D&D (2024) 2024 Player's Handbook reveal: "New Ranger"

"More than any other class, the ranger is a new class."

​

It has been a year (less a day) since we last saw the Ranger in UA Playtest 6. There still could be a lot of change. My sense is that they are more or less happy with three of the subclasses (Fey Wanderer, Beastmaster, and Gloom Stalker), but many questions remain: Will anyone be happy with the favored enemy/relation to the land abilities? Will Hunter's Mark be foregrounded in multiple abilities? Will rangers at least get a free casting of the Barrage/Volley spells? For the Hunter, will the "Superior" abilties at levels 11 and 15 continue to be things you didn't choose at lower levels? For the Gloom Stalker, will they pull out 3rd level invisibility from "Umbral Sight"? Any chance for a surprise substitution of the Horizon Walker? Let's find out.

OVERVIEW

• "widely played, but ... one of the lowest rated"
• Spellcasting and Weapon Mastery at 1 (as with Paladin). Spellcasting can change spells after long rest (not every level)
• NEW: Favored Enemy: Hunters Mark always prepared, and X castings per day. (was level 2 in PT6, where it was WIS times/day)
• NEW: Fighting Style at 2 (no limits on choice). or you may choose two cantrips (again, like Paladin).
• NEW: Deft Explorer at 3: expertise in a proficient skill, +2 languages. NO INTERACTION WITH LAND TYPES. This is a nerf from PT6, where at least you got a bonus to Intelligence (Nature) checks.
• Extra attack at 5, Roving at 6 (+10' move, Climb Speed, Swim speed).
• Two more expertise options, at 9, presumably. Compared to the playtest, this is a nerf: PT6 gave 1 expertise, the spell Conjure Barrage always prepared, and +2 land types for Explorer. These had problems, but it's a lot to lose for one additional expertise.
• At 10, Tireless (as in PT6) -- THP and reduced Exhaustion.
• NEW: At 13, Damage no longer breaks concentration with Hunter's Mark.
• At 14, Nature's Veil -- invisibility. At 18, Blindsight.
• NEW: At 17, advantage vs person marked with Hunter's Mark.
• NEW: Damage of Hunter's mark increases to d10, not d6. (This too is a nerf from the playtest, which gave +WIS to hit, and +WIS to damage.)

The clear expectation is you are using Hunter's Mark, occupying your concentration and taking your first Bonus action every combat, from levels 1-20.

SUBCLASSES
Beastmaster

• command Primal Beast as a bonus action, and higher level abilities as in PT6, apparently.
• stat blocks level up with you (as in Tasha's and PT6). Beast gets Hunter's Mark benefits at 11.

Fey Wanderer

• vague on specifics; apparently just as in Tasha's.

Gloom Stalker

• as in PT6, Psychic damage bonus a limited number of times per day. +WIS to initiative (cf. Assassin and Barbarian)
• Umbral Sight, darkvision bonus, and invisible in the dark.
• NEW: psychic damage goes up at level 11. Mass fear option of Sudden Strike mentioned, nothing about Sudden Strike.

Hunter.

• Hunter's Lore at 3: know if there are immunities/resistances of creature marked by Hunter's Mark.
• NEW: Hunter's Prey at 3: you have a choice and can change your choice every short/long rest.
• NEW: Defensive Tactics at 7: you have a choice, and again can choose after a rest. The choices are Escape the Horde, Multiattack defense (not Evasion, Uncanny Dodge, and Hunter's Leap, as in PT6).
• NEW: At 11, Hunter's mark now "splashes" damage onto another target.
• NEW: you can choose to take resistance to damage, until the end of your turn.

 

[Minigiant]

But I do want to track rations and hunting climates.

You are a minority in the community.

 

[Chaosmancer]

They why are nonmagical subclasses handling these situations present at all, if magic use is the obvious answer?

These situations being beating up peasants or stealing from rich people?

 

[Chaosmancer]

My complaint is that both the damage (e.g. aiming for the weak spots) and the tracking (e.g. tracking) are things that you could expect a hunter to do normally because hunting is their profession.

Hunter's Mark unnecessarily ties those things to spellcasting in the form of a spell with no obvious magical effect.

It is a failure to reinforce the hunter class fantasy..AND a dilution of the wonder of magic.

Maybe the solution IS to make spell more magical.

But, for me, I see no compelling narrarive reason for it to be a spell in the first place. It'd be simple, instead, to just say that Rangers can "aim for the weak spots" (to do more damage), and "track" (to track) the creatures they are hunting.

Edit: To illustrate, if you were to interview the most grizzled, experienced Ranger in all of D&D and ask them how it is that they can find and kill their chosen prey..would you expect the first words out of their mouth to be "Well you see, I've got this spell.."

Okay... maybe Hunter's Marl isn't aiming for weak points. That is just one possibility that a fellow player in one of my games is using, that I thought was pretty cool. Maybe instead Hunter's Mark is like one of my other examples, and it is an explosion of force damage on the point of impact. Now it has nothing to do with aiming, so it should be fine, right?

 

[Chaosmancer]

So fighters and rogues shouldn't be able to fight ogres and wyverns without spells?

I certainly wouldn't say a 5th level fighter has any chance of dealing with a Wyvern solo. Rogue has a better chance if they can kite and use stealth tactics, like rogues should.

Edit: If you LIKE rangers to have spells, that's cool. You don't need to defend your preference with logic in a fantasy world.

Really? Funny, since I don't need to defend it why am I constantly facing a deluge of people claiming that rangers are terrible because real hunter's don't need magic to aim? And that every ranger should be spell-less, and that WoTC should never have made the mistake of giving rangers spells, and that Aargorn never used spells, and he is the ranger that should be the model, and and and and

I seem to have to do a lot of defending rangers having spells, in any possible discussion of rangers no matter what the initial discussion was focused on.

 

[Incenjucar]

I certainly wouldn't say a 5th level fighter has any chance of dealing with a Wyvern solo. Rogue has a better chance if they can kite and use stealth tactics, like rogues should.



Really? Funny, since I don't need to defend it why am I constantly facing a deluge of people claiming that rangers are terrible because real hunter's don't need magic to aim? And that every ranger should be spell-less, and that WoTC should never have made the mistake of giving rangers spells, and that Aargorn never used spells, and he is the ranger that should be the model, and and and and

I seem to have to do a lot of defending rangers having spells, in any possible discussion of rangers no matter what the initial discussion was focused on.

Nobody said "Chaosmancer's opinions on rangers make them a bad person". Are you the person who developed the ranger as a magic user? If so, I wish you hadn't.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You are a minority in the community.

And proud of it. Doesn't mean I should side with the fantasy superhero majority.

 

[Micah Sweet]

These situations being beating up peasants or stealing from rich people?

I was thinking of stealing from rich people, but there are many situations where one could argue you should just use magic. If that's so, why bother with not-magic at all?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I certainly wouldn't say a 5th level fighter has any chance of dealing with a Wyvern solo. Rogue has a better chance if they can kite and use stealth tactics, like rogues should.



Really? Funny, since I don't need to defend it why am I constantly facing a deluge of people claiming that rangers are terrible because real hunter's don't need magic to aim? And that every ranger should be spell-less, and that WoTC should never have made the mistake of giving rangers spells, and that Aargorn never used spells, and he is the ranger that should be the model, and and and and

I seem to have to do a lot of defending rangers having spells, in any possible discussion of rangers no matter what the initial discussion was focused on.

No one has mentioned Aragorn here but you, to be fair to your rhetorical opponents.

 

[Minigiant]

Okay... maybe Hunter's Marl isn't aiming for weak points. That is just one possibility that a fellow player in one of my games is using, that I thought was pretty cool. Maybe instead Hunter's Mark is like one of my other examples, and it is an explosion of force damage on the point of impact. Now it has nothing to do with aiming, so it should be fine, right?

Nothing about Hunters Mark is targeting weakspots.

Hunters Mark is literally the Video Game targeting reticle.

It's a divination that only the caster can see. There are easier to track because there's a big stinking mark highlighting their position to you..

That's why why you can find them easier. They are magically highlighted. It takes a bonus action to hit the L trigger and swap targets.

Nonmagical Hunters Mark doesn't make any sense because once the target leaves LOS, the mark would end as you cannot see them. Nor would it give a Perception or Survival bonus.

And that's the crux of my point. People want nonmagical HM but to have it keep the benefits of being magic.

If Rangers got the 4e Hunter's Quarry, a purely martial feature, many would not like the adjustments that would be made. Hunters Quarry would 200% use concentration and deal less damage.

 

[WanderingMystic]

Nothing about Hunters Mark is targeting weakspots.

Hunters Mark is literally the Video Game targeting reticle.

It's a divination that only the caster can see. There are easier to track because there's a big stinking mark highlighting their position to you..

That's why why you can find them easier. They are magically highlighted. It takes a bonus action to hit the L trigger and swap targets.

Nonmagical Hunters Mark doesn't make any sense because once the target leaves LOS, the mark would end as you cannot see them. Nor would it give a Perception or Survival bonus.

And that's the crux of my point. People want nonmagical HM but to have it keep the benefits of being magic.

If Rangers got the 4e Hunter's Quarry, a purely martial feature, many would not like the adjustments that would be made. Hunters Quarry would 200% use concentration and deal less damage.

You are not only able to but encouraged to flavor your spells as you see fit. Hunters Mark uses divination to help my ranger to find weak spots.

I am fine about rangers having spells because you can flavor most in got of all of their spells as enhanced skill tricks, potions, alchemical arrows, traps and things like that.