I do miss using those spells, but no the bad design is having 4 separate class abilities centered around a specific spell that some players will rarely use, ESPECIALLY when one of them is the freaking capstone.
It is supposed to be the Ranger class, not the Hunter's Mark class.
I agree the capstone is hot garbage. However, the game generally goes from levels 1 to 10. In the vast majority of tables it is a single feature, a feature that was requested extensively and one that is better than the non-spell version that did the exact same thing that they decided not to go with.
And maybe some players will rarely use it... so what? People are allowed to play their character as they want.
The problem is with the Ranger class, not any of these things.
Since you bought it up though, at high level it is going to be pretty hard for the FW to do what the subclass is designed to do (Summon Fey and charm/frighten) and at the time get much benefits out of all those ranger class abilities that are centered on HM.
Yes, you can't stack concentration. We don't know if that's a problem yet. You are just assuming that since they have Hunter's Mark features that everyone will be compelled to always use Hunter's Mark no matter what in the name of... efficiency I guess? I've had abilities I've never used before. And there isn't a reason to assume that you will NEVER use it, you just won't use it every fight.
No. If they took away PA I would be fine. My problem is Favored Enemy, Relentless Hunter, Precise Hunter and Foe Slayer. They all revolve around one spell.
And except Foe Slayer they take away NOTHING that you were using on your two builds. Not a single thing. You can't even support the idea of opportunity cost, because they may have decided to add nothing to levels 13 and 15 if they didn't add those two features. So, you previously had non-attack roll rangers, who have lost essentially zero abilities, only gained abilities... and you are upset because those abilities don't support your off-the-wall character builds? I will let you know, the idea that the ranger is now "forced" into being a weapon wielder, when that is how 99% of all players have ever played them... doesn't strike me as a serious concern.
No it isn't. To start with Nature's Veil happens later in the new Ranger and it conflicts with HM.
Happens later? Yes.
Conflicts with HM? No, not at all. Edit: I do not count "both things take a bonus action" as conflicting"
Second Favored Foe, the way I used it was a lot better. Not a little better, a lot better. It did not require a bonus action meaning I could use Nature's Veil, TWF or Misty Step on the same turn. I did not attack enough to use up the daily uses of it, so I could spam it on every single hit. Also it was 1d8 at that level so it did MORE damage than HM, not less, and I could also use it on multiple targets in the same turn (although I don't know that I ever did that late in game). As long as I was not already concentrating on something it was a flat 1d8 I could add to any attack I wanted.
So... you are going to tell me that you only made four attack rolls during the entire day, and that since you only made four attacks, an ability that gave you a maximum of 4d8 to 6d8 damage is better than one which can give, even on a low estimate 21d6 damage over a day?
And not keeping the ability that only was more powerful for a ranger unlike what anyone else uses a ranger to do, that was specifically built exactly like you built it, is bad design that forces rangers into a specific niche? Are you using a dictionary only filled with antonyms?
I mentioned above that in one fight against an enemy in an anti-magic shell that I decimated him. I did that by using Two Weapon Fighting going and attacking twice with my dragontooth dagger, once with my other dagger (+1 or +2??) and using multiple uses of fovored foe to add 1d8 damage to every one of those hits (and sneak attack and dreadful strikes). Hunter's Mark would have been about 15 damage less on the first round and a smaller amount less (3) on the 2nd round and that is IF it would have worked inside an anti-magic zone at all (which I doubt it would have).
In this debate, let's remember that this character actually had Hex too (from Fey Touched), and FF was MUCH better for damage at high level given the rarity of her making attacks and the action economy. Hex was used entirely for the disadvantage mechanic after 10th level or so, even though I had a free casting, and this was because Favored Foe was better every time I had concentration open and wanted to do damage. TBH if I did it again I would take Dissonant Whispers instead of Hex and I did this on the Dragonborn Chromescale which I played after the Goblin Lena.
And I'm sure every ranger constantly finds themselves fighting in an anti-magic field after never attacking for the entire first half of the day, so they can use and drop concentration on an ability they got at 1st level. That is just the normal, almost required ranger experience.... /s
But she needs to use the HM Bonus action, giving up an attack .... and she would not have had it anyway because that comes at 17th level and she was a level 16 Ranger.
Chromescale would have had it, but he did not attack with a weapon at all, not one time, after level 15. Although I will point out that if he did, at 20th level he would have lost 5DPR to his attacks because the capstone is now Hunters Mark.
Turns out, other people play other rangers. THe designers did not design to make Lena and Chromescale the archetypical ranger outline.
And yeah, instead of 4d6+20, a ranger would cast hunter's mark and deal 6d6+15 that turn. losing a whole negative two damage, or in other words.... doing more damage.
It is not better, it is worse for that other playstyle.
Most ranger players make more than four attack rolls a day. IF that isn't your playstyle, I'm sorry. You can always beg your DM to give you the Tasha's ability instead. It is still compatible with the game.
No. Let's be clear here.
They lost:
Primal Awareness,
Favored foe (much better than HM for this playstyle)
Nature's Viel was moved later
Vanish
old Foe Slayer.
All of these would be better than the abilities they replaced them with for this particular play style.
"I want my playstyle supported, not the normal playstyle other people use"
Also, let's be clear here. They gained a bunch of abilities too.
What is nonsense is this claim. It is factually and objectively true they had more than one feature replaced by these Hunter's Mark buffs.
At level 13 the 2014 ranger gained 4th level spells. In 2024 they gain Relentless Hunter and 4th level spells. Nothing was lost
At level 15 the 2014 ranger gained 5th level spells. In 2024 they gain Precise Hunter and 5th level spells. Nothing was lost.
If you are a character that is goiong to be hitting it with a stick the new Ranger is better. If you are a PC that is going to be pumping wisdom, summoning or throwing down spike growth and spending a lot of time casting (and concentrating) on something else the new Ranger is worse. Especially at high levels.
Not unless that wisdom ranger wants to hit something with a stick and spam two or three uses of Favored Foe. Otherwise, it is unchanged
per your own argument. Because nothing you have been complaining about has anything to do with being a caster ranger, you even dismissed the loss of the extra spells as not mattering.
Overall the class is more powerful, but the playstyle I used, and a fair number of players used, is punished in the new class design and not well supported in class mechanics like it was previously. That doesn't mean it won't work, but it is not supported by the class mechanics.
The Ranger has 40 different concentration spells (not counting subclass adds). Many of them are objectively more powerful than Hunter's Mark. I have to forgo using 39 of them to make use of my 1st, 13th, 17th or 20th level class features. That is the problem
So, overall, the ranger is stronger and better designed. Just not for an unusual playstyle that very few people ever used. And therefore the designers are bad at their jobs, because they focused the design towards the common playstyles, not the niche ones.
