D&D (2024) Ranger 2024 is a bigger joke than Ranger 2014:

[Minigiant]

nothing is not an option and it should never be.

obviously, rangers needed to get something more than in 2014, and they did. and what they did got, cost something is class resource pool, like EVERY class feature of EVERY class in the game.

Every class feature has some numeric value, now we can argue what values is for what feature exactly and does every class get exactly the same amount of points and we would argue about it while humanity discovers warp drive around us.

but, ranger did get more of those "points" in 2024 than is 2014.
Like most of the classes. Some got more, some got little less more.

only problem is here; did rangers got their money worth and are those features the right features to buff up rangers to let's say; paladin like levels? heh!

that is the argument here:
Is the (over)focusing on Hunters mark worth the class resources and is it a good idea by itself to "straitjacket" whole class to a single 1st level spell?

Again

Incorrect.

Nothing is an option.

Ranger is balanced.
Relentless Hunter and precise hunter are extras to make Hunters mark relevant past level 10. It's an extra courtesy that really isn't required.

Again the problem.is you are comparing it to the overturned Paladin.

 

[Horwath]

Again the problem.is you are comparing it to the overturned Paladin.

or paladin is OK as it somewhat competes with fullcasters.
maybe ranger is undertuned?

 

[Minigiant]

or paladin is OK as it somewhat competes with fullcasters.
maybe ranger is undertuned?

The paladin and full casters are overturned if you don't timing the 30+ rounds of combat 5e was design for.

HOWEVER fixing this would require WOTC to smash the beef bat on them.

That would

1) upset the fanbase
2) not be backwards compatible

Ranger is a Sustain class. Unfortunately people don't play enough encounters for long rest to support sustained classes like Ranger, fighter rogue, warlock etc.

However Ranger works perfectly fine and is balanced if you play the game as intended.

 

[Horwath]

The paladin and full casters are overturned if you don't timing the 30+ rounds of combat 5e was design for.

HOWEVER fixing this would require WOTC to smash the beef bat on them.

That would

1) upset the fanbase
2) not be backwards compatible

Ranger is a Sustain class. Unfortunately people don't play enough encounters for long rest to support sustained classes like Ranger, fighter rogue, warlock etc.

However Ranger works perfectly fine and is balanced if you play the game as intended.

maybe you are right on that one.

but really 30+ rounds in a day?

how much of that is filler combat?

If encounter is not Deadly+ in difficulty, is it worth running it?
Maybe now and then for story reason or so the players can "benchmark" their new levelup goodies...

"if half the party was not at 0HP at one moment of the fight, then it's not a real fight"

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

maybe you are right on that one.

but really 30+ rounds in a day?

how much of that is filler combat?

If encounter is not Deadly+ in difficulty, is it worth running it?
Maybe now and then for story reason or so the players can "benchmark" their new levelup goodies...

"if half the party was not at 0HP at one moment of the fight, then it's not a real fight"

See, I'm not on board with only Deadly+ fights. The Heroes need to face foes that they can trounce, and difficult foes that reward the heroes for using tactics.

 

[Minigiant]

maybe you are right on that one.

but really 30+ rounds in a day?

how much of that is filler combat?

If encounter is not Deadly+ in difficulty, is it worth running it?
Maybe now and then for story reason or so the players can "benchmark" their new levelup goodies...

"if half the party was not at 0HP at one moment of the fight, then it's not a real fight"

5e was designed around filler combat.

Like encounters of useless mooks who can't kill you but force you to waste resources.

5e was balanced around 30 rounds between long rest. The lower 1/3 of a caster's slots are supposed to be combat inefficient.

 

[Horwath]

5e was designed around filler combat.

Like encounters of useless mooks who can't kill you but force you to waste resources.

5e was balanced around 30 rounds between long rest. The lower 1/3 of a caster's slots are supposed to be combat inefficient.

those fights do not need spell slots, you can do that with cantrips.
unless you can catch 10+ mooks in fireball, then it's OK to use spell slots.

filler combats are booooring.

 

[Minigiant]

those fights do not need spell slots, you can do that with cantrips.
unless you can catch 10+ mooks in fireball, then it's OK to use spell slots.

filler combats are booooring.

Those combats require spells as if you don't use a slot or rage, the throng of weak monsters will "chip damage you to death"


That's why you are supposed to waste slots and surges, and rages to kill them quickly (and end the slog fast).

 

[CreamCloud0]

5e was designed around filler combat.

Like encounters of useless mooks who can't kill you but force you to waste resources.

5e was balanced around 30 rounds between long rest. The lower 1/3 of a caster's slots are supposed to be combat inefficient.

then honestly, they need to *re*design because the majority of games are not being played like that.

 

[Minigiant]

then honestly, they need to *re*design because the majority of games are not being played like that.

The community whines for backwards compatibility.

They don't wanna lose their old books.