If you are saying spells are ancillary to Ranger that must include Hunter's Mark since it is a spell!
You can't have it both ways - either Rangers are spell casters or they are not.
D&D (2024) Ranger 2024 is a bigger joke than Ranger 2014:
- Thread starter Horwath
- Start date
If you are saying spells are ancillary to Ranger that must include Hunter's Mark since it is a spell!
You can't have it both ways - either Rangers are spell casters or they are not.
No I don't. I want to get rid of the Ranger class tie to Hunter's Mark.
If you want a martial nature warrior you can play a Barbarian or a Fighter and if you want it not to be a spell caster, either of these do it a LOT better than a Ranger.
CreamCloud0
Hero
1 - silent hunter - all ranger spells you cast have the verbal component removed and don't break your stealth when you cast them.
13 - focused hunter - damage does not threaten your concentration on ranger spells or abilities.
17 - lethal hunter - you can use your Concentration to Focus on a target you can see when you activate this ability as a free action, you have advantage on all damage rolls you deal against a Focused target, if you drop your Focus on a target you cannot Focus on them again for the rest of the combat.
20 - master hunter - when you use your Focus it targets all opponents you can see, you may drop and reapply Focus as many times as you like against a target during combat.
13 - focused hunter - damage does not threaten your concentration on ranger spells or abilities.
17 - lethal hunter - you can use your Concentration to Focus on a target you can see when you activate this ability as a free action, you have advantage on all damage rolls you deal against a Focused target, if you drop your Focus on a target you cannot Focus on them again for the rest of the combat.
20 - master hunter - when you use your Focus it targets all opponents you can see, you may drop and reapply Focus as many times as you like against a target during combat.
Last edited:
I don't understand what you consider a ranger to be and your confirmation that it applies across multiple classes certainly appears to fall in line with a classless system.
Ancillary is a word that definitely describes how I can have it both ways.
mellored
Legend
I've posted what I understand it to be twice now.
I don't understand why you can't play a Fighter or Barbarian instead if you want a Nature Warrior.
CreamCloud0
Hero
Where do you keep getting this idea from? Because it certainly doesn’t seem like it’s from the posts you respond to
I have no problem playing a Barbarian as a nature warrior if I want raging to be a part of that character. I have no problem playing a Druid either if I want to be a nature warrior who leans more heavily on spells. But ranger is a stealthy nature warrior who tracks people and monsters, and the class fits well for that.
But simply saying martial with spells and expertise just sends me down the road of a rogue or a bard, but that's apparently the wrong answer too, so I don't know.
Honestly, I think we've reached the point where we've come back around in a circle on this discussion with no new information being offered so
