D&D (2024) D&D 2024 Rules Oddities (Kibbles’ Collected Complaints)

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Primal Awareness IS A THING
Favored Foe IS A THING
Vanish IS A THING

Land's Stride was a thing, too, but just got removed for the lols.

I'm glad I got playing a Beast Master out of my system in 2014+Tasha... doing it in 2024 would hit differently.

 

[ECMO3]

Land's Stride was a thing, too, but just got removed for the lols.

I'm glad I got playing a Beast Master out of my system in 2014+Tasha... doing it in 2024 would hit differently.

I completely forgot about that thanks! Yes, Land's Stride is another THING.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I get that most tables go 1 to 10, but I play regular games that go to 20 and have for the last 2+ years.

So sure if you want to say this is no problem under level 10 I would agree with you. I still prefer Tasha's version, but the new one is fine. But that is fundamentally different than saying the class is fine overall.

Congratulations, but even if you are playing to 20, your argument is still poor.

We do know it is a problem when the best Ranger spells use concentration and the Ranger by definition is a caster.

Since they have hunters mark features they have class features they won't be able to make use of.

From level 1 til level 10 or 11, the Ranger gets the ability to cast Hunter's Mark for free. If they don't want to cast it to concentrate on another spell.... I don't see the problem. I don't see a problem with a Cleric casting bless instead of deciding to concentrate on Shield of Faith. And sure, the cleric doesn't get free castings of Bless at level 1... but that's just a benefit. Its the exact same spell, and it is just free.

And yeah, they may end up unable to use a class feature on every single round of every combat.... that's not new. Assassin Rogues get a benefit for using Steady Aim, "But what if I want to use a different bonus action!!" Then... don't use Steady Aim?

People keep acting like getting some free castings of a spell and concentration not breaking easily on it means that they have a loaded gun to their head and if they do ANYTHING other than cast that spell they will be ended. But that isn't how this works. If you have a better spell... cast the better spell. It is that simple.

Not true.

Primal Awareness IS A THING
Favored Foe IS A THING
Vanish IS A THING
Nature's Veil coming later IS A THING for any character between levels 10 and 13 IS A THING

This is objectively NOT true.

You told me that Primal awareness didn't matter for your characters. You told me that one of them never made attack rolls (so couldn't use Favored Foe) and the other didn't use it til late game and only rarely. You never mentioned Vanish as something any of your characters.

And finally, moving something to later isn't taking it away.

What do you mean you don't count it as conflicting? If I am attacking someone I can cast Hunter's Mark on him or I can ?use Misty Step to get to him ... or I can use NAture's Viel to go invisible ... or I can use Two wepaon fighting and attack him.

This is a direct conflict.

You know what else conflicts - If I have a Fey I am concentrating on running around doing things.

And therefore having the attack action conflicts with casting Summon Fey or Spike Growth, and the fact that both of those are concentration and actions mean that those conflict. And bonus action potions conflict with dual-wielding and... by that point literally everything in the game is a "conflict" with other things that use the same action.

I don't count that as a conflict. It is extra options. Especially now since Nick removes the only major sticking point on this whole bonus action issue.

Not 6 actually. I hit 5 all day when I was not concentrating on a spell. I hit I hit him three times the first round and twice the next round using 4 uses of Favored Foe. I had 2 uses left when we finished for a short rest.

Keep in mind concentration prevents you from using favored foe or Hunters Mark. If you are a character that is going to be casting concentration spells (as the Fey Wanderer is designed to do) you are not going to be able to add either of these a lot and that means at high level the uses of favored foe you have will be PLENTY. I never ran out of favored foe after 8th level. Never.


Facts are facts.

Yeah, and most people have their rangers make more than 5 attacks a day. Again, a 2024 dual-wielding ranger can end up making 4 attacks in a single round of combat. Facts being facts.

Also... why bring up a short rest? Favored Foe was a long rest ability.

For any Rangers who don't want to "hit it with a stick"

Like I said Hunter's Mark is not a powerful spell and even with the Hunter's Mark buffs most PCs will be more powerful at high level if they use their concentration on something else.

You are free to have that opinion. That doesn't mean it is necessarily true.

Actually they did when they made Tasha's rules and that is what enabled those characters and made Ranger one of my favorite classes to play.

I will also add that Druidic warrior is specifically in there to support a Wisdom first ranger and that Ranger is not going to benefit a lot from Hunter's Mark.

Still have Druidic warrior in 2024, it is right there in the Fighting style description.

And, no. Favored Foe did not make the character you wanted to play possible, because Favored Foe was designed for a ranger who makes attack rolls. If it was meant to be used the way you used it, then it wouldn't have been concentration. Their intent was a spell-less, once per turn damage boost. You used it and dropped concentration to end and re-use it, which was exploiting the rule, not using it as intended.

Ok your math is all screwed up. At 20th level Hunter's Mark is a D10 not a d6 on the 2024 Ranger

Didn't do the math for a 20th level ranger, so the math isn't wrong.

And the point is the Wisdom stacks with Hunters Mark, so with the old foe slayer a PC could get 5 Wisdom + 3.5 Hunters Mark if he had concentration available.

The new Ranger gets 5.5 Hunter's mark only. 3 points less.

Again, not going to deny that the capstone is bad. It is bad. I have a preferred fix already for it. Two technically as I have my fix for the old Foe Slayer which was ALSO a bad ability.

At high level few Rangers make lots of attacks while they are not concentrating on a good spell.

Even for Rangers that want to "hit it with a stick" you can find dozens of posts about the Swift Quiver builds.



How much high level play have you done as a Ranger?

Few people are using HM at high level. A lot are attacking, but they are concentrating on something else typically. Not always but typically.

I believe I have had two rangers get above level 13. One went all the way to 20. This was pre-Tasha's.

I don't think the new Ranger gets precise Hunter at 15th level. Maybe I am wrong, but I think PH is at 17th level .... and no they did not lose anything at 17th level, but they did lose Vanish at 14th.

I could be wrong because I don't have a copy of the book, but that is my understanding.

You are wrong.

This is just objectively false.

The Ranger lost Primal Awareness spells
The Ranger lost Vanish

I don't mind a debate but stop lying.

You specifically told me that we weren't talking about Primal Awareness spells. I brought them up and you said: "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"

But now that I'm following your argument and dismissing the things you dismissed as not mattering.... I'm lying. Maybe make up your mind about what you are actually upset about before telling people they are lying because you didn't like their first argument, but now it is convenient for your second.

Just not for the playstyle encouraged by Druidic Warrior and Fey Wanderer subclass.

Which is still a 100% viable and possible playstyle. You barely used Favored Foe by your own admission. You didn't seem to care a lot about the loss of the Primal Awareness spells. So the only thing is, you feel bad seeing free castings of Hunter's Mark at level 1, because at level 5 you don't want to cast Hunter's Mark, but since you have some free castings of it, you have no possible choice except to use it.

 

[ECMO3]

Congratulations, but even if you are playing to 20, your argument is still poor.

If you are not then you have no argument.

If you don;t play at high level then how can you even make a rational judgement about high-level play?

From level 1 til level 10 or 11, the Ranger gets the ability to cast Hunter's Mark for free. If they don't want to cast it to concentrate on another spell.... I don't see the problem.

Well I mean even at this level, if they wanted to use primal awareness or favored foe they are SOL.

I don't see a problem with a Cleric casting bless instead of deciding to concentrate on Shield of Faith.

Cleric's do not get a free casting of either, and if they got a free cast of SOF instead of say heavy armor proficiency and then in addition they got 3 more class features over the levels, including a capstone that worked with SOF and required casting SOF, then yes it would be a big deal!

This is a great example, because like HM, SOF is a mediocre spell at low level, it is a bonus action to cast and it requires concentration.

So let's build a cleric:
Level 1: Divine order - Protector you get martial weapons and a free casting of SOF instead of heavy armor
Level 14: No blessed strikes, instead damage no longer breaks concentration on SOF
Level 20: Instead of Greater Divine Intervention, now SOF improves AC by 4 instead of 2.

That would be roughly equivalent to what we have for the Ranger class!

You told me that Primal awareness didn't matter for your characters.

That is NOT what I said. What I said is "I do miss using those spells but no the bad design is having 4 separate class abilities centered around a specific spell"

If you are going to make a claim about what I said, please be sure it is accurate.

You told me that one of them never made attack rolls (so couldn't use Favored Foe) and the other didn't use it til late game and only rarely.4

Again no I didn't. What I said was one of them rarely made attack rolls and the other neve made an attack after level 15.

You never mentioned Vanish as something any of your characters.

So what? That doesn't mean I did not use it. It is a bonus action.

And finally, moving something to later isn't taking it away.

It is taking it away at the levels you don't have it, and I will add one of those levels is level 10, which is a level people supposedly play a lot.

And therefore having the attack action conflicts with casting Summon Fey or Spike Growth, and the fact that both of those are concentration and actions mean that those conflict. And bonus action potions conflict with dual-wielding and... by that point literally everything in the game is a "conflict" with other things that use the same action.

yes. But only one of those things is a specific class feature at FOUR different levels.

I don't count that as a conflict. It is extra options. Especially now since Nick removes the only major sticking point on this whole bonus action issue.

Okl let me be clear here. It is something that I can't do if I use Hunter's Mark. I call that a conflict. You call it something else, but I can use it with the 2014 favored foe.

Also nick does not "remove" anything. Nick only applies IF you have a weapon with the nick property and IF your character has mastery on that weapon and even IF that is the potential bonus action attack from dual wielding would still not be allowed (since 'conflict' means something else) with the other attack from light.

Your Drudic Warrior is going to be fighting with a club or a staff!

Call it a 'conflict', call it not a 'conflict'. The FACT is if you cast hunter's mark you can't Misty Step, Nature's Viel or use a TWF bonus action attack. What you want to call that interference is irrelevant .... and those are not the only things!

Yeah, and most people have their rangers make more than 5 attacks a day. Again, a 2024 dual-wielding ranger can end up making 4 attacks in a single round of combat. Facts being facts.

At high level, when not concentrating on another spell? I don't think that is true. It may be true at low level, but I don't think it is true at high level.

Also... why bring up a short rest?

I don't think I did.

You are free to have that opinion. That doesn't mean it is necessarily true.

There are more powerful Ranger spells available than Hunter's Mark at high level. That much is fact, not opinion (even with the buffs to HM).

Still have Druidic warrior in 2024, it is right there in the Fighting style description.

Yes and you are discouraged from a playstyle that uses spells based on multiple abilities that leverage attacks. Also FWIW two of the spell options 'conflict' (am I using that term right with your definition?) with Hunter's Mark since they are concentration.

And, no. Favored Foe did not make the character you wanted to play possible, because Favored Foe was designed for a ranger who makes attack rolls. If it was meant to be used the way you used it, then it wouldn't have been concentration. Their intent was a spell-less, once per turn damage boost. You used it and dropped concentration to end and re-use it, which was exploiting the rule, not using it as intended.

Whatever. It was MUCH better than HM at level. That is all that really matters to this discussion. I would not be that upset with losing it, but replacing it with HM is not a boost, it is a nerf for that playstyle.

Didn't do the math for a 20th level ranger, so the math isn't wrong.

Well you responded to a post where I mentioned damge at 20th level, so I don't know what other level matters in that discussion ..... but yes your math is wrong at ANY level.

Again, not going to deny that the capstone is bad. It is bad. I have a preferred fix already for it.

Sure. My prefered fix for all those HM abilities is to change them, as I mentioned in my original post.

You are wrong.

You can say that, but unless you provide a reference or a photocopy of a page from the book, I will go with what is reported online by the sources I have used.

You specifically told me that we weren't talking about Primal Awareness spells.

Please do not misquote me. I said losing primal awarness is not what made the Ranger a bad design.

But now that I'm following your argument and dismissing the things you dismissed as not mattering.

I never said it did not matter. I said removing it was not what made the new class a poor design.

Two different things.

What makes the class a poor design is having 4 separate class features focused on Hunters Mark when there are 40 concentration spells (plus more from subclasses).

... I'm lying. Maybe make up your mind about what you are actually upset about before telling people they are lying because you didn't like their first argument, but now it is convenient for your second.

Yes. When you claim they lost nothing you are factually either misinformed or lying. That is an objective statement you made that is factually untrue. Pick which applies - you didn't know or you lied. EDIT: 3rd option - the reports on the PHB are wrong and the Ranger actually actually still has all those abilities.

Whether I am upset about those lost abilities or not does not change the facts, nor do my personal feelings really have any bearing on whether it is a poor class design.

Which is still a 100% viable and possible playstyle. You barely used Favored Foe by your own admission.

I used it more than I used HM and it was one first level ability.

You didn't seem to care a lot about the loss of the Primal Awareness spells.

So you think this even though I explicitly said otherwise on this very thread?

So the only thing is, you feel bad seeing free castings of Hunter's Mark at level 1, because at level 5 you don't want to cast Hunter's Mark, but since you have some free castings of it, you have no possible choice except to use it.

No that is not what I said at all. Read what I posted in several posts above, then make another post about what I "feel bad seeing".

 

[Xeviat]

Again, not going to deny that the capstone is bad. It is bad. I have a preferred fix already for it. Two technically as I have my fix for the old Foe Slayer which was ALSO a bad ability.

What's your fix, Chaosmancer?

 

[Chaosmancer]

What's your fix, Chaosmancer?

I should first note that my preferred game is fairly high powered at level 20, so this is on the higher end.

My old fix for Foe Slayer was this:

Unstoppable Predator: At 20th level, you become an unparalleled hunter. You gain the following benefits:

• You have advantage on all Wisdom and Investigation checks.
• Your Hunter's Mark damage die increases to 1d10
• Once per turn, when you make an attack roll with advantage and hit a creature, you can treat each damage dice as having rolled there maximum value.
• Magical effects can neither reduce your speed nor cause you to be paralyzed or restrained. You can spend 5 feet of movement to automatically escape from nonmagical restraints, such as manacles or a creature that has you grappled. Being underwater imposes no penalties on your movement or attacks.

For the 2024 rules, I am thinking about two things.

1. Improving the Hunter's Mark utility ability by making it a magical GPS. Once they have marked a target, the ranger will know the location of the target within 30 ft of their actual location. So, you can hide from them, but they know which room you are in within the building, or if you flee on horseback, they know where you went. This gives a reason for those longer cast times, in my mind.
2. For Foe Slayer, I am thinking of saying that all targets within 120 ft of the Ranger count as being under the effects of Hunter's Mark, and you can choose to "cast" the spell on a target within 120 ft of you to have a non-concentration 24 hr mark on them. Oh, and the d10's

What this essentially does, is give the ranger near perfect knowledge of every creature within 120 ft of them, advantage on all attacks against those creatures, and the damage boost from Hunter's Mark. And they can mark someone who just lingers nearby, then follow them later. I kind of want something to happen if you end up casting Hunter's Mark on them as well, but this is already pretty strong I think.

 

[Chaosmancer]

If you are not then you have no argument.

If you don;t play at high level then how can you even make a rational judgement about high-level play?

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Even if you want to take a character to level 20, your argument of "but this is worse if I don't want the martial class to make weapon attacks" is a poor argument.

Well I mean even at this level, if they wanted to use primal awareness or favored foe they are SOL.

Two abilities that were classically unused by the majority of ranger players. Kind of like saying the Monk who wants to use Breath of Winter or Eternal Mountain Defense is SOL.

Cleric's do not get a free casting of either, and if they got a free cast of SOF instead of say heavy armor proficiency and then in addition they got 3 more class features over the levels, including a capstone that worked with SOF and required casting SOF, then yes it would be a big deal!

This is a great example, because like HM, SOF is a mediocre spell at low level, it is a bonus action to cast and it requires concentration.

So let's build a cleric:
Level 1: Divine order - Protector you get martial weapons and a free casting of SOF instead of heavy armor
Level 14: No blessed strikes, instead damage no longer breaks concentration on SOF
Level 20: Instead of Greater Divine Intervention, now SOF improves AC by 4 instead of 2.

That would be roughly equivalent to what we have for the Ranger class!

Looks pretty good until 20th level... Just like the ranger class.

Okl let me be clear here. It is something that I can't do if I use Hunter's Mark. I call that a conflict. You call it something else, but I can use it with the 2014 favored foe.

Also nick does not "remove" anything. Nick only applies IF you have a weapon with the nick property and IF your character has mastery on that weapon and even IF that is the potential bonus action attack from dual wielding would still not be allowed (since 'conflict' means something else) with the other attack from light.

Your Drudic Warrior is going to be fighting with a club or a staff!

Call it a 'conflict', call it not a 'conflict'. The FACT is if you cast hunter's mark you can't Misty Step, Nature's Viel or use a TWF bonus action attack. What you want to call that interference is irrelevant .... and those are not the only things!

Yeah, except that logic doesn't really pan out. Sure, make Hunter's Mark a non-action that activates on an attack... and Misty Step is in conflict with Nature's Veil which is in conflict with the TWF Bonus action, which you aren't using because you used shillelagh, which is a bonus action and conflicts with all of that the exact same way. So even if we gave your solution, the problem you are talking about would still exist.

And yeah, if you aren't dual-wielding and don't have Misty step.... then it is really Hunter's Mark or Nature's Veil, and that isn't a conflict, it is a choice. Just like Dodging doesn't conflict with attacking, they are choices.

At high level, when not concentrating on another spell? I don't think that is true. It may be true at low level, but I don't think it is true at high level.

... You don't think that a high level ranger will take the attack action, and if they are a dual-wielder make 4 attacks? And what does concentrating on a spell have to do with that? Are you not allowed to take the attack action if you are ocncentrating on a spell?

I don't think I did.

You did.

There are more powerful Ranger spells available than Hunter's Mark at high level. That much is fact, not opinion (even with the buffs to HM).

Okay. And? There are better spells than Detect Magic at high level too, Wizard's still can use their 18th level feature to get free castings of it. And, maybe, someone disagrees with you and thinks all those attacks at advantage are worth the 1st level spell slot and concentration. Or maybe they have enough fights that they use those higher level spells and instead decide to use a weaker spell, you don't pull out your finishing move on every single fight in a long day.

Yes and you are discouraged from a playstyle that uses spells based on multiple abilities that leverage attacks. Also FWIW two of the spell options 'conflict' (am I using that term right with your definition?) with Hunter's Mark since they are concentration.

No, you are not.

Whatever. It was MUCH better than HM at level. That is all that really matters to this discussion. I would not be that upset with losing it, but replacing it with HM is not a boost, it is a nerf for that playstyle.

You can say whatever, but I know any ranger playing at my table would not have been allowed to use that exploit. So, the design is not a nerf from the perspective of the average player.

Well you responded to a post where I mentioned damge at 20th level, so I don't know what other level matters in that discussion ..... but yes your math is wrong at ANY level.

No, my math is still correct for what I was demonstrating.

You can say that, but unless you provide a reference or a photocopy of a page from the book, I will go with what is reported online by the sources I have used.

Ah, it seems I was wrong on that one. Apologies, I am not sure what class was in my brain to give a 15th level ability. It was 17th level.

Please do not misquote me. I said losing primal awarness is not what made the Ranger a bad design.

So we are not discussing it. If it isn't the cause of the "bad design" then it isn't part of the discussion any more than Favored Terrain.

I never said it did not matter. I said removing it was not what made the new class a poor design.

Two different things.

What makes the class a poor design is having 4 separate class features focused on Hunters Mark when there are 40 concentration spells (plus more from subclasses).

You can still use those other spells. Having two dead levels, at high level, give a boost to a spell does not suddenly chain you to using that spell and nothing else. And for the vast majority of the ranger's career it is only some extra castings.

I used it more than I used HM and it was one first level ability.

Okay, and I used Hunter's Mark more than Hail of Thorns. And I used Hail of thorns more than Favored Foe.

No that is not what I said at all. Read what I posted in several posts above, then make another post about what I "feel bad seeing".

But it is your entire focus. Your entire focus is that you played two rangers who chose not to make weapon attacks, and now Hunter's Mark has some free castings and a few late game buffs, so now you feel compelled to use weapons and fight in melee and ignore all the better spells or otherwise.... something something something.

And the funniest part to me? You are so upset about these 4 abilities tied to hunter's mark... and so the six NEW abilities on the base ranger mean nothing. Ranger spells got improved? Who cares, you only care about Hunter's Mark. Weapon Masteries open a bunch of options? Who cares, you only care about Hunter's Mark. The subclasses are generally improved and tighter in design? Toss them in the trash, you only care about Hunter's Mark. It is wild to me how easily people get tunnel vision on these things.

 

[Xeviat]

For the 2024 rules, I am thinking about two things.

1. Improving the Hunter's Mark utility ability by making it a magical GPS. Once they have marked a target, the ranger will know the location of the target within 30 ft of their actual location. So, you can hide from them, but they know which room you are in within the building, or if you flee on horseback, they know where you went. This gives a reason for those longer cast times, in my mind.
2. For Foe Slayer, I am thinking of saying that all targets within 120 ft of the Ranger count as being under the effects of Hunter's Mark, and you can choose to "cast" the spell on a target within 120 ft of you to have a non-concentration 24 hr mark on them. Oh, and the d10's

What this essentially does, is give the ranger near perfect knowledge of every creature within 120 ft of them, advantage on all attacks against those creatures, and the damage boost from Hunter's Mark. And they can mark someone who just lingers nearby, then follow them later. I kind of want something to happen if you end up casting Hunter's Mark on them as well, but this is already pretty strong I think.

I think I'll incorporate this into my changes. Here's what I've been thinking about.

First, Hex and Hunter's Mark are going to use the playtest version (with a damage buff): bonus damage is once per round, starts +1d8, damage scales to +2d8at 3rd level and +3d8 at 5th level. This is part of making sure damage scales comparably with Divine Smite (Smite 9 damage for a 1st level spell, Hunter's Mark deals more damage at 3 rounds). Both no longer have concentration, but you can't move Hunter's Mark or Hex after something dies.

1st level: Favored Enemy gives you Hunter's Mark always prepared and gives you 1 free casting at your highest spell level. Additionally, you gain Heroic Inspiration if the target of your Hunter's Mark is killed or captured by you or an ally. (this addition is to make up for removing the target swapping from Hunter's Mark. I'm doing this so its damage is comparable with Smite, but you get a benny if the target dies early so you don't feel too bad).

5th level: Relentless Hunter moved to 5th level. It allows you to cast Hunter's Mark as part of an Attack action to attack a creature, or as part of a Search action when examining a creatures tracks or a possession of the creature's.

13th level: Precise Hunter moved to 13th level. Additionally, you gain the benefit of Locate Creature spell on targets of your Hunter's Mark.

20th level: Foe Slayer boosts Hunter's Mark damage to d12s. Additionally, all creatures are under the effects of Hunter's Mark while they are within 120 ft of the Ranger. (This is effectively +6 damage per round, which is comparable to the Barbarian's +4 Str) Instead, I'm also thinking about "When you attack a target of your Hunter's Mark with advantage, you score a critical hit if both of your attack rolls hit the target".

(I just crunched the numbers: "crit if both advantage rolls hit target" ends up being a boost of 9 damage, which is equal to the Barbarian's level 20 damage increase when using Brutal Strike. I really like the idea of Rangers getting increased critical chance)

 

[Nefermandias]

I suggest you also read a "list of improvement" thread, and not just read "list of problems" ones.

Reading only the negative gives a skewed perspective.

Most of the "improvements" are just players power creep and "QoL" stuff that makes choices even less meaningful in a game that was already very light on consequences.

 

[mellored]

Most of the "improvements" are just players power creep and "QoL" stuff that makes choices even less meaningful in a game that was already very light on consequences.

What kind of consequences did you want for people who took true strike?