useless_ to them. Remember, the entire objective of class abilities is to increase the options the player has, not to limit them.
As you said, they could have made Hunter's Mark scale like a cantrip, increasing its effectiveness at higher levels while freeing the designers to give the Ranger additional abilities, which provide synergy with the Ranger concept, at higher levels. Thereby increasing the options the player has instead of narrowing them down.
You have an entire section regarding Wild Shape Templates.
"Its the same issue you had with Templates for Wild Shapes. There was a core idea, lets use templates for wild shapes. Then there was the DESIGN which was here are how the templates would work. Then there was the power, ie numbers associated with the feature, such as HP, AC, etc. You thought the design was in the template idea and that isnt true, the design was how they structured the template. And it failed miserably because the a. the structure of the template was trash and b. the POWER of the templates were trash. You could tweak the numbers and that might have alleviated the concern for some, but not all cause again the structure was trash. What you really wanted was for people to give the IDEA/Core Concept of using Templates a second shot. Of course, that was also panned, but you confused the idea with the design in your defense of them."
I don't recall exactly what Insight Check said about them. However, the _concept_ of using templates is a great idea. I agree the execution was poor and the power for higher levels was entirely missing. But that doesn't mean providing players with easy to access, easy to understand templates, as a concept, was bad. All WotC needed to do was fix the _layout_ of the templates and increase their power at higher levels... but, nope. The surveys came in and most people weren't happy, so they dropped the concept of templates entirely.
So... where do you make the case that the idea of templates shouldn't have been revisited? I don't see it. I just you accusing a person of... something that has no bearing on the points you bring up.
TL;DR The function of a feature isn't the same as the power of the feature. While the two are connected, they can be viewed independently of each other. When a feature functions poorly, then no amount of power will make it function properly. The power might mask the issues, but it doesn't absolve the feature's poor functions.
@aralornwolf3140 you have no idea of the joy that this comment brings me lol. Sincerely, thank you.
As for Wild Shape templates, I essentially said exactly what you did. The idea and concept of them were great but the execution was very poor which caused people to toss out the entire idea because they were bad… which they were. A quote I said in that video was “power is so easy to tweak when it’s couched in the right design” and that was absolutely the case of Wild Shape Templates. The design was intuitive, simple and met their stated goals for what they were trying to accomplish, but the execution was just bad.
Anyway, thank you for understanding that two linked things can still be discussed independently. I fear for his coworkers if he thinks that the best way to analyze something is by either its totality or only the things he finds important. I never say power isn’t important in my videos, it’s just not what I choose to focus on.
20th level is about epic play and story…
Not game balance. You aren’t supposed to be balanced at that level.
… yes? I’m not sure how I gave the impression that I said it was about balance. I even explicitly said multiple times how it’s not a question of power but rather game design. It’s just about how the late game features that are often never used still have much more of an influence than most would expect.
Yes, but for some reason, only casters get at least somethat epic features at higher levels. And martial classes get either boring, or straight up bad things.
I know you are saying this in relation to character features, and in relation to that, i agree. But in relation to challenges the characters face i disagree, i don't think it is epic to squash Vecna( a God) in one turn. Treantmonk has a video detailing this. But i don't put the blame on the class features, i put it on the game support( monsters stats maybe?), demon lords, ancient dragons and what we consider the apex of monsters aren't good challenges for this tier of game.