I get to decide what I get to count in my posts thank you.
No, not when you are trying to show the impact of the spell.
Sure but at high level you have plenty of room for this .... and a longbow is not far behind.
Yes and that is 1 attack .... unless you are just giving up all your mastery for all your other attacks.
And if giving up weapon mastery on every attack except the one you nick is what you are doing to make HM better, then you are giving up a ton.
No, you are giving up Vex, as you said. That isn't "a ton" to me, compared to the ability to have a weapon mastery when I switch to my bow.
To start with an 18 Dexterity you would be dealing 2d10+8+6 with GWM, but the incorrect math is not relevant.
Suggesting this changes anything at level 8 is what is wrong. At level 8 you can still be doing 4d6+20 with Dual Wielder.
And at the point were talking about above (Swift Quiver) you have gotten a minimum 4 feats. He can get Dual Wielder, XBE, GWM and still have a 20 Dexterity at 8th level.
SO, you propose starting with one set of spells and abilities at one level, then changing at a later level. Fascinating. You know that sort of perspective would lead to someone perhaps using the right tool for the job, and not just casting Hunter's Mark all the time, but only casting it when it is relevant and helpful.
So what was the problem again? Oh right, that because of a level 17 and level 20 ability you are forced to always cast Hunter's Mark at all levels of play and never use the right tool for the job, that was your claim. Weird how that directly opposes your own argument here...
Just like you have to build a Ranger to take advantage of Hunter's Mark.
All your examples are at least as build-specific as mine, and you are hand waving things like multi target damage or switching hunters mark, which eats into that damage a lot.
I'm not handwaving multi-target damage. You want to cast Conjure Barrage and hit a lot of enemies? Hunter's Mark doesn't prevent that, in fact with the new casting rules the Ranger can cast BOTH spells on the same turn if they felt it was useful. Switching Hunter's Mark could potentially eat into damage, but if we are talking an archer... you likely aren't using your bonus action for damage unless you are specifically using Hand Crossbows, and then you have a few options, some of which are functionally identical to Hunter's Mark. And if you are dual-wielding, I've already shown that 4d6+modx4 < 6d6+modx3, so even switching doesn't actually lower your damage compared to not having the spell cast at all.
It will be more effective some times, but it won't be a majority of the time unless you dumped Wisdom.
And not everyone plays a Spellcasting Ranger, as we have discussed.
Ok you just didn't think it was worth mentioning until I showed you that your position was incorrect. Convenient!
I knew this would be a bitter and fraught discussion anyways, no need to go catching myself on fire before hand just so that later you couldn't accuse me of ignoring it.
You said Gauntlet of Giant Strength, not Belt. Belts are not Gauntlets. Had never heard of the dagger before, but good to know it is a rare item and unique to a specific adventure.
I am using actual characters I played from level 1 through high level and pointing out how those same builds would work using 2024 rules and I did it specifically because you said "no one plays like that"
You are the one throwing up these hypotheticals to try to prove your point.
I am using the actual characters.
You are using the actual characters, except modifying them using specific rules, but not all the rules only the ones you like.
I would use actual characters, but the only Ranger whose character sheet I have was level 6 or so when that game died, the high level rangers were played by other people, and were made before any revised ranger or tashas. Or were multi-classed, people at my tables tended to like rogue/ranger
And while I might have phrased it that way once, I have been more than clear that the larger point is the majority of people do not play rangers in your highly specific and as far as I can tell utterly unique style. Which has only lost the appearance of casting other spells because you feel compelled to never do anything except cast hunter's mark.
No it isn't. If that were true the most OP builds in the game would all be good class designs.
I am not freaking out, I am just pointing out that focusing on one concentration spell out of 40 and attaching 4 individual class abilities to it is poor class design.
And your best way of doing so is has been to show that other spells are still better or to show highly specific level 20 builds. So... what is the end goal here? Conjure Woodland Beings is a better spell, so should the Ranger's 13th level ability be that they can't lose concentration on that spell? SHould it be that they get a +1 to hit and damage when using a Heavy crossbow?
Any "better design" you seem likely to propose due to your focus is purely going to make other, more powerful options, even more powerful. You've done nothing but try and prove that Hunter's Mark is bad damage at high levels.
Whatever. Tying 4 separate class abilities, including 3 high level abilities to Hunter's Mark, a weak 1st level spell, is bad class design.
Hunter's Mark is not a weak 1st level spell. Not by a wide, wide margin. It is just a highly efficient spell.
As I said earlier the 1st level feature on its own is not terrible and that is the only one of those 4 that gives access to HM.
The other 3 are terrible though and putting them in there is poor class design.
Which is perfectly fine as your opinion. I only really agree with you that the 20th level ability is bad design. The 13th level ability is just odd to me, I don't think it is bad as much as it just doesn't seem terribly relevant.
