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

[ECMO3]

Hunter's mark does need to be removed only reworked.

here is a try.

Hunter's Mark
1st level spell
Casting time: Bonus action
One target you can see or hear
Duration: 24hrs

You mark the target and focus your senses on it.
You have Advantage on Survival, Perception and Insight checks vs the target.
Once on your turn you can deal extra d6 damage to the target with an attack.
As a Bonus action or when you make Attack on your turn you can change the target of your Hunter's Mark.

Upcasting:
+1d6 damage once on your turn per spell level above 1st.

Now ranger can get extra spell preparation and extra one casting of it once per Long rest.
By limiting damage to once per turn, it does not need to have concentration.

I don't like this change at all. HM is fine as far as damaging-Gish spells go. The problem is it is a damaging spell and attaching it to a bunch of class abilities really drives the class a specific direction, one which lacks thematics and flavor and further specifically encourages weapon use on a class that is a half-caster at its base.

If you are going to tie it to class like they have done, I would like it better if you just took away the damage completely and give you advantage on all skill checks against the marked target. Keep the mechanic of moving it as a bonus action. If you did this you could also take away concentration too since you would not be getting any damage out of it anyway.

 

[Minigiant]

I think it depends on alot of factors. Combat rounds/rounds between short rests/#of short rests subclasses and spell/concentration assumptions. Also of note is Fighter will probably be alot tankier due to second wind.

Well

Rangers have more spell slots with spells that have double dice now

Rangers are tankier than Fighter.

 

[ECMO3]

ranger might not be best smooth talker but could be a good lie detector.

As far as platforms go the Fey Wanderer is the best platform in the game for a face character that is going to rely on skill checks for social situations. It even beats Bard by a substantial margin.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think it depends on alot of factors. Combat rounds/rounds between short rests/#of short rests subclasses and spell/concentration assumptions. Also of note is Fighter will probably be alot tankier due to second wind.

Once I master the vex nick math I plan to post some damage comparisons too.

Made a thread on Vex/Nick Math
Vex/Nick Math - Enworld

 

[Mistwell]

I don't like this change at all. HM is fine as far as damaging-Gish spells go. The problem is it is a damaging spell and attaching it to a bunch of class abilities really drives the class a specific direction, one which lacks thematics and flavor and further specifically encourages weapon use on a class that is a half-caster at its base.

If you are going to tie it to class like they have done, I would like it better if you just took away the damage completely and give you advantage on all skill checks against the marked target. Keep the mechanic of moving it as a bonus action. If you did this you could also take away concentration too since you would not be getting any damage out of it anyway.

The extreme overwhelming majority of class abilities and features of the Ranger class in this edition are not tied to Hunter's Mark. You're focusing on a handful of features and erroneously assuming but-for those features you'd like their replacements or that they'd even have replacements. It's an additional aspect of Rangers making Hunter's Mark viable - not a replacement feature for stuff they took away. You don't need to use Hunter's Mark to have a viable, good Ranger. It's just that now, you can use it and also have a viable, good Ranger.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well

Rangers have more spell slots with spells that have double dice now

Rangers are tankier than Fighter.

At level 1:

• Fighter heals for 1d10+1 x2 and also 1d10+1 per short rest. Assuming 2 short rests that's 4d10+4 = 26 healed as bonus actions
• Ranger heals for 2d8+(2 or 3) x 2 = 22-24 healed. But it's action healing, making it much worse for in combat healing.

At level 5:

• Fighter heals for 1d10+5 x3 and also 1d10+5 per short rest. Assuming 2 short rests that's 5d10+25 = 52.5 healed as bonus actions.
• Ranger heals for 2d8+(2or3) x4 + 3d8+(2or3) x2 = 14d8 + (2 or 3)*6 = 75-81 healed. But it's action healing, making it much worse for in combat healing.

Being able to apply tanky abilities when needed without sacrificing action economy and other offensive resources is important. So while the Fighter heals less overall at level 5, i'd still count him as tankier.

Of course this is also ignoring damage reduction subclass abilities which the fighter has 2 strong options for. These really catapult Fighter to the top. As an example - Parry. 4d8+4*dex or str mod damage reduction per short rest. Assuming 2 short rests = 75 damage reduction potential for the level 5 fighter.

 

[CreamCloud0]

the ranger shouldn't be a vehicle for making hunter's mark good, if they want hunter's mark to be viable they should focus on making hunter's mark viable.

the fact that a bunch of ranger's features are tied to hunter's mark is a feels bad for anyone who doesn't want to play in the specific style using hunter's mark entails, it doesn't matter if they're new and not replacing anything, just the fact they're functional dead weight on your class budget with no way to swap them out for something worthwhile causes resentment to it.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

the ranger shouldn't be a vehicle for making hunter's mark good, if they want hunter's mark to be viable they should focus on making hunter's mark viable.

the fact that a bunch of ranger's features are tied to hunter's mark is a feels bad for anyone who doesn't want to play in the specific style using hunter's mark entails, it doesn't matter if they're new and not replacing anything, just the fact they're functional dead weight on your class budget with no way to swap them out for something worthwhile causes resentment to it.

You can swap it out by playing a fighter with a wilderness dude background.

 

[FrogReaver]

the ranger shouldn't be a vehicle for making hunter's mark good, if they want hunter's mark to be viable they should focus on making hunter's mark viable.

the fact that a bunch of ranger's features are tied to hunter's mark is a feels bad for anyone who doesn't want to play in the specific style using hunter's mark entails, it doesn't matter if they're new and not replacing anything, just the fact they're functional dead weight on your class budget with no way to swap them out for something worthwhile causes resentment to it.

The thing is, Ranger's always get their free casts of hunters mark. So those features are never dead weight. You have free casts of it and can thus use it when a good scenario arises for it without giving up anything else.

The bigger issue isn't that they made hunters mark good. It's that they may have made it soo good that it's the only real way to play a ranger.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The only thing I wished hunter's mark gets would be:

Target: one creature or trails of a creature.
This alone would help the ranger be the best tracker of all. It is somehow counter intuitive to only get the bonus to creatures you have already seen. At least it works against creatures that trie to flee. But the change would make the ranger quite a bit more rangery.