D&D 5E It's official, WOTC hates Rangers (Tasha's version of Favored Foe is GARBAGE)

[Benjamin Olson]

The best thing this does design wise is that it matches typical play better than the existing Hunter's Mark paradigm. Namely it is something you decide on after hitting, when players remember that they wanted to Hunter's Mark the damned enemy, like they do every enemy, rather than something you have to declare before, which most players at least sometimes forget. Now when Ranger Player ask's the DM, "oh damn, can I have cast Hunter's Mark before that attack" the answer will be "no, but you've still got Foe Slayer".

Also on the upside, the UA version this is replacing really stretched the Ranger bonus action too thin. Not quite so bad for the Gloomstalker and Hunter, but for those who had some key subclass feature running off regular use of the bonus action it was pretty bad.

Having played the UA class feature variants version I'm going to vote for it having been fun, but overly samey and a bit overpowered. I effectively had a nearly unlimited amount of Hunter's Mark as long as I stayed at range and didn't break concentration (if I recall it was supposed to be concentration free, but I didn't know that when I started and it already seemed like the UA option I had asked if I could use was a bit overpowered without me then insisting on it being concentration free) and it was hard to justify ever using other concentration spells. It definitely upped the power of the Ranger, but gradually the fun factor wained.

Which is not to say that I think this new version of the feature (if it's final, if it's real) is great, just that I think it's replacing something that could have used tweaking and maybe in play this will prove better than it seems at first blush. I definitely wouldn't consider it all caps "GARBAGE" as the thread title proclaims.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It scales damage with level and doesn’t cost bonus action (so can be used alongside two weapon fighting). What’s not to love!

It’s concentration, and it replaces a feature that is fun and flavorful (and should just a damn minor enhancement feature like half the other classes got), and it isn’t actually better than just learning Hunters Mark.

 

[Azzy]

Some idiot named Drizz't came along during 2e and mangled the Ranger archetype.

As a nitpick (which I'm way too prone to doing), The Crystal Shard (and, thus, Drizzt) came out before 2e. His two-weapon fighting being a feature innate to drow (as per the 1e Unearthed Arcana). While it's said that the design of the 2e ranger wasn't influenced by Drizzt, I'm not convinced—slapping two-weapon fighting on the ranger isn't an intuitive choice and doesn't seem to be connected to any ranger-like character in fiction (aside from Drizzt).

 

[Minigiant]

So, like most D&D games ever.

Which also hits on a very significant problem with the PHB Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer. When they don't work, they don't work at all. The few times they do work, they work "too well" by allowing you to skip their pillar of play altogether.

That's the problem with multiple "pillar" gameplay period. A "pillar" is as strong as how frequent and important it is.

The problem with FE and NEin a Darkest Dungeon like game is that the players can choose how often they trigger and the triggers are from a small set, not that it skips gameplay.

The problem with Natural Explorer is that D&D base gameonly has wilderness exploration as tracking, foraging, navigating, and "cast spell to remove obstacle".

 

[Azzy]

The best thing this does design wise is that it matches typical play better than the existing Hunter's Mark paradigm. Namely it is something you decide on after hitting, when players remember that they wanted to Hunter's Mark the damned enemy, like they do every enemy, rather than something you have to declare before, which most players at least sometimes forget. Now when Ranger Player ask's the DM, "oh damn, can I have cast Hunter's Mark before that attack" the answer will be "no, but you've still got Foe Slayer".

As a DM, I let players use HM even if they forget to declare it before attacking—I've been in the same boat having played a ranger.

 

[Mistwell]

Ranger should just be a fighter subclass.

There. I said it.

So should Paladin and Barbarian.
There, I said that!

 

[Don Durito]

Hunters Mark, as a translation of a 4E class feature should never have been a spell and definitely shouldn't require concentration or a bonus action.

It should be something closer to sneak attack.

That's the problem I guess we're stuck with now.

 

[Don Durito]

So should Paladin and Barbarian.
There, I said that!

Possibly. But at least they seem to be on a stronger design footing these days.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Hunters Mark, as a translation of a 4E class feature should never have been a spell and definitely shouldn't require concentration or a bonus action.

It should be something closer to sneak attack.

That's the problem I guess we're stuck with now.

Yeah. And same with the Warlock's Hex.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Possibly. But at least they seem to be on a stronger design footing these days.

A lot more people were saying it about the Paladin and Barbarian before 5e properly filled their design space. If 5e had made the Ranger good from the start, people wouldn't be talking about reducing it to a Fighter subclass or whatever.