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

[FrogReaver]

This is a better comparison point, seeing how Smite eats up their bonus action (which, just on the damage front, could just as well have been used to make a regular attack to benefit from Divine Favor's extra damage).

And no, I'm not a big fan of forced Smite conflicting with other stuff they might want to be doing (rather than just giving them an extra spell slot)... but at least it's only one bonus action per day, over Ranger's... however many times you'd need to swap Hunter's Mark around when you have whole subclasses that are built around using bonus actions.

I don’t think making all abilities free actions so they never conflict with each other is a legitimate answer either. Action economy is always going to be a thing.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Ah. You can use Hunter's Mark stealthily!

You just need to pre-emptively cast it on a mouse while in a secluded spot, then you have an hour to find your real target, at which point you squeeze the pocket mouse dead (well, 0 hitpoints, maybe you just gently choke it unconscious until its services are needed again) and then you can change the Hunter's Mark target without shouting magic words.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

I don’t think making all abilities free actions so they never conflict with each other is a legitimate answer either.

Nothing I said made actions free. I would have just given Paladins an extra lv1 spell slot so they can choose how to use it (and their bonus action), rather than wedding it to forced smiting.

 

[FrogReaver]

Nothing I said made actions free. I would have just given Paladins an extra lv1 spell slot so they can choose how to use it (and their bonus action), rather than wedding it to forced smiting.

Maybe I misunderstand. Your initial paragraph was about the issues with smite costing a bonus action. I’m not seeing how giving a spell slot instead of a divine smite free cast solves that, because all Paladin spells cost an action or bonus action?

Thus why I assumed you meant free action stuff.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Your initial paragraph was about the issues with smite costing a bonus action. I’m not seeing how giving a spell slot instead of a divine smite free cast solves that, because all Paladin spells cost an action or bonus action?

I don't care about specifically solving Paladins crying over having to spend actions to smite. I do care about class features that can feel punishing when they restrict your options over giving you options.

On the other side, you have a Paladin that HAS TO Smite with a bonus action or that's a wasted class feature. An alternative to this would be a Paladin that CAN smite if they want to, but might as well use that resource on another Bless, or whatever - still according to their class archetype, but not shackled to the One True Way of playing their character.

We wouldn't be having this discussion if Ranger lv1 feature was 'pick a lv1 spell you can cast X amount of times without spending a spell slot', after all. Then we'd just be talking about HOW to use that, not about... how bad it feels.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't care about specifically solving Paladins crying over having to spend actions to smite. I do care about class features that can feel punishing when they restrict your options over giving you options.

Okay. What option is being restricted?

On the other side, you have a Paladin that HAS TO Smite with a bonus action or that's a wasted class feature.

Yes. Action economy is a thing.

An alternative to this would be a Paladin that CAN smite if they want to, but might as well use that resource on another Bless, or whatever - still according to their class archetype, but not shackled to the One True Way of playing their character.

That’s literally the purpose of class based design. Its why all paladins get the same aura at level 6. No one complains about not having a choice there though.

We wouldn't be having this discussion if Ranger lv1 feature was 'pick a lv1 spell you can cast X amount of times without spending spell slots'.

Which would fail to solve the problems with 2014 that they were trying to solve - that favored foe was far too situational. That hunters mark was a desired playstyle that scaled horribly.

 

[Minigiant]

We wouldn't be having this discussion if Ranger lv1 feature was 'pick a lv1 spell you can cast X amount of times without spending a spell slot', after all. Then we'd just be talking about HOW to use that, not about... how bad it feels.

We'd be talking about how it sucks at level 13.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

We'd be talking about how it sucks at level 13.

There'd have to be people playing lv13+ for that.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Well can you blame me for not catching your sarcasm, it’s not like ‘I don’t want to be shoehorned into being the designated healer purely by my class choice’ has been an uncommon argument over the years.

I did not blame you for that.

I am still very worried about people including you complaining about free things.
I am also a bit sad that the bard lost song of rest (and some weapon proficiencies).
They did not want to shoehorn them into healers. But hey, it was just a little extra and I can't imagine why anyone else feels shoehorned by that small ability (even if it got some upgrades over the levels).
I also can't see why people hate on the ranger's hunter's mark.
And their explanations are very strange sometimes. Some even call foe slayer a better ability... or say that they can't cast other spells...
in the beginning of 5e people said that clerics should never cast different spells than bless, because it is too good statistically... weird days... again.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

We'd be talking about how it sucks at level 13.

Paladins get the suckiest smite at level 2. Once per day.
I would not take it if I had to soend a prep slot on it. But as a freebie, I take it.

I would not have minded that it upgraded at level 13 to be more useful. Especially since it is always cast at lowest level.