D&D 5E (2024) The Problem with Treantmonk's Hunter's Mark

[CreamCloud0]

i hate hunters mark in all it's forms as a damage oriented spell, no matter how many buffs and class perks they try to assign to it, which is a shame because rangers are one of my favourite classes/archetypes.

 

[Minigiant]

i hate hunters mark in all it's forms as a damage oriented spell, no matter how many buffs and class perks they try to assign to it, which is a shame because rangers are one of my favourite classes/archetypes.

Blame grognards.

Ranger cant be forced to know a spell that blatantly magical.

 

[Horwath]

i hate hunters mark in all it's forms as a damage oriented spell, no matter how many buffs and class perks they try to assign to it, which is a shame because rangers are one of my favourite classes/archetypes.

I have nothing against HM as a spell of itself, it's an OK spell, not great not terrible, what I hate is that even a fraction of rangers class budget is allocated to usage of HM.

free casts of HM are not free. They take place of something else that could be given to the class. Together with all improvements of it.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Blame grognards.

Ranger cant be forced to know a spell that blatantly magical.

i don't hate that it's a spell or not, i just don't like the design of it (and hex) marking a target for an extra die of damage per turn, and the constant switching targets (not to mention doing so eating up your bonus action),

not to mention it's a tracking spell that's absolutely awful for actually trying to track anything you haven't already found given you need to see your target to mark them.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

One of Treantmonk's main criticisms of the Ranger is that it lacks a clear identity, and he makes some changes to rectify it. One of the ways he does this is to make the Ranger spells more powerful, the problem is that Hunter's Mark doesn't just belong to the Ranger.

If only there were a way for something to truly belong to one and only one class, rather than being a spell on several classes' spell lists and still accessible to people with the right feat or ability to poach spells.

Some kind of....class component, by which one and only one class could benefit from something.

It's truly unfortunate that 5e's design doesn't allow for that, and has to push nearly all such vital components into the spells zone where nothing can be completely contained...

 

[Horwath]

i don't hate that it's a spell or not, i just don't like the design of it (and hex) marking a target for an extra die of damage per turn, and the constant switching targets (not to mention doing so eating up your bonus action),

not to mention it's a tracking spell that's absolutely awful for actually trying to track anything you haven't already found given you need to see your target to mark them.

As people mentioned, it should be castable on tracks, or even an object that was in possession of the mark.

but more importantly, it should not be a spell but an at-will ranger class feature. without the damage bonus.

HM can be damage boost spell, give it +1d8 damage, no utility bonus, target cannot benefit from invisibility or cover(except total cover). That is enough for Conc tag. but removed from mandatory ranger features.
It can be a ranger class feat:

Favored enemy:
requires 4th level Ranger
+1 ASI
you have HM prepared,
you can cast it at 1st level number of times equal to your proficiency mod.

hell, without the +ASI, it can be an origin feat.

 

[Horwath]

It's truly unfortunate that 5e's design doesn't allow for that, and has to push nearly all such vital components into the spells zone where nothing can be completely contained...

I like 5E as an edition, but anything more complicated that tying your shoelaces is being coded as a spell.

we really need 3.5e classification of spells, spell-like ability, supernatural ability, extraordinary ability back.

 

[Minigiant]

i don't hate that it's a spell or not, i just don't like the design of it (and hex) marking a target for an extra die of damage per turn, and the constant switching targets (not to mention doing so eating up your bonus action),

not to mention it's a tracking spell that's absolutely awful for actually trying to track anything you haven't already found given you need to see your target to mark them.

Well that's my point.

Because of grognards, rangers had to place all these pseudo realistic aspects on its core low lever spells.

 

[Horwath]

Well that's my point.

Because of grognards, rangers had to place all these pseudo realistic aspects on its core low lever spells.

that is lack of imagination, not grognardz.

they could make an ability that gives advantage to tracking/perceiving things.
barbarian get advantage on dex saves from level 2. That could also be called "supernatural" by grognardz.

 

[FarBeyondC]

i don't hate that it's a spell or not, i just don't like the design of it (and hex) marking a target for an extra die of damage per turn, and the constant switching targets (not to mention doing so eating up your bonus action),

not to mention it's a tracking spell that's absolutely awful for actually trying to track anything you haven't already found given you need to see your target to mark them.

What? Hunter's Mark isn't (and shouldn't be) a tracking spell in that sense (see Locate Animals and Plants or Locate Creature for that).