Sell me on the Warlock

[EvanNave55]

I would counter with the question, "If the devs intended all rangers to take hunter's mark, in order to be balanced, why is it only one of many spell's known choices and not just a class feature?"


If that's true, I've got another one for you: Is a ranger only considered 'balanced' when he has hunter's mark active?

I don't actually have a lot of experience with 5e rangers myself as I have yet to play one, this is merely what I know from what devs have said in certain articles/discussions with players. As far as making such things class features, it is constantly said that eldritch blast should have been a class feature and not a cantrip.

 

[FrogReaver]

Balance is always relative to the thing being balanced against. Balance also must take environmental factors into consideration. In dnd terms the thing being balanced against is the other characters in campaign x (where x is any specific campaign).

Thus given any party and any campaign I can likely find a specific class build that is balanced enough for that campaign and party. So a ranger without hunters mark will be balanced in some campaigns. However there will also be some where he is unbalanced.

So why would anyone claim that a ranger without hunters mark is unbalanced? Because compared to most actual parties in most campaign settings he will struggle to meaningfully contribute to combats as often as the other party members do and a ranger with hunters mark would avoid that issue entirely.

To be frank, that's not for you to say.


I reject that entire premise. Under what criteria would there be a lack of balance if the ranger did not take that one of numerous spells they have available to choose from?


Please defend your opinion that you cannot have a "balanced" ranger at 1st level. [Hint: Because rangers don't have access to hunter's mark until 2nd level at the earliest.]


You will need to define your use of "balance" then. Because I believe you are using it very differently than I.

Because the way I'm reading your point, you could just as easily be saying a party cannot be "balanced" unless it is a cleric because the adventure is found to have undead in it.

 

[Ryuujin]

Out of curiosity why is it that a number of builds have picked Lifedrinker for an Invocation? Since that Invocation is not an option under the level 9 build requirement.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

So a ranger without hunters mark will be balanced in some campaigns. However there will also be some where he is unbalanced.

I don't see how that is possible without first defining what you mean by 'balance'. Are you continuing to focus solely on DPR? Seems a bit of a shortsighted metric for a game with three pillars of play. And even if you do want to hamstring yourself by concentrating on combat alone to measure your usefulness, DPR isn't the end-all-be-all even still. Nor is hunter's mark even the only available source of DPR enhancement for them.

So why would anyone claim that a ranger without hunters mark is unbalanced? Because compared to most actual parties in most campaign settings he will struggle to meaningfully contribute to combats as often as the other party members do and a ranger with hunters mark would avoid that issue entirely.

Seems you are also making the claim that rangers are only 'balanced' a few times a day. Since they can't realistically have hunter's mark active and applicable all the time. So what does that mean for the claim that they 'need' it? Rangers are only playable when you can pull of a 5MWD? What about 1st-level rangers? They don't even have access to hunter's mark. Poor rangers. Everyone looks at them on paper and thinks they must suck.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I don't actually have a lot of experience with 5e rangers myself as I have yet to play one, this is merely what I know from what devs have said in certain articles/discussions with players.

I've played a 5e ranger. And seen another in play. I think they are pretty great, actually. And as much as we both did have hunter's mark on our known spells lists, and used it, he and I did use other spells. And did go whole encounters without using it. And performed just fine. The spell has its place. It's definitely a good spell to have in the quiver. I never said it didn't or wasn't. I questing the bombastic claims that a ranger who doesn't have it up all the time, and benefiting from it, is somehow 'weak'.

As far as making such things class features, it is constantly said that eldritch blast should have been a class feature and not a cantrip.

Well, if it's been "constantly said'...

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes as if the ranger gains any significant ability for the other pillars by not choosing hunters mark...

I don't see how that is possible without first defining what you mean by 'balance'. Are you continuing to focus solely on DPR? Seems a bit of a shortsighted metric for a game with three pillars of play. And even if you do want to hamstring yourself by concentrating on combat alone to measure your usefulness, DPR isn't the end-all-be-all even still. Nor is hunter's mark even the only available source of DPR enhancement for them.


Seems you are also making the claim that rangers are only 'balanced' a few times a day. Since they can't realistically have hunter's mark active and applicable all the time. So what does that mean for the claim that they 'need' it? Rangers are only playable when you can pull of a 5MWD? What about 1st-level rangers? They don't even have access to hunter's mark. Poor rangers. Everyone looks at them on paper and thinks they must suck.

 

[FrogReaver]

You are great at arguing against claims that no one made.

I've played a 5e ranger. And seen another in play. I think they are pretty great, actually. And as much as we both did have hunter's mark on our known spells lists, and used it, he and I did use other spells. And did go whole encounters without using it. And performed just fine. The spell has its place. It's definitely a good spell to have in the quiver. I never said it didn't or wasn't. I questing the bombastic claims that a ranger who doesn't have it up all the time, and benefiting from it, is somehow 'weak'.


Well, if it's been "constantly said'...

 

[FrogReaver]

Oh and FYI. First level ranger are pretty terrible.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Oh and FYI. First level ranger are pretty terrible.

That is demonstrably false.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Yes as if the ranger gains any significant ability for the other pillars by not choosing hunters mark...

Spell selection for rangers has an opportunity cost, yes. I recommend reading page 209 of the PHB (Ranger's Spell List). You will find there are spells on it that are quite useful to the other two pillars of play.