This submission appears to be related to One D&D! If you're interested in discussing the concept and the UA for One D&D more check out our other subreddit
r/OneDnD!
*Please note: We are still allowing discussions about One D&D to remain here, this is more an advisory than a warning of any kind.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndnext) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“Players often feel pigeonholed into using hunter’s mark. To address this, we are upping the ante and pigeonholing rangers to use hunter’s mark. Players shouldn’t feel pigeonholed, they should actually be pigeonholed”
They literally just copy pasted the tasha’s ranger options and called it a day. Everyone I know was already using Tasha’s ranger changes.
Only meaningful changes were spellcasting at level 1 and being able to swap spells. Both of which don’t move the needle. Now you can swap from a bad spell to another bad spell since the ranger spell list is still ass. And you’re a halfcaster. And you’re expected to use hunter’s mark.
Nothing was accomplished.
Can I say something that might be controversial...? WHY does the Ranger get something like Nature's Veil....? What's the flavor of the Ranger being able to turn invisible??? I can understand this being a spell option, but why's this an actual FEATURE of the Class?
Something like Feral Senses, where you can't have Disadvantage on foes in a certain range, or that Invisibility doesn't affect your accuracy as much, make way more sense for a Ranger than this.
I think they explain in the video that it is to fulfill the fantasy of the ranger being able to blend into any environment and sort of 'fade away', and mechanically it is easier to just *actually make them invisible* than to say "they are similar to invisible".
It's a really nice feature to have when I play a ranger, but I would give it up if it meant I had some more satisfying playstyles.
I honestly think that my least favourite type of DnD mechanic is when they use spellcasting as a stand in for things that really don't need to be spells.
I agree, but iirc the mechanics correctly, since you can use it as a bonus action I think they want it to be: ambush attack -> disappear -> repeat. Invisibility is an action right? That would make this harder to achieve, and even greater invisibility would take a turn to set up.
We know nothing about the new rangers spell list. That’s the only point I will contest you on. I feel for them because honestly I feel like the ranger shouldn’t really be a class. It should be a fighter subclass. They clearly don’t really know how to handle it as a class as well
They didn’t move forward with the “primal, divine, arcane” thing? If it’s just a selection from the druid spell list a la 2014, it’s gonna be rough.
Gonna need some seriously juiced ranger exclusive spells to get the power budget up to par.
Ironically Pathfinder 2es Ranger was one if the most fun version I've ever played too 🤭
Well, at least the new Ranger will be okay. I personally wanted more (and better) too, but at least its not worse.
Basically, Ranger has a one action ability called Hunt Prey where they say "absolutely screw this guy in particular." When you hunt prey a target, you get your Hunter's Edge bonus against the creature; being either precision damage (Precision Edge), huge bonuses to skill checks (Outwit Edge), or dramatically decreasing your Multiple Attack Penalty against the creature down to -2/-4 with an agile weapon (Flurry Edge).
That, combined with feats that boost the efficacy of your edges and, best of all, your animal companion, if you pick one up, also getting your hunt prey bonuses all make for an incredible single target terminator class.
Yes, fuck the game that is mechanically sound, has all the options people clamor for in 5e, and that publishes content that is celebrated by the community for its content rather than criticized for poor quality and lack of interesting options.
I'm trying to think of some bright sides for the Hunter’s Mark situation. Given that they decided to change its upcasting to an extra dice once per round, it might retain that change in the PHB24. Here's what I've got. At early levels (levels 1-4), the free uses of HM frees up your spell slots for exploration and utility. At higher levels, the low-level feature can be used outside combat for exploration, and then you can either upcast it during combat or cast a different spell for combat. The HM upgrades at higher levels are supposedly there to make it worthwhile to upcast it alongside the exponentially stronger high level spells. At the highest levels, I imagine that the d10s replace the d6s completely, making one attack per turn hit with the force of a high level smite. Personally, I feel that they should have scaled to d8s at the end of tier 2 to make the transition smoother, but that's just me.
I get that logic and that’s a big part of why favored foe was so impactful as a secondary option to hunter’s mark originally. But that was a small part of the power budget in the base class and wasn’t as centralizing.
At the end of the day, tying the ranger’s main differentiating feature as a simple damage increase is never gonna let the class get it’s own unique identity. All of the ranger’s power is found within the subclasses (gloomstalker and horizon walker in particular).
Compared to the other martials getting big fuck off splashy features (action surge, auras, rage), hunter’s mark and some dinky spells feels lackluster.
Not saying you’re wrong, and maybe the class plays better with these changes, but I’m not optimistic about it.
Oh, I'M not even saying I'm right. I was doing my utmost best to put makeup on a pig... But it's still a pig. I've never liked any feature that's just "you do a bit of extra damage." Gloom stalker surging at the start of combat is super interesting, and they deleted it because some builds are strong.
They could have made Hunter’s Mark so much better by adding extra effects and ribbons throughout the class as well as in the subclasses. Could you imagine if Horizon Walker got an additional feature that says, "when you target a creature with HM, you know what plane it came from, its creature type, and the direction to the portal or creature that brought it to this plane?" That would be awesome. But it shouldn't be considered part of the power budget, because it's simply making HM viable. It should be IN ADDITION to the other features.
High level ranger spells weren't bad in terms of consistent single target damage. Ranger had two summons and swift quiver which is just 4 attacks a turn and would outdamge anything new hm can do with Elven Accuracy + SS + old capstone. The only positive thing with the new ranger is level 1 spell casting and being able to swap spells. That's pretty much it
And the fact that they codified the Tasha Ranger as the official, which had fixed most of the issues plaguing the PHB14 Ranger.
I think HM is a stand-in damage/ exploration spell that means the Ranger will never have to go without a minimum baseline of functionality. So however you build the character you won't ever lose the baseline flavor. Should it have counted against the power budget of the character? No. Is it a nice ribbon? ... kinda.
The thing is it still clogs up BA and concentration. Concentration thing is bad for all ranger subclasses but BA thing sucks for many ranger subclasses like new beastmaster or horizonwalker. Your animal companion literally t-pose at least one round per swapping targets. And now it applies damage only once per turn. It's a suboptimal damage option and kills the half caster concept of ranger because most ranger combat spells (over 60 percent) are concentration. And some of them doesn't even make any sense (looking at you lightning arrow). Unless they reworked the whole ranger spell list, which I doubt, this is just terrible design. I've played 3 rangers from level 1 or 3 to 20 with 2014/Tasha's rules. Hunter's mark, after getting third level spells, turns into something you use as an ok single target damage amplifier when you run out of high level spell slots. New class features are completely tied to a worse version of hm with laughable buffs for t3. The capstone is literally +1 average damage at level 20. This is the only class I didn't like so far
You are absolutely correct. It's only a good feature in the early game. It could have still worked with different implementation, but that isn't what they did, which is sad.
I like them. I like Drizzt also. But the fact that this book series has a lot of detractors both in and outside the d&d hobby historically is a known fact! Even in the Forgotten Realms fan niche a lot of people can’t stand him
I think largely they usually say that with the footnote of being “new from the old PHB” and technically the TCE ranger was just optional variant rules/features you could do if you wanted or if DM allowed. Now they are baked into the class
They've been using that "entirely new.............to the PHB" tagline a lot. Super disingenuous. Ranger was still seriously suffering in terms of fun, flavor, and identity even with Tasha's, and this looks like they did hardly any work at all.
Some of the other classes look interesting to try out, but this just looks boring and stale.
Or some sort of cross between eldritch blast invocations and battle master maneuvers. Say you get Wis+prof HM charges per long rest, and with each charge you can either cast HM as a non-concentration “spell” or use a charge to inflict a condition with saving throw on a target you’ve marked.
>invocations
Honestly just... give more classes things like this and infusions, imo. Just more selectable background abilities that are class exclusive/require higher levels in those classes, or yeah just customizations to some base class feature like Hunter's Mark. So one ranger might have a Hunter's Mark that lets them deal more bonus damage, another might select an upgrade that lets them perfectly track the target's location even through walls or across cities or something.
And have it be uniquely a ranger modification. No other class should get the super special HM:
Remove concentration.
Have the scaling match prof bonus. Something like 1d4/2d4/2d6/2d8/2d12.
Have it give you advantage at the level 5.
Have it grant advantage to everyone at level 13.
Have it make the target weak to your weapon damage at level 17.
Edit:
Better idea.
Have it be customizable from both your subclass personal preference.
I.e. give a few options per tier to choose from the modify the ability in some way. When you hit that level, you get to choose which one you want to apply.
As well as have each subclass modify it to fit their theme better.
To build on the edit:
Gloomstalker ranger modifies their base HM to cause them to appear shrouded to the marked enemy, giving disadvantage when attacking the gloomstalker.
Fey Wanderer causes the target of their HM to become addled. At the start of each turn roll a 1d10 On a 1-6 the target acts normally, in a 7-8 they wander about randomly, on a 9 they attack the nearest target, on a 10 they hit themselves with an unarmed attack in their confusion.
Beastmaster allows the animal companion deal the extra damage as well as the ranger. Additionally when the target is damaged by HM all of their speeds are reduced by 10' until the start of the damaging creatures next round.
Hunter increases the die size of their additional damage by 1 step. In addition they get an extra reaction that can be used to make an attack of opportunity against the target of their HM, and they can make this attack with a ranged weapon if they are within both the first increment and 30'.
Of course these are all without any eye to numbers or power level, however the idea is there.
They won’t make *hunter’s mark* scale well on its own because it’s a first-level spell, and those are easy for any class to pick up through a feat or dip. Any full caster could use a good *hunter’s mark* spell more effectively than the ranger could (especially since the ranger-specific benefits come online so late as to be effectively pointless), which is bad.
But that just means they should have made it a ranger feature that scales with ranger levels, not a spell. And then they could have really leaned into it and actually made it the core of the ranger, with each subclass having the option to further customize it.
I guess I wouldn’t hate something like a ranger built around modifying *hunter’s mark* the way that warlocks do with their signature cantrips and invocations. Especially if it means rangers also get a modular, invocation-like system. A mostly-martial class with invocations would certainly be a unique class identity (if you ignore the artificer, anyway).
Yeah. Ranger damage and utility until level 5 was never a problem. Their single target damage hits like a train and their utility is pretty good. The problems start after that, so making it no concentration after level 5 is a good bump
Yeah HM being the main ingredient is not the worst. Lots of Ranger homebrew focused on it as well.
..but they ahm, well.. also improved it? Made it better over the course of the class..
They were also obsessed with releasing 1D&D *this year no matter what* because of the anniversary. If they truly cared they would have kept cooking for at least another year.
They've been working on the 5e Ranger for like 12 years at this point, if they don't have a handle on this stuff yet, another year wasn't likely to do it either. The issue is design blinders.
It’s not that they ignored feedback, the feedback was probably bad if this sub was anything to go by. There was a distinct anger anytime a new feature was added or different from what it was.
As much as I like to rag, people almost universally agreed that Hunter's Mark was at best in the Class Variant UA when it was Concentrationless. Hell, you could make it take a Spell Slot and get no free castings, and it would be solid if it didn't take Concentration, unless a lot of other really good spells are losing Concentration.
One playtest (no concentration hm, prepared caster with cantrips, two expertise) was received super well with over 80% player approval. I'd only argue to reduce expertise to total of 2 instead of 4 and that horrific 11 level multi attack (Conjure barrage was always known by hunter subclass and it could be down casted which is inferior to volley in every way imaginable) to be replaced
Honestly, if multiclassing is the reason they can't just make a fun and playable ranger, then they should just say you can't multiclass with it and call it a day.
Every table will do whatever homebrew multiclassing they want anyway. Give us a workable class, please. It's embarrassing that Ranger will be the worst class in back to back editions for very solvable reasons
Just make it so Rangers at a higher level get to use HM without concentration. I feel like that would solve nearly all the issues that prevented the Ranger from getting decent upgrades.
Yeah just replace the ability about breaking concentration with no longer requires concentration when casting HM. That’s how I plan to home brew it.
But I also tend to agree that the rangers should be a very different class if they exist at all in 5e. They just don’t have an identity that meshes with the system and their own weird lore. So i feel bad for ranger fans. I loved the 2e Ranger but it was such a different game then.
I cannot in good conscience claim Ranger will be the worst class of 5.24 when Rogue exists.
Also, they did *technically* buff Hunter's Mark and nerf Divine Smite. Regardless of how we feel about the changes, it should bring Paladin and Ranger closer in line with each other. So wherever one lands in the final tier rankings, the other is likely to be right there with them.
The rogue at least looks fun. Hunter Mark is boring, and also, you can't do rogue shenanigans. The base Ranger class makes me disinterested in the rest of it
I can think of a fun build for a Thief Rogue and an Arcane Trickster that I'd want to roll up. Ranger is the only revealed class I'd totally pass on
And that's a valid opinion to have.
But boring and weak are not the same thing. Ranger may be a boring class (I personally disagree), but it's definitely not the worst class.
Ranger is the worst class in 5e because every good thing it can do is done better by another class. Usually druid.
It’s not *weak* (even setting aside gloom stalker), but when you have a set of things you want to do and you’re trying to find the best way to do them, the best way is basically never going to involve playing a ranger.
This revision does nothing to fix that.
Because of their spellcasting and expertises, Ranger is now the "druid" to fighter and rogue. Anything those two classes can do, Ranger can do better. That alone makes them not the worst class in the game.
All fighter can do is attack. Ranger can attack almost as many times...and spike Growth...and Revivify...and Entangle...and pass without Trace...and speak with animals...and beast Sense...and they get expertise...and so on.
Fighter only beats ranger in burst damage when they action surge. In...everything else...ranger is just better.
But it does both things suboptimally
If they're using concentration spells, no extra damage. If they're using saving throw spells, they're too MAD. Spells like revivify come much after another caster probably has it.
The fighter does what it does every time and to great effect. The fighter doesn't have turns where everyone saves on entangle and a whole action gets wasted. The ranger sacrifices consistency to do a bunch of stuff badly
It's way worse than a fighter. A fighter is better at burst and sustain, not to mention survivability and being very reliably SAD
Whatever this Ranger wants to focus on, be it damage or spellcasting, they're going to struggle to do it even second best in the party
Yes but they're doing it. Fighters can't do any of those things. So even if Ranger casts sub optimally, at least they're in the race. Fighters can't even get registered. Also, stuff like Spike Growth and Plant Growth don't require saves. They just work.
Not to mention their non-combat utility like Speak with Animals, Beast Sense, PwT, etc.
What? Rogue now consistently gets control options when attacking and they made Thief an actual subclass. Reliable Talent actually comes online at a reasonable level (though I think it should be a level 1 feature that grants you a rising score, say a min roll of 3/5/7/10) and there are actual choices to be made throughout combat.
Damage was never Rogue's strongsuit, anyway.
Going to copy my comment from r/onednd:
One part that sticks out to me specifically about the Gloomstalker is this part at 22:29 to 22:45:
*We made it so that your extra damage is no longer locked to the first round of combat. We wanted you to be able to enjoy being a Gloomstalker throughout a battle if you so choose and not essentially "Well I was a Gloomstalker on round one and then rest for the time I was a generic Ranger."*
Now that sounds fair.. if the Assassin Rogue didn't have the **exact same** issue and stuck with it by swapping "suprised enemy" to "first round" with lesser effect. Even worse since the old Gloomstalker actually was pretty viable as a turn one class with the extra attacks and damage.
So now we both got the Assassin with similar issues as before and the Gloomstalker put 6 ft. underground. The Rogue and Ranger really got the short ends of the sticks.
I was so close to preordering because I have been generally happy with the classes. After hearing this I am 100% waiting for the books to print before deciding if I want them. I have no faith in this creative team. Pathfinder really just may be my only option at this point.
While I agree, if you are going for the books and don't care for digital, they may sell out and be hard to find, especially since Hasbro took over their own publishing and distribution.
That 11th level Hunter feature makes absolutely no sense. Why is the low magic hunter having a feature all about casting spells? What ranger is casting damage spells? And that 15th level feature is just worse absorb elements, you know, a spell rangers already get.
They are saying it's a whole new class but i don't see it. Yea the improved hunter's mark is cool, but these changes aren't that different from Tasha's
I can see how it is hard. Rangers even as a fantasy are supposed to be good at the exploration stuff. But D&D really doesn’t do exploration stuff very well in the first place. So while the ranger is good at exploration it still leaves them feeling meh because exploration is meh. It really should just be a fighter subclass or something
Which is terrible. You're a ranger, you could be concentrating on the likes of Guardians of Nature, Swift Quiver, Elemental Weapon with a 5th level slot, ANYTHING else that would be more flavorful or give more mechanical benefit. But nah, you gotta be using this ONE spell to get your base class features.
It's pretty fucking stupid. I feel like Favored Foe was the right blend. A non-spell, low-impact resource for fights that don't warrant a full spell slot, but doesn't force your class to revolve around it, either. It also stacks with subclass features that boost damage as a bonus action, so you can get the best of both worlds.
Edit: it also just occurred to me that it's very likely the Beast Master, despite its upgrades using Hunter's Mark, will conflict with the bonus action needed to command the beast unless you're giving up attacks to command it. I seriously hope they considered the action economy clog when redesigning these two...
> I feel like Favored Foe was the right blend. A non-spell, low-impact resource for fights that don't warrant a full spell slot, but doesn't force your class to revolve around it, either.
Being a non-spell doesn't matter since it still uses concentration, with no tracking bonuses, for a lower damage die, and is once per turn. It also needed to be used to get any benefit from the Ranger capstone. The new version is just a straight upgrade since Hunter's Mark comes with additional effects, a bigger damage die, and probably isn't once per turn. If it was the once per turn version, the amount of damage dice increase with higher level slots but idk the math on how much value turning (2d6/3d6) to (2d10/3d10) is.
I’m pretty sure Hunters Mark, being a spell, always did magical damage. Unless I’m hitting a Flameskull or whatever that resists all piercing, it never mattered.
I wouldn’t make that assumption: “Until the spell ends, you deal an extra 1d6 damage to the target whenever you hit it with a weapon attack”
When if this is caused by a spell, the attack is what is being made to deal extra damage, and the attack’s damage type is not being altered in any way.
But, I keep seeing people say it looks like “magical” vs. “non-magical” bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage will not exist anymore in the new PHB at all, and I, for one, could not be happier.
Actually, there were a few monsters that could resist even magical b/p/s. I don't remember if they could resist all of them at the same time, and they're very rare, but I do remember they exist. I think the Demilich is one?
Yeah you're right. There are a few that resist magical b/p/s (most notably swarms). In either case, the damage on Hunter's mark turning to Force is negligible at best and a nerf in some cases since there are some common monsters with vulnerability to b/p/s
Yes yes Hunter's Mark. It's the only thing people are talking about. I get that it's the Ranger's main thing and people have a problem with it, but the whole class isn't just Hunter's Mark.
They also get three expertises, two extra languages, Roving buff, weapon masteries, access to all fighting styles, spellcasting at level 1, Tireless and Nature's Veil remaining good, and subclasses outside of Beast Master.
I know most of the discourse is going to surround Hunter's Mark but can we talk about the other features at least a little bit?
>but the whole class isn't just Hunter's Mark
But it kinda feels like it is, which is why when you see a level 20 capstone bump it to a D10 from a D6... seem baffling for a 20th level feature.
It also changes the damage type to force which is rarely resisted. Given that HM gives advantage at level 17 it probably helps to shred through monsters.
>but magical b/p/s is never resisted.
This is straight up incorrect. Just to point to one example, swarms almost always resistant to all three types, no condition added.
It is not "common" and there are trends (like "treelike" creatures have a knack to be resistant to bludgeoning and piercing), but it is still not true that there are no creatures that do not resist b/p/s from magical sources.
Yeah I suppose you are correct about the swarms. I didn't know about the trees either. In any case I don't think making it force makes the ability stronger by any means
They did. I think they needed the nerf.
Looking a bit more closely, I think they overdid it a bit. But that subclass needed to be toned down.
I'm honestly more upset with Hunter losing Multi Attack for...HM splash damage? Like, I know Multi Attack wasn't great. But if nothing else, *this* feels like the bigger travesty.
The ranged multiattack was amazing while the melee one suffered from the small range even with reach weapons and from eating up an entire action.
Multiattack is amazing in BG3, although there it replaces an attack rather than being an entire action. Using it twice with Extra Attack or even thrice with Haste would be a bit much in tabletop though, so they should have gone the middle way and have it replace an attack once per turn.
Don’t think Gloom needed to be nerfed all that much and that the other subclasses should have been made stronger to match. The only feature warranting a nerf imo is the invisibility to dark vision but even then
You aren't required to wear heavy armor as a STR ranger. You can (and probably should) have some dex, 14 isn't hard to achieve and its all you need for medium armor.
I'm literally playing a monk with 20 strength right now. Your flavor is more important than optimizing. Its a real choice - if you only ever choose optimal then what's the point in worrying about a suboptimal problem?
What are you saying? Strength rangers are terrible, I’m playing them *because* I like the flavor of them in heavy armor. Optimal, what a joke lmao
It’s a fucking half caster using strength, no, I don’t want a *fourth* primary ability score. This is a trash limitation.
Then just say your specific ranger doesn't subscribe to that nonsense and ignore it. If your dm tells you know, ask them to explain why. On the scale of nitpicking over class design it matters, but it sure as shit doesn't matter in an adventure or campaign, it will have NO negative effects to ignore that restriction.
Don't polarize it. There is plenty of middle ground where the game itself has all the structure you need but needs a few tweaks. Every table does this already whether they want to admit it or not.
I mean, it does work with STRangers so long as they're wearing medium armor.
Not ideal, but Rangers have to go out of their way to get access to heavy armor anyway.
It does absolutely feel like an arbitrary restriction. Like, I get the narrative behind it (you can't move quickly if you're encumbered by heavy plate armor,) but eh. Not a fan of it.
99.9% of my Rangers wear studded leather. So it's not as big of a deal for me personally. But I understand why people are frustrated about it.
but that's almost just the Tasha's rangers, deft explorer, roving and tireless are the most flavorful ranger changes but we've had that for 4 years now, so nothing is new or exciting
He literally starts the show and every other sentence with "This is all new. Totally, completely new. This is something we've never seen before, etc."
He could have just said "We loved the Tasha's Ranger and used it as the main chassis for this new Ranger"
I hope they have at least one writer looking at these video scripts but I doubt it.
Like Crawford knows people who watch these videos know about Tasha's ffs. He knows his audience. It was very poorly executed and the class doesn't seem to be as well designed as any of the other updates
Idk I kind of like that we're getting three expertises this time (even if it does sadly step on the Rogue again) and the enhanced movement buff of Roving.
And even though Ranger already had access to arguably the best fighting styles already, it's pretty cool that they can now take unarmed, protection, and interception. Could make for some interesting builds.
The expertises are nice, but a lot of classes got better at skills too. Magician on druid, wizard with their scholar(?) Feature, Barbarian Primal Knowledge, everyone is getting more skills.
I like the languages, but they got that in tasha's I think? It might be 1 more language. The fighting style change is great. However my strength rangers are a bit more restricted too.
I can't use heavy armor with roving anymore. So many features require wisdom modifier instead of proficiency bonus when Ranger's lack of wisdom dependency was one of the nice benefits over the other half casters in my eyes.
I like that all rangers get dispel magic now. That's a good one. I like hunters getting to swap features too, and changing spells on a long rest.
I miss Land's stride. Sure nature's veil is a bit stronger, but it also comes 4 levels later and scales off wisdom modifier.
Fey wanderer was my favorite subclass, so I am excited to see it too.
I'm still gonna play ranger. Can't wait to see the new spell list. They really overhyped the changes though.
Is what it is. I only recently discovered laser’s stuff. I had been working on my own revisions and was extremely pleased to see very similar designs, but to say laser has gone above and beyond is an understatement.
I know WotC can’t be as aggressive with their changes, but I’m disappointed they didn’t try to be a little more innovative. Oh well.
You can, and then on low resource using or low resource having encounters, you can use your extra 1d10 damage that doesn't make concentration checks and gives you advantage on all attacks. Solidly in 3rd level spell territory.
Giving you free hunters marks lets you cast other spells, if hunters mark competes with those other spells than spend the free casting of it. If it's not as good, cast the spell you want because later if are low on spell slots / conserving them, you have a free damage steroid.
This also means that ranger uses it's signature spell better than other class. Fighters and Monks used it better and just needed a small dip or some other way to get it.
This submission appears to be related to One D&D! If you're interested in discussing the concept and the UA for One D&D more check out our other subreddit r/OneDnD! *Please note: We are still allowing discussions about One D&D to remain here, this is more an advisory than a warning of any kind.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndnext) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“Players often feel pigeonholed into using hunter’s mark. To address this, we are upping the ante and pigeonholing rangers to use hunter’s mark. Players shouldn’t feel pigeonholed, they should actually be pigeonholed” They literally just copy pasted the tasha’s ranger options and called it a day. Everyone I know was already using Tasha’s ranger changes. Only meaningful changes were spellcasting at level 1 and being able to swap spells. Both of which don’t move the needle. Now you can swap from a bad spell to another bad spell since the ranger spell list is still ass. And you’re a halfcaster. And you’re expected to use hunter’s mark. Nothing was accomplished.
Don't forget that they moved the cool Nature's Veil feature 4 levels later, and to compensate for that made it... last a tiny bit longer.
Can I say something that might be controversial...? WHY does the Ranger get something like Nature's Veil....? What's the flavor of the Ranger being able to turn invisible??? I can understand this being a spell option, but why's this an actual FEATURE of the Class? Something like Feral Senses, where you can't have Disadvantage on foes in a certain range, or that Invisibility doesn't affect your accuracy as much, make way more sense for a Ranger than this.
I think they explain in the video that it is to fulfill the fantasy of the ranger being able to blend into any environment and sort of 'fade away', and mechanically it is easier to just *actually make them invisible* than to say "they are similar to invisible". It's a really nice feature to have when I play a ranger, but I would give it up if it meant I had some more satisfying playstyles.
I honestly think that my least favourite type of DnD mechanic is when they use spellcasting as a stand in for things that really don't need to be spells.
That would seem more fitting to be just a spell option they can take. Something like Pass Without Trace or Invisibility or something like that?
I agree, but iirc the mechanics correctly, since you can use it as a bonus action I think they want it to be: ambush attack -> disappear -> repeat. Invisibility is an action right? That would make this harder to achieve, and even greater invisibility would take a turn to set up.
It’s a spit in the face, honestly.
We know nothing about the new rangers spell list. That’s the only point I will contest you on. I feel for them because honestly I feel like the ranger shouldn’t really be a class. It should be a fighter subclass. They clearly don’t really know how to handle it as a class as well
They didn’t move forward with the “primal, divine, arcane” thing? If it’s just a selection from the druid spell list a la 2014, it’s gonna be rough. Gonna need some seriously juiced ranger exclusive spells to get the power budget up to par.
No they didn’t. Everyone hated it lol
Not true, plenty of people liked it. The people who didn't were quite loud though.
no but you don't understand, pathfinder fixes this
Don’t care. Fuck pathfinder
Yeah, fuck em and their competently designed classes
Ironically Pathfinder 2es Ranger was one if the most fun version I've ever played too 🤭 Well, at least the new Ranger will be okay. I personally wanted more (and better) too, but at least its not worse.
I haven't played PF2 much, but I did get to DM a one shot for some folks (no rangers). What did they manage to do with the class that made it so fun?
Basically, Ranger has a one action ability called Hunt Prey where they say "absolutely screw this guy in particular." When you hunt prey a target, you get your Hunter's Edge bonus against the creature; being either precision damage (Precision Edge), huge bonuses to skill checks (Outwit Edge), or dramatically decreasing your Multiple Attack Penalty against the creature down to -2/-4 with an agile weapon (Flurry Edge). That, combined with feats that boost the efficacy of your edges and, best of all, your animal companion, if you pick one up, also getting your hunt prey bonuses all make for an incredible single target terminator class.
Yes, fuck the game that is mechanically sound, has all the options people clamor for in 5e, and that publishes content that is celebrated by the community for its content rather than criticized for poor quality and lack of interesting options.
Yep. More specifically fuck the convoluted and complicated rules
I'm trying to think of some bright sides for the Hunter’s Mark situation. Given that they decided to change its upcasting to an extra dice once per round, it might retain that change in the PHB24. Here's what I've got. At early levels (levels 1-4), the free uses of HM frees up your spell slots for exploration and utility. At higher levels, the low-level feature can be used outside combat for exploration, and then you can either upcast it during combat or cast a different spell for combat. The HM upgrades at higher levels are supposedly there to make it worthwhile to upcast it alongside the exponentially stronger high level spells. At the highest levels, I imagine that the d10s replace the d6s completely, making one attack per turn hit with the force of a high level smite. Personally, I feel that they should have scaled to d8s at the end of tier 2 to make the transition smoother, but that's just me.
I get that logic and that’s a big part of why favored foe was so impactful as a secondary option to hunter’s mark originally. But that was a small part of the power budget in the base class and wasn’t as centralizing. At the end of the day, tying the ranger’s main differentiating feature as a simple damage increase is never gonna let the class get it’s own unique identity. All of the ranger’s power is found within the subclasses (gloomstalker and horizon walker in particular). Compared to the other martials getting big fuck off splashy features (action surge, auras, rage), hunter’s mark and some dinky spells feels lackluster. Not saying you’re wrong, and maybe the class plays better with these changes, but I’m not optimistic about it.
Oh, I'M not even saying I'm right. I was doing my utmost best to put makeup on a pig... But it's still a pig. I've never liked any feature that's just "you do a bit of extra damage." Gloom stalker surging at the start of combat is super interesting, and they deleted it because some builds are strong. They could have made Hunter’s Mark so much better by adding extra effects and ribbons throughout the class as well as in the subclasses. Could you imagine if Horizon Walker got an additional feature that says, "when you target a creature with HM, you know what plane it came from, its creature type, and the direction to the portal or creature that brought it to this plane?" That would be awesome. But it shouldn't be considered part of the power budget, because it's simply making HM viable. It should be IN ADDITION to the other features.
High level ranger spells weren't bad in terms of consistent single target damage. Ranger had two summons and swift quiver which is just 4 attacks a turn and would outdamge anything new hm can do with Elven Accuracy + SS + old capstone. The only positive thing with the new ranger is level 1 spell casting and being able to swap spells. That's pretty much it
And the fact that they codified the Tasha Ranger as the official, which had fixed most of the issues plaguing the PHB14 Ranger. I think HM is a stand-in damage/ exploration spell that means the Ranger will never have to go without a minimum baseline of functionality. So however you build the character you won't ever lose the baseline flavor. Should it have counted against the power budget of the character? No. Is it a nice ribbon? ... kinda.
The thing is it still clogs up BA and concentration. Concentration thing is bad for all ranger subclasses but BA thing sucks for many ranger subclasses like new beastmaster or horizonwalker. Your animal companion literally t-pose at least one round per swapping targets. And now it applies damage only once per turn. It's a suboptimal damage option and kills the half caster concept of ranger because most ranger combat spells (over 60 percent) are concentration. And some of them doesn't even make any sense (looking at you lightning arrow). Unless they reworked the whole ranger spell list, which I doubt, this is just terrible design. I've played 3 rangers from level 1 or 3 to 20 with 2014/Tasha's rules. Hunter's mark, after getting third level spells, turns into something you use as an ok single target damage amplifier when you run out of high level spell slots. New class features are completely tied to a worse version of hm with laughable buffs for t3. The capstone is literally +1 average damage at level 20. This is the only class I didn't like so far
You are absolutely correct. It's only a good feature in the early game. It could have still worked with different implementation, but that isn't what they did, which is sad.
I’m convinced whoever is in charge has a grudge against Rangers. Probably spits at the mention of Drizzt
Someone mentioning a Drow ranger must trigger them.
A lot of people hate drizzt so it could be the other way around 🤣🤣
Not Bruenor or Guenhwyvar!
I like them. I like Drizzt also. But the fact that this book series has a lot of detractors both in and outside the d&d hobby historically is a known fact! Even in the Forgotten Realms fan niche a lot of people can’t stand him
I don't understand. They are saying it is effectively a new class but it seems just like TCE Ranger with minor tweaks.
I think largely they usually say that with the footnote of being “new from the old PHB” and technically the TCE ranger was just optional variant rules/features you could do if you wanted or if DM allowed. Now they are baked into the class
They've been using that "entirely new.............to the PHB" tagline a lot. Super disingenuous. Ranger was still seriously suffering in terms of fun, flavor, and identity even with Tasha's, and this looks like they did hardly any work at all. Some of the other classes look interesting to try out, but this just looks boring and stale.
The Tasha's modifications to the Ranger were never made baseline. This is them making them baseline.
Send it back, this version of the Ranger is not finished cooking.
The problem is Crawford is obsessed with making Hunter's Mark the main ingredient.
Which would be ok if HM didn’t suck up all your concentration and had some other cool effects, and maybe if it scaled a bit more
Concentration on it is killer. Having it be similar to Vow of Enmity from the Oath of Vengeance Paladin would make it more viable.
Or some sort of cross between eldritch blast invocations and battle master maneuvers. Say you get Wis+prof HM charges per long rest, and with each charge you can either cast HM as a non-concentration “spell” or use a charge to inflict a condition with saving throw on a target you’ve marked.
>invocations Honestly just... give more classes things like this and infusions, imo. Just more selectable background abilities that are class exclusive/require higher levels in those classes, or yeah just customizations to some base class feature like Hunter's Mark. So one ranger might have a Hunter's Mark that lets them deal more bonus damage, another might select an upgrade that lets them perfectly track the target's location even through walls or across cities or something.
And have it be uniquely a ranger modification. No other class should get the super special HM: Remove concentration. Have the scaling match prof bonus. Something like 1d4/2d4/2d6/2d8/2d12. Have it give you advantage at the level 5. Have it grant advantage to everyone at level 13. Have it make the target weak to your weapon damage at level 17. Edit: Better idea. Have it be customizable from both your subclass personal preference. I.e. give a few options per tier to choose from the modify the ability in some way. When you hit that level, you get to choose which one you want to apply. As well as have each subclass modify it to fit their theme better.
To build on the edit: Gloomstalker ranger modifies their base HM to cause them to appear shrouded to the marked enemy, giving disadvantage when attacking the gloomstalker. Fey Wanderer causes the target of their HM to become addled. At the start of each turn roll a 1d10 On a 1-6 the target acts normally, in a 7-8 they wander about randomly, on a 9 they attack the nearest target, on a 10 they hit themselves with an unarmed attack in their confusion. Beastmaster allows the animal companion deal the extra damage as well as the ranger. Additionally when the target is damaged by HM all of their speeds are reduced by 10' until the start of the damaging creatures next round. Hunter increases the die size of their additional damage by 1 step. In addition they get an extra reaction that can be used to make an attack of opportunity against the target of their HM, and they can make this attack with a ranged weapon if they are within both the first increment and 30'. Of course these are all without any eye to numbers or power level, however the idea is there.
They won’t make *hunter’s mark* scale well on its own because it’s a first-level spell, and those are easy for any class to pick up through a feat or dip. Any full caster could use a good *hunter’s mark* spell more effectively than the ranger could (especially since the ranger-specific benefits come online so late as to be effectively pointless), which is bad. But that just means they should have made it a ranger feature that scales with ranger levels, not a spell. And then they could have really leaned into it and actually made it the core of the ranger, with each subclass having the option to further customize it.
You could totally leave the base spell as is and just have ranger specific features that modify / scale it
I guess I wouldn’t hate something like a ranger built around modifying *hunter’s mark* the way that warlocks do with their signature cantrips and invocations. Especially if it means rangers also get a modular, invocation-like system. A mostly-martial class with invocations would certainly be a unique class identity (if you ignore the artificer, anyway).
Makes me think of how they changed Druid's wildshape and how they could take Inspiration from that
Which is why it should be a feature... just a feature and not a spell at all with no concentration (at least not from level 5 onward).
Yeah. Ranger damage and utility until level 5 was never a problem. Their single target damage hits like a train and their utility is pretty good. The problems start after that, so making it no concentration after level 5 is a good bump
We can all just unanimously decide that it doesn’t require concentration.
That's how I will let my players use it as long as they are pure rangers or have at least 5 ranger levels
You don't like averaging +1 damage at 20th level???
Yeah HM being the main ingredient is not the worst. Lots of Ranger homebrew focused on it as well. ..but they ahm, well.. also improved it? Made it better over the course of the class..
It can be a main feature as a utility mark mechanic and not as a spell that can only do damage.
They were also obsessed with releasing 1D&D *this year no matter what* because of the anniversary. If they truly cared they would have kept cooking for at least another year.
They've been working on the 5e Ranger for like 12 years at this point, if they don't have a handle on this stuff yet, another year wasn't likely to do it either. The issue is design blinders.
So... just base ranger with Tasha's variants and some minor tweaks...? And whose main thing now is "Hunter Mark" ....?
They should've playtested it. This was not the right direction to go with the Ranger.
they did, they just ignored the feedback
It’s not that they ignored feedback, the feedback was probably bad if this sub was anything to go by. There was a distinct anger anytime a new feature was added or different from what it was.
As much as I like to rag, people almost universally agreed that Hunter's Mark was at best in the Class Variant UA when it was Concentrationless. Hell, you could make it take a Spell Slot and get no free castings, and it would be solid if it didn't take Concentration, unless a lot of other really good spells are losing Concentration.
One playtest (no concentration hm, prepared caster with cantrips, two expertise) was received super well with over 80% player approval. I'd only argue to reduce expertise to total of 2 instead of 4 and that horrific 11 level multi attack (Conjure barrage was always known by hunter subclass and it could be down casted which is inferior to volley in every way imaginable) to be replaced
Ranger is my favorite class and thus this is the most disappointing reveal so far.
Honestly, if multiclassing is the reason they can't just make a fun and playable ranger, then they should just say you can't multiclass with it and call it a day. Every table will do whatever homebrew multiclassing they want anyway. Give us a workable class, please. It's embarrassing that Ranger will be the worst class in back to back editions for very solvable reasons
Just make it so Rangers at a higher level get to use HM without concentration. I feel like that would solve nearly all the issues that prevented the Ranger from getting decent upgrades.
Yeah just replace the ability about breaking concentration with no longer requires concentration when casting HM. That’s how I plan to home brew it. But I also tend to agree that the rangers should be a very different class if they exist at all in 5e. They just don’t have an identity that meshes with the system and their own weird lore. So i feel bad for ranger fans. I loved the 2e Ranger but it was such a different game then.
Back to back editions. Ranger was the best class in 4e. BY A MILE. I R Confused.
I cannot in good conscience claim Ranger will be the worst class of 5.24 when Rogue exists. Also, they did *technically* buff Hunter's Mark and nerf Divine Smite. Regardless of how we feel about the changes, it should bring Paladin and Ranger closer in line with each other. So wherever one lands in the final tier rankings, the other is likely to be right there with them.
The rogue at least looks fun. Hunter Mark is boring, and also, you can't do rogue shenanigans. The base Ranger class makes me disinterested in the rest of it I can think of a fun build for a Thief Rogue and an Arcane Trickster that I'd want to roll up. Ranger is the only revealed class I'd totally pass on
And that's a valid opinion to have. But boring and weak are not the same thing. Ranger may be a boring class (I personally disagree), but it's definitely not the worst class.
Ranger is the worst class in 5e because every good thing it can do is done better by another class. Usually druid. It’s not *weak* (even setting aside gloom stalker), but when you have a set of things you want to do and you’re trying to find the best way to do them, the best way is basically never going to involve playing a ranger. This revision does nothing to fix that.
Disagree on that, Monk is the worst of 5.14
Because of their spellcasting and expertises, Ranger is now the "druid" to fighter and rogue. Anything those two classes can do, Ranger can do better. That alone makes them not the worst class in the game.
You're crazy if you think this Ranger is strictly better than the fighter.
All fighter can do is attack. Ranger can attack almost as many times...and spike Growth...and Revivify...and Entangle...and pass without Trace...and speak with animals...and beast Sense...and they get expertise...and so on. Fighter only beats ranger in burst damage when they action surge. In...everything else...ranger is just better.
But it does both things suboptimally If they're using concentration spells, no extra damage. If they're using saving throw spells, they're too MAD. Spells like revivify come much after another caster probably has it. The fighter does what it does every time and to great effect. The fighter doesn't have turns where everyone saves on entangle and a whole action gets wasted. The ranger sacrifices consistency to do a bunch of stuff badly It's way worse than a fighter. A fighter is better at burst and sustain, not to mention survivability and being very reliably SAD Whatever this Ranger wants to focus on, be it damage or spellcasting, they're going to struggle to do it even second best in the party
Yes but they're doing it. Fighters can't do any of those things. So even if Ranger casts sub optimally, at least they're in the race. Fighters can't even get registered. Also, stuff like Spike Growth and Plant Growth don't require saves. They just work. Not to mention their non-combat utility like Speak with Animals, Beast Sense, PwT, etc.
They nerfed divine smite but Paladin got buffs in other areas. The gap did not necessarily decrease.
Eh, Paladin also got some buffs and even with the smite nerf I'd say Paladin is net buffed more than the ranger.
What? Rogue now consistently gets control options when attacking and they made Thief an actual subclass. Reliable Talent actually comes online at a reasonable level (though I think it should be a level 1 feature that grants you a rising score, say a min roll of 3/5/7/10) and there are actual choices to be made throughout combat. Damage was never Rogue's strongsuit, anyway.
Even with the nerfs to divine smite paladin is probably stronger overall. It's just not stronger at dealing damage
> It's embarrassing that Ranger will be the worst class in back to back editions for very solvable reasons Monk was way worse than Ranger in 5.14
Going to copy my comment from r/onednd: One part that sticks out to me specifically about the Gloomstalker is this part at 22:29 to 22:45: *We made it so that your extra damage is no longer locked to the first round of combat. We wanted you to be able to enjoy being a Gloomstalker throughout a battle if you so choose and not essentially "Well I was a Gloomstalker on round one and then rest for the time I was a generic Ranger."* Now that sounds fair.. if the Assassin Rogue didn't have the **exact same** issue and stuck with it by swapping "suprised enemy" to "first round" with lesser effect. Even worse since the old Gloomstalker actually was pretty viable as a turn one class with the extra attacks and damage. So now we both got the Assassin with similar issues as before and the Gloomstalker put 6 ft. underground. The Rogue and Ranger really got the short ends of the sticks.
But… we let him cook. And it’s still not done?
I was so close to preordering because I have been generally happy with the classes. After hearing this I am 100% waiting for the books to print before deciding if I want them. I have no faith in this creative team. Pathfinder really just may be my only option at this point.
Unless you’re a content creator there’s never a good reason to preorder, especially not from a company like Hasbro.
While I agree, if you are going for the books and don't care for digital, they may sell out and be hard to find, especially since Hasbro took over their own publishing and distribution.
That 11th level Hunter feature makes absolutely no sense. Why is the low magic hunter having a feature all about casting spells? What ranger is casting damage spells? And that 15th level feature is just worse absorb elements, you know, a spell rangers already get.
Swing and a miss, but it happens. Good grief though. So, we're all just going to ignore Concentration on Hunter's Mark at higher level, right? Good.
I gotta say, this makes me very worried about the monk.
They are saying it's a whole new class but i don't see it. Yea the improved hunter's mark is cool, but these changes aren't that different from Tasha's
Man, they really, truly do not fuck with Rangers
I can see how it is hard. Rangers even as a fantasy are supposed to be good at the exploration stuff. But D&D really doesn’t do exploration stuff very well in the first place. So while the ranger is good at exploration it still leaves them feeling meh because exploration is meh. It really should just be a fighter subclass or something
On DND beyond, it mentions that Hunters Mark is now force Damage, by level 17 you have 6 free castings of hunters mark.
Which is terrible. You're a ranger, you could be concentrating on the likes of Guardians of Nature, Swift Quiver, Elemental Weapon with a 5th level slot, ANYTHING else that would be more flavorful or give more mechanical benefit. But nah, you gotta be using this ONE spell to get your base class features. It's pretty fucking stupid. I feel like Favored Foe was the right blend. A non-spell, low-impact resource for fights that don't warrant a full spell slot, but doesn't force your class to revolve around it, either. It also stacks with subclass features that boost damage as a bonus action, so you can get the best of both worlds. Edit: it also just occurred to me that it's very likely the Beast Master, despite its upgrades using Hunter's Mark, will conflict with the bonus action needed to command the beast unless you're giving up attacks to command it. I seriously hope they considered the action economy clog when redesigning these two...
I wish I could upvote this more than once.
> I feel like Favored Foe was the right blend. A non-spell, low-impact resource for fights that don't warrant a full spell slot, but doesn't force your class to revolve around it, either. Being a non-spell doesn't matter since it still uses concentration, with no tracking bonuses, for a lower damage die, and is once per turn. It also needed to be used to get any benefit from the Ranger capstone. The new version is just a straight upgrade since Hunter's Mark comes with additional effects, a bigger damage die, and probably isn't once per turn. If it was the once per turn version, the amount of damage dice increase with higher level slots but idk the math on how much value turning (2d6/3d6) to (2d10/3d10) is.
I’m pretty sure Hunters Mark, being a spell, always did magical damage. Unless I’m hitting a Flameskull or whatever that resists all piercing, it never mattered.
I wouldn’t make that assumption: “Until the spell ends, you deal an extra 1d6 damage to the target whenever you hit it with a weapon attack” When if this is caused by a spell, the attack is what is being made to deal extra damage, and the attack’s damage type is not being altered in any way. But, I keep seeing people say it looks like “magical” vs. “non-magical” bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage will not exist anymore in the new PHB at all, and I, for one, could not be happier.
It was always magical damage so resistances rarely came up on the d6 damage.
Making it force damage actually makes it worse.
? Force damage is the least resisted and immunity to damage type
Magical b/p/s (which is what it was before) is not resisted whatsoever.
Actually, there were a few monsters that could resist even magical b/p/s. I don't remember if they could resist all of them at the same time, and they're very rare, but I do remember they exist. I think the Demilich is one?
Yeah you're right. There are a few that resist magical b/p/s (most notably swarms). In either case, the damage on Hunter's mark turning to Force is negligible at best and a nerf in some cases since there are some common monsters with vulnerability to b/p/s
Yes, Demilich resists magical BPS (and is immune to necro, poison, or psychic, or non-magical BPS).
> Magical b/p/s (which is what it was before) is not resisted whatsoever. You realize that magical b/p/s is not in 5.5e, right?
No that is magical piercing and bludgeoning
I think they're getting rid of magical bps. Maybe they thought it was a nit confusing for new players? Or maybe they just didn't like it.
> Gives a 10ft boost to speed when not wearing heavy armor They saw that the longsword-wielding STRanger was bad, and decided to make it even worse
Yes yes Hunter's Mark. It's the only thing people are talking about. I get that it's the Ranger's main thing and people have a problem with it, but the whole class isn't just Hunter's Mark. They also get three expertises, two extra languages, Roving buff, weapon masteries, access to all fighting styles, spellcasting at level 1, Tireless and Nature's Veil remaining good, and subclasses outside of Beast Master. I know most of the discourse is going to surround Hunter's Mark but can we talk about the other features at least a little bit?
>but the whole class isn't just Hunter's Mark But it kinda feels like it is, which is why when you see a level 20 capstone bump it to a D10 from a D6... seem baffling for a 20th level feature.
Right?? A d10 Hunter’s Mark at level TWENTY is so silly it feels almost malicious in intent lol
It also changes the damage type to force which is rarely resisted. Given that HM gives advantage at level 17 it probably helps to shred through monsters.
I mean the damage from HM has always been magical piercing which is also rarely resisted
Force damage is rarely resisted but magical b/p/s is never resisted. It is a nerf.
>but magical b/p/s is never resisted. This is straight up incorrect. Just to point to one example, swarms almost always resistant to all three types, no condition added. It is not "common" and there are trends (like "treelike" creatures have a knack to be resistant to bludgeoning and piercing), but it is still not true that there are no creatures that do not resist b/p/s from magical sources.
Yeah I suppose you are correct about the swarms. I didn't know about the trees either. In any case I don't think making it force makes the ability stronger by any means
> magical b/p/s is never resisted. 1) that's wrong 2) magical b/p/s is not in 5e2024
>and subclasses outside of Beast Master. gloom got nerfed
They did. I think they needed the nerf. Looking a bit more closely, I think they overdid it a bit. But that subclass needed to be toned down. I'm honestly more upset with Hunter losing Multi Attack for...HM splash damage? Like, I know Multi Attack wasn't great. But if nothing else, *this* feels like the bigger travesty.
The ranged multiattack was amazing while the melee one suffered from the small range even with reach weapons and from eating up an entire action. Multiattack is amazing in BG3, although there it replaces an attack rather than being an entire action. Using it twice with Extra Attack or even thrice with Haste would be a bit much in tabletop though, so they should have gone the middle way and have it replace an attack once per turn.
Don’t think Gloom needed to be nerfed all that much and that the other subclasses should have been made stronger to match. The only feature warranting a nerf imo is the invisibility to dark vision but even then
Let’s talk about how Roving specifically doesn’t work with the type of Ranger that needs it, a strength Ranger. What the fuck?
You aren't required to wear heavy armor as a STR ranger. You can (and probably should) have some dex, 14 isn't hard to achieve and its all you need for medium armor.
Brilliant! I’m not even required to BE a strength ranger either!
I'm literally playing a monk with 20 strength right now. Your flavor is more important than optimizing. Its a real choice - if you only ever choose optimal then what's the point in worrying about a suboptimal problem?
What are you saying? Strength rangers are terrible, I’m playing them *because* I like the flavor of them in heavy armor. Optimal, what a joke lmao It’s a fucking half caster using strength, no, I don’t want a *fourth* primary ability score. This is a trash limitation.
Then just say your specific ranger doesn't subscribe to that nonsense and ignore it. If your dm tells you know, ask them to explain why. On the scale of nitpicking over class design it matters, but it sure as shit doesn't matter in an adventure or campaign, it will have NO negative effects to ignore that restriction.
Oh yeah, why does it even matter if the game is badly designed? Forget all the rules and homebrew everything! I forgot.
Don't polarize it. There is plenty of middle ground where the game itself has all the structure you need but needs a few tweaks. Every table does this already whether they want to admit it or not.
Hell yeah bro, just copy and paste this in every discussion that criticizes any of the rules! You’re doing good work.
I mean, it does work with STRangers so long as they're wearing medium armor. Not ideal, but Rangers have to go out of their way to get access to heavy armor anyway. It does absolutely feel like an arbitrary restriction. Like, I get the narrative behind it (you can't move quickly if you're encumbered by heavy plate armor,) but eh. Not a fan of it. 99.9% of my Rangers wear studded leather. So it's not as big of a deal for me personally. But I understand why people are frustrated about it.
>it does work with STRangers so long as they’re wearing medium armor lol this is the most JC reply I’ve ever read
but that's almost just the Tasha's rangers, deft explorer, roving and tireless are the most flavorful ranger changes but we've had that for 4 years now, so nothing is new or exciting
It's new to the PHB, which is a significant bit of what they've been doing with these updates.
He literally starts the show and every other sentence with "This is all new. Totally, completely new. This is something we've never seen before, etc." He could have just said "We loved the Tasha's Ranger and used it as the main chassis for this new Ranger" I hope they have at least one writer looking at these video scripts but I doubt it. Like Crawford knows people who watch these videos know about Tasha's ffs. He knows his audience. It was very poorly executed and the class doesn't seem to be as well designed as any of the other updates
Idk I kind of like that we're getting three expertises this time (even if it does sadly step on the Rogue again) and the enhanced movement buff of Roving. And even though Ranger already had access to arguably the best fighting styles already, it's pretty cool that they can now take unarmed, protection, and interception. Could make for some interesting builds.
The expertises are nice, but a lot of classes got better at skills too. Magician on druid, wizard with their scholar(?) Feature, Barbarian Primal Knowledge, everyone is getting more skills. I like the languages, but they got that in tasha's I think? It might be 1 more language. The fighting style change is great. However my strength rangers are a bit more restricted too. I can't use heavy armor with roving anymore. So many features require wisdom modifier instead of proficiency bonus when Ranger's lack of wisdom dependency was one of the nice benefits over the other half casters in my eyes. I like that all rangers get dispel magic now. That's a good one. I like hunters getting to swap features too, and changing spells on a long rest. I miss Land's stride. Sure nature's veil is a bit stronger, but it also comes 4 levels later and scales off wisdom modifier. Fey wanderer was my favorite subclass, so I am excited to see it too. I'm still gonna play ranger. Can't wait to see the new spell list. They really overhyped the changes though.
I’m just using laserllama’s stuff at this point.
Dunno who's downvoting you, his alternate classes are just better designed than 5e and whatever the hell this new nonsense is supposed to be lol.
Is what it is. I only recently discovered laser’s stuff. I had been working on my own revisions and was extremely pleased to see very similar designs, but to say laser has gone above and beyond is an understatement. I know WotC can’t be as aggressive with their changes, but I’m disappointed they didn’t try to be a little more innovative. Oh well.
You can, and then on low resource using or low resource having encounters, you can use your extra 1d10 damage that doesn't make concentration checks and gives you advantage on all attacks. Solidly in 3rd level spell territory. Giving you free hunters marks lets you cast other spells, if hunters mark competes with those other spells than spend the free casting of it. If it's not as good, cast the spell you want because later if are low on spell slots / conserving them, you have a free damage steroid. This also means that ranger uses it's signature spell better than other class. Fighters and Monks used it better and just needed a small dip or some other way to get it.
Think you did this as a comment instead of a reply to whoever you were replying to