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

[FrogReaver]

As I said. I think it is no good idea to boost 3 stats by 4. Does not look balanced even if it is.

Removing concentration from hunter's mark and upgrade to d10 would be a big upgrade and worthy of a capstone.

At that point, a ranger could use swift quiver and add 4 or 5 d10 every round. And advantage on all attacks.

So maybe this is my houserule!

Compared to say a Fighter that's way too much. 4 attacks at 1d8+1d10+mod vs 4 attacks at 1d8+Mod.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Compared to say a Fighter that's way too much. 4 attacks at 1d8+1d10+mod vs 4 attacks at 1d8+Mod.

It costs the range their 5th level spell. So this kind of damage can't be sustained for long. And swift quiver concentration can be broken.

I think this is the right power for a capstone.
The fighter has 8 attacks for the first two rounds of combat and other benefits.

 

[FrogReaver]

It's my contention that 2024 non-Hunter's Mark focused Rangers perform perfectly fine from level 1 to 20. It's also my contention that 2024 hunter's mark focused rangers do not perform well in t4.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Okay but I wasn’t trying to make the warlock not a pew pew blaster, or into a class that turns constructs, at most i was just trying to expand the scope of what they pew pew with.

You could make every class able to do everything.

Or you could just play one of the many classless RPGs.

The existence of classes requires classes be focused on something. The more classes you have, the more focused they become.

 

[FrogReaver]

It costs the range their 5th level spell. So this kind of damage can't be sustained for long. And swift quiver concentration can be broken.

I think this is the right power for a capstone.
The fighter has 8 attacks for the first two rounds of combat and other benefits.

Then show your work. Show that over an X round encounter that the fighter using action surge and the ranger using swift quiver + your modified hunters mark do about the same damage. I don't think it's going to be close.

I'm amazed at the number of people who want to change things and don't even crunch some simple DPR numbers to check their proposed changes first.

Here's my quick workup
So your proposal is 1d8+1d10+mod with advantage and swift quiver for the Ranger. That's 54.6 DPR at base 70% accuracy or 91% with advantage.

Fighter with 4 attacks at base 70% accuracy does 26.6 DPR. With action surge it's 53.2 DPR.

Even with Great Weapon Master applying proficiency bonus damage the numbers don't look that much better.

Ranger 76.4 DPR
Fighter 43.4 DPR Action Surge 86.8 DPR

 

[CreamCloud0]

You could make every class able to do everything.

Or you could just play one of the many classless RPGs.

The existence of classes requires classes be focused on something. The more classes you have, the more focused they become.

Me: What if warlocks had an ability that made their other cantrips viable rather than EB being the unreasonably superior choice.
You: The warlock now doesn’t have an identity, they’re unfocused, you’re suggesting we make a classless system where every class is capable of anything.

 

[FrogReaver]

Me: What if warlocks had an ability that made their other cantrips viable rather than EB being the unreasonably superior choice.
You: The warlock now doesn’t have an identity, they’re unfocused, you’re suggesting we make a classless system where every class is capable of anything.

Well, the principle you are using to justify that suggestion literally applies to anything. So while you may or may not be directly suggesting a classless game, the principle you use to justify your desired changes does suggest that's the end result of relying on that principle as justification.

I'm all far a more nuanced explanation, but so far I don't think one's been given.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Then show your work. Show that over an X round encounter that the fighter using action surge and the ranger using swift quiver + your modified hunters mark do about the same damage. I don't think it's going to be close.

I'm amazed at the number of people who want to change things and don't even crunch some simple DPR numbers to check their proposed changes first.

Please don't make assumptions. This capstone change is the only thing I proposed as it is the only problem I see. An average of 4 damage increase for ranged rangers is very disappointing.

Here's my quick workup
So your proposal is 1d8+1d10+mod with advantage and swift quiver for the Ranger. That's 54.6 DPR at base 70% accuracy or 91% with advantage.

It has always advantage because hunter's mark. So please remove the 70%. (edit: misunderstood you there... you 54.6 is calculated with advantage).

Fighter with 4 attacks at base 70% accuracy does 26.6 DPR. With action surge it's 53.2 DPR.

Even with Great Weapon Master applying proficiency bonus damage the numbers don't look that much better.

Ranger 76.4 DPR
Fighter 43.4 DPR Action Surge 86.8 DPR

This is actually a good calculation why I think it is close enough.

Remember that the fighter can action surge twice per short rest.
The ranger can swift quiver twice per long rest. Swift quiver concentration can easily be broken.
You also forgot to factor in studied attacks.
You also made a mistake with the ranger when factoring in great weapon fighting. They only get it for half their attacks, as it explicitely does not work with a bonus action.

So the ranger is only at 65.5 DPR and the fighter is above your calculated 86.8 DPR Probably quite a bit above 90 DPR (a bit too much work right now to calculate exactly).

Probably the ranger will have a slight edge, because they can reliably have a +2 magic weapon (self cast) while the fighter has not. Although at that point I'd assume the fighter will also have at least an equal magic weapon.

And for the fighter we should assume higher probability to actually have great weapon mastery and probably also archery as they have more feats to play with and less demand to increase a second atteibute.

So overall, I'd say that removing the concentration as the capstone for the ranger seems spot on.

 

[OB1]

More damage from a single bonus action attack probably isn't going to break the game, but it may be a big enough change to unbalance the Ranger subclasses or the Ranger with other classes depending on how tightly they were balanced to begin with. It also would have some major multiclass repercussions.

What I can say with certainty is that it would boost a level 5 Hunter ranger's DPR while dual wielding with the dual wielder feat/fighting styles/etc to ~36.5 from ~32.3. Making the level 5 ranger probably the most damaging PC in the game at that level (they were already a very high damage class for that level). Considering that Ranger's actually get solid out of combat boosts in 5e. Climb and Swim speed. Expertise in 3 skills. Ability to remove a level of exhaustion every short rest. Along with many of his spell slots being freed up due to the free casts of hunters mark.

I wouldn't call the change game breaking, but it would be a concern.

Think I'm going to test it out for a while, with the caveat to my player that we might go back to it costing a BA if it seems like too much once she hits 5th. My sense is at most it's going to add another 7 or so damage per combat (from the extra BA attacks with a short sword) which I can't imagine will be OP.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Well, the principle you are using to justify that suggestion literally applies to anything. So while you may or may not be directly suggesting a classless game, the principle you use to justify your desired changes does suggest that's the end result of relying on that principle as justification.

I'm all far a more nuanced explanation, but so far I don't think one's been given.

i don't see how 'eldritch blast shouldn't be such a clearly superior option in their arsenal, let's try to raise the bar for the rest of their other cantrips to make them equally useable' translates into 'create a classless game'