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

[Chaosmancer]

When I said "consequences" I was thinking about the overall design philosophy of the current version of the game. It's just like the designers are going out of their way to protect players from experiencing failure or having to think about meaningful trade-offs.

For example, ranged combat main downsides should be having to deal with cover and being disadvantaged whenever there's an enemy close to you. Guess what? Both can be easily ignored by just picking two feats.

Now, you brought up True Strike as an example of "improvement" and that just serves to reinforce my point. The perceived improvement in this case, was a buff to a spell.

Now the main downside to ranged combat is dealing less damage than melee combat, on top of cover and enemies giving disadvantage in melee.

 

[Chaosmancer]

We are not going to agree here. The very fact that feats and multiclassing are not option anymore is a huge downside for me.

That still isn't power creep

 

[ECMO3]

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.

No they were not unused. Primal Awareness was used frequently. After Tasha's was published Rangers cast SWA and Beast Bond more than all other classes combined IME.

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.

So now you admit it is a conflict?

Yes those things are conflicts too, as Hunter's Mark would be without any class buffs. The thing is they spent 4 separate class abilities buffing it.

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.

So now you admit it is a conflict?

Yes those things are conflicts too, as Hunter's Mark would be without any other class buffs. The problem is not Hunter's Mark is a conflict, but it is a conflict they spent 4 separate class abilities buffing.

To start with earlier we were talking about Fey Wanderers, and they all have Misty Step (at level 5+). Beast Masters have their Beast attack but it is not just these either - it is hail of thorns and lightning arrow and Lessor Restoration and swift quiver and ensnaring strike ...

And the point isn't that these are conflicts. Managing conflicts is part of action economy, the issue is the class design itself lends itself to only one of these.

This would be far less objectionable if there were a Hunter's Mark subclass for people who wanted to concentrate in that narrow lane, but we are talking about the base class here

... 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?

Yes they are, but not with Hunter's Mark because HM is only able to be used if they are not concentrating on another spell, which is not going to be very often. Hunter's Mark, even at 1d10, even being a bonus action to cast and even with a free casting is an extremely weak spell at that level.

Swift Quiver, Conjure Animals, Conjure Woodland Beings, Summon Fey, Spike Growth, Summon Elemental, Web, Greater Invisibility, ...... These are all substantially better than HM in most situations at high level.

I agree a lot of Rangers do attack at high level. Not a lot of them do it while relying on Hunter's Mark though because there are much better spells available. When they do use it, it is typically on weak enemies or at the end of combat duing "mop up" in which case the class abilities do not matter a whole lot..

You did.

When did I bring up a short rest. Please provide a link/quote or politely retract your claim.

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.

If they are using up their higher level spells that is because they are not using 4 of their class abilities, in the toughest fights (the ones that require those higher level spells). Having 4 class abilities used essentially in mop-up situations is poor class design.

Moreover picking detect magic as your 18th level feature is a choice. If a Wizard was forced to take detect magic, and no other spell, for the 18th level free casting feature, that would be a bad class design, just like the Ranger class design is. Only difference is that would be 1 class feature instead of 4!

No, you are not.

Yes you are.

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.

Ok your table does not play RAW. But I the discussion is on the current class being a bad design as written compared to the old. This argument is irrelevant of you don't play RAW.

Sure if you restrict the previous version of the class and did not let players play it according to the rules and use "exploits" then that play style is weaker.

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

No it wasn't. You replied about two specific characters, not a "generic Ranger" and you replied to a post about 20th level. Your post said:

"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."


With the 2024 wepon mastery rules Lena would do 5d6+4d4+28 on 4 attacks at level 16 (asuming nick) and Chromescale (who was not designed for melee) would have done 8d6+10 on 4 attacks at 20th level (again assuming nick and if you gave him a non-magic scimitar to use as well). Those numbers do not include Favored Foe which would have added 4d8 to both.

Giving up a bonus attack would drop Lena by 1d6+1d4+6. Giving up a bonus attack by Chromescale would have cost 2d6. Note this assumes Chromescale already set up shillaleagh. If he did not set up Shillaleagh already then the difference is 5d6+10 casting Shilleleagh as a bonus vs 6d6+6 not casting shillaleagh and casting Hunter's Mark instead (note this does not take into account the lower chance to hit with a Scimitar).

Further at 17th level every Ranger subclass has ways to add damage to attacks or add damage as a bonus action beyond base AND very few Rangers are going to have no bonues to their weapon attacks (if they primarily use weapons).

So we are not discussing it.

If we were not discussing it then you should not said I did not care about it. Saying I didn't care about it IS discussing it and claiming (falsely) that "Rangers lost nothing" is essentially dismissing it.

There is a fundamental difference between saying that is not what makes it a bad subclass and saying that does not exist or that I don't care about it. I never said the latter and my feelings are not really relevant to what is and isn't poor class design.

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

Another thing they lost!

If that is not part of your discussion then don't talk about what they didn't lose. I am saying the class is poorly designed and your last counter to that was based on the idea that they lost nothing, which is patently false.

Use a different argument to buttress your position.

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.

no it is just a bad class design .... like the Wizard who is forced to take Detect Magic for their free casting at 18th level.

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.

No. My focus is that it is a bad class design.

Further your argument has changed quite a bit since you originally posted on this thread.

You started out by saying no one plays that way.

Then when presented with examples that showed this was patently false your argument changed to well HM is better than Favored Foe and they lost nothing.

When presented with objective facts that showed this was still untrue your argument changed to the current line that these "exploits" would not be allowed at my table, and a few dead levels don't matter while trying to reframe my position into something it isn't and that I never sadi.

And the funniest part to me? You are so upset about these 4 abilities tied to hunter's mark..

Who says I am upset?

It is a bad class design. That doesn't upset me though.

. 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.

The Ranger is improved, but it is a bad class design. I am sorry you can't seem to understand this.

 

[mellored]

We are not going to agree here. The very fact that feats and multiclassing are not option anymore is a huge downside for me.

So you want less trade-offs then...

 

[mellored]

That still isn't power creep

IMO, more weak stuff got buffed than strong stuff got nerfed.

For optimizers, it's a nerf.

But if your not an optimizer, then yea, power crept up for you.

 

[Chaosmancer]

IMO, more weak stuff got buffed than strong stuff got nerfed.

For optimizers, it's a nerf.

But if your not an optimizer, then yea, power crept up for you.

I mean, you may feel like there was power creep, but definitionally power creep happens when the high end gets higher. If the strongest thing is still the strongest and didn't change, then it isn't power creep.

 

[mamba]

I mean, you may feel like there was power creep, but definitionally power creep happens when the high end gets higher. If the strongest thing is still the strongest and didn't change, then it isn't power creep.

power creep also happens when the average goes up. I am not aware of a definition that requires the ceiling to be raised

2024 certainly power creeps, lots of buffs, almost no nerfs, according to Crawford

 

[DinoInDisguise]

power creep also happens when the average goes up. I am not aware of a definition that requires the ceiling to be raised

2024 certainly power creeps, lots of buffs, almost no nerfs, according to Crawford

The issue here is power creep has more baggage than the average just going up. The average has to go up by enough to affect viability of the unchanged aspects of the game.

I think the metric used in this discussion fails to recognize that aspect of the phrase's definition. And warps the phrase into functional meaningless, as single minor buffs in isolation would be power creep by Mellored's own reasoning.

2024's revision may still be power creep, but the reasoning used here is deeply flawed.

Source: power creep - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

 

[mamba]

The issue here is power creep has more baggage than the average just going up. The average has to go up by enough to affect viability of the unchanged aspects of the game.

ok, but I am not at all sure that this is not happening with 2024… might be a matter of how you define viability, but pretty much every class / subclass is stronger in 2024 so given the choice, who would go with 2014, and if considerably fewer do than with 2024, then to me the 2014 version is no longer viable

 

[Chaosmancer]

This is just getting exhausting. Not every plays exactly the way you played.

When did I bring up a short rest. Please provide a link/quote or politely retract your claim.

No idea why it matters so much, but I went back and found your own words for you.

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.

-

Yes they are, but not with Hunter's Mark because HM is only able to be used if they are not concentrating on another spell, which is not going to be very often. Hunter's Mark, even at 1d10, even being a bonus action to cast and even with a free casting is an extremely weak spell at that level.

Swift Quiver, Conjure Animals, Conjure Woodland Beings, Summon Fey, Spike Growth, Summon Elemental, Web, Greater Invisibility, ...... These are all substantially better than HM in most situations at high level.

I agree a lot of Rangers do attack at high level. Not a lot of them do it while relying on Hunter's Mark though because there are much better spells available. When they do use it, it is typically on weak enemies or at the end of combat duing "mop up" in which case the class abilities do not matter a whole lot..

Huh, I wonder if using it to mop up is something that having some free uses of it would be nice for, you know, so you don't use up spell slots for your other 1st level spells.

Also, love how hilarious some of these are. Swift Quiver is going to give you two bonus action attacks, for a total of four, and add 2d8+10 or 19 damage. Hunter's Mark for a dual-wielder is adding 4d6 or 14 damage, plus advantage on every attack, which ups the DPR, making it very close (13.3 vs 11.76). At the d10 mark it is 4d10 which is 22 higher than Swift Quiver.

Conjure animals is a dex save vs 3d10 damage, no damage on a success. That is less than the 4d10 as well.

Conjure Woodland beings is ACTUALLY better, being an emanation that does 5d8 and gives you a bonus action disengage. Plus half damage on a success. And some of those others start getting situational.

Ok your table does not play RAW. But I the discussion is on the current class being a bad design as written compared to the old. This argument is irrelevant of you don't play RAW.

Sure if you restrict the previous version of the class and did not let players play it according to the rules and use "exploits" then that play style is weaker.

Nothing has made me hate the phrase RAW more than the reaction to the release of 2024. Sure, defend the bloody hill that you were technically playing RAW. But they wouldn't have given the ability concentration and a 1/turn limit if it was meant to be used on every attack on the same turn. You know it was unintentional and an exploit.

No it wasn't. You replied about two specific characters, not a "generic Ranger" and you replied to a post about 20th level. Your post said:

"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."


With the 2024 wepon mastery rules Lena would do 5d6+4d4+28 on 4 attacks at level 16 (asuming nick) and Chromescale (who was not designed for melee) would have done 8d6+10 on 4 attacks at 20th level (again assuming nick and if you gave him a non-magic scimitar to use as well). Those numbers do not include Favored Foe which would have added 4d8 to both.

Giving up a bonus attack would drop Lena by 1d6+1d4+6. Giving up a bonus attack by Chromescale would have cost 2d6. Note this assumes Chromescale already set up shillaleagh. If he did not set up Shillaleagh already then the difference is 5d6+10 casting Shilleleagh as a bonus vs 6d6+6 not casting shillaleagh and casting Hunter's Mark instead (note this does not take into account the lower chance to hit with a Scimitar).

Further at 17th level every Ranger subclass has ways to add damage to attacks or add damage as a bonus action beyond base AND very few Rangers are going to have no bonues to their weapon attacks (if they primarily use weapons).

Arguing that I should have been using your characters as an example, when I responding to the idea of giving up an attack to use Hunter's Mark is not demonstrating my math is incorrect. My point, which you clearly missed is that by giving up that 4th attack... the ranger does more damage. Meaning that they didn't "give up" or "lose" anything by deciding to cast Hunter's Mark instead.

And yes, many rangers get abilities to add to damage at level 3, not as much at level 17, and those are typically once per turn abilities, so "giving up" an attack doesn't make a difference.


Also, kind of weird that you want to accuse me of bad math.

Lena: 4 attacks: total 5d6+4d4+28 - Would mean she has a floating d6 from Fey Wanderer, then that makes each attack 1d6+1d4+7.... and you claim that dropping an attack would lose her 1d6+1d4+6?

Chromescale: 4 attacks: total 8d6+10 -- This is just bizzare. You dealt +2.5 on the mod per attack? That doesn't make sense so you must be combining wisdom and dexterity. Maybe a +0 dex? I'm guessing you are using a light club to allow the dual-wielding, but you claim dropping an attack just loses you 2d6. However when casting shillelagh as a bonus action on your turn, you drop the damage to 5d6+10, meaning that not using the bonus action attack is 3d6? None of this makes sense.

If we were not discussing it then you should not said I did not care about it. Saying I didn't care about it IS discussing it and claiming (falsely) that "Rangers lost nothing" is essentially dismissing it.

There is a fundamental difference between saying that is not what makes it a bad subclass and saying that does not exist or that I don't care about it. I never said the latter and my feelings are not really relevant to what is and isn't poor class design.


Another thing they lost!

If that is not part of your discussion then don't talk about what they didn't lose. I am saying the class is poorly designed and your last counter to that was based on the idea that they lost nothing, which is patently false.

Use a different argument to buttress your position.


no it is just a bad class design .... like the Wizard who is forced to take Detect Magic for their free casting at 18th level.


No. My focus is that it is a bad class design.

Further your argument has changed quite a bit since you originally posted on this thread.

You started out by saying no one plays that way.

Then when presented with examples that showed this was patently false your argument changed to well HM is better than Favored Foe and they lost nothing.

When presented with objective facts that showed this was still untrue your argument changed to the current line that these "exploits" would not be allowed at my table, and a few dead levels don't matter while trying to reframe my position into something it isn't and that I never sadi.


Who says I am upset?

It is a bad class design. That doesn't upset me though.


The Ranger is improved, but it is a bad class design. I am sorry you can't seem to understand this.

I understand you think this is bad class design, but you are basing that entirely off "I want to play a ranger who does not make attack rolls" with a dose of "but they have better spells, so this is bad" Neither of which make the design bad.

Honestly, I think people are underestimating how this ranger is going to end up working at the table. People are still stuck in the old paradigms of abilities and spells, and I think they are going to be awfully surprised to find how effective and good to play this ranger is going to be.

The only truly bad design is in the capstone. The more I look at the rest, the more it seems perfectly fine.