The HM bonus is largely redundant with the only weapon mastery you can use with dexterity weapons and the light property.
Disagree
It wouldn't be useful because you would get no damage out of your Hunter's Mark. Most of the time it will be a waste to cast it that turn and have no mechanical advantage.
Never heard of set-up I see.
This is complete nonsense. You have a ton of options with Hand Crossbows. The new rules are far more permissive for using hand crossbows and you can dual wield them as easily as a Shortsword.
Misunderstanding what I meant. I didn't mean they have few as in not many options, I meant they have a few options for how to accomplish that.
ie
They could bonus action attack via the Light Property, without TWF -- Using this method Hunter's Mark is basically identical
They could use the Crossbow Expert Feat -- This give the mod damage, and uses their bonus action
You could use the TWF style and the Light Property
ect
If they are using Hunter's Mark they are playing a spellcasting Ranger.
If they are not casting Hunter's Mark then most of your commentary on Hunter's Mark is not relevant.
And now you are altering your own terms on me. Wonderful.
I am not "modifying" the characters.
I am converting those characters to 2024 and comparing what they had then and what they have now.
I am using actual characters and applying the 2024 rules to those characters and giving up the lost 2014/TCE rules .... because you know that is what this post was supposed to be about.
Not modifying them, just changing them... right.
While I am at it though, I found another example of bad design - Based on early wording of the new Ranger the expertise from Deft explorer only applies to skills you get from the Ranger list, so no getting it on abilities you get from your background, the skilled feat or your species. So yeah those two characters would have also had to give up expertise in Persuasion and Deception respectively due to the new Ranger class.
Yet another example of bad class design!
Why is that bad design?
Ok I've said this several times on this thread. Have different spell options and allow you to change at level up (or maybe with a Long Rest
If you are going to use spells offer different options to use. For example instead of Hunter's Mark
I could pick fog cloud:
level 1: you get 1 free casting of fog cloud, when you cast fog cloud you can see through it and in it.
Level 13: damage can not break concentration on fog cloud
Level 17: You get advantage attacking enemies inside your fog cloud even if they can see you.
Level 20: You get +1d10 damage to enemies inside your Fog Cloud.
or Maybe you could pick Cure Wounds:
Level 1: You get 2 free castings of Cure Wounds.
LEvel 13: When you cast Cure Wounds you get 20 temporary hit points.
Level 17: When you cast Cure Wounds the creature you target has resistance to all damage for a round
Level 20: When you cast Cure Wounds the creature you cast it on is also cured of all paralyzation, poison and disease.
Or maybe I could pick entangle:
Level 1: You get 2 free casts of entangle a day
Level 13: Cretures in the area of your entangle spell must make a save at the end of every turn they are in the AOE or they become restrained.
Level 17: You can move the AOE of the entanglement 20 feet at the start of your turn
Level 20: Creatures restrained by a spell you cast take an additional 1d10 damage at the end of their turn.
Those just three quick examples, but there are many more.
Yeah, a system like that is never going to happen. You would end up with five pages of ranger abilities, where each level is offering ten different spell options. No thanks. Homebrew that if you like, but as a design it is horrible.
It is a weak 1st level spell. It is nowhere near as good as the best 1st level spells. It has a long duration and it is a bonus action to cast, but other than that it is mechanically weak, even compared to 2014 spells.
Spells like Shield, Bless, Cause Fear, THL, sleep (old one at low levels, new one all the time), Bless, Wrathful Smite, Ray of Sickness (new), Healing Word, Dissonant Whispers .... Those are all good, strong 1st level spells. Hunter's Mark is not.
Additionally hunter's mark does not upcast well
It doesn't need to upcast. Also, I took out every single spell you listed that was not on the ranger's spell list. So, what you are really trying to say it seems, is that ranger's don't have good 1st level spells.
I also notice that of the very few spells you mentioned that deal damage, they all also create disadvantage on enemy attacks, or force movement. Hunter's Mark is far more comparable to a pure damage spell, which if you don't think those are good spells, would explain your position.
That part is not opinion. It is fact that putting four class abilities that rely on a single spell that requires concentration is poor class design.
Then why, in the above quote, did you do that twice more? Is it not bad class design if you have to concentrate on fog cloud or entangle? Would it not be bad class design to do it for any of those other spells you listed as actually good 1st level spells that have concentration?
It doesn't seem to be inherently bad design, you just hate that it is a design focused on Hunter's Mark.
