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

[CreamCloud0]

The community doesn't agree with any core ranger except....
Hunter's Mark.
...

and even then...

 

[Tigris]

The community doesn't agree with any core ranger except....
Hunter's Mark.
...

This one is also whats used by PF2, world of warcraft, 13th age to some degree (and 4th edition).


The bad thing is a bit that hex is just the same.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Third, the ranger lacks a core mechanic that defines the class. Think sneak attack for a rogue or rage for a barbarian. Again, in my perfect version of 5E, that would be a feature that grants the ranger advantage against its quarry. Advantage on skill checks, advantage on saving throws, advantage on attacks, maybe even advantage on damage rolls. Clearly this would start with just one or two benefits and scale up with level.

i don't think ranger NEEDS a core mechanic, as previously said, the ranger concept covers a wide array of thematic options, so as a result i think trying to nail down a specific centre to it is perhaps counterproductive,

plus some of the casters lack a dedicated core mechanic that truly 'defines' them, clerics have channel divinity and wizards have their spellbooks, but if you took those away i don't think you'd be able to claim they didnt feel like a cleric or wizard respectively.

but if i had to pick a core mechanic for them i'd take a second swing at favoured terrain and favoured enemy, specifically more how BG3 tried to implement them as thematic transferable skills rather than bonuses that only activate in/against your chosen specialty, if you pick tundra as your favoured terrain and you have cold resist and a swim speed, pick fields and plains and you get improved movement speed and animal handling, pick dragons as your favoured enemy you can cast absorb elements and resist fear effects, pick undead and you resist necrotic damage and get proficiency in religion.

 

[tetrasodium]

I mean the original ranger, especially dualwield (especially beastmaster) was quite awefull. Thats why he got sooo many improvements in Tashas and even more in 2024.


I know several people who played rangers originally who were completly frustrated about playing ranger and felt like just a worse fighter.

I linked to the Perkins tweet about magic items because they are that important & I wasn't about to go find the crawford video clip gushing about it. I stand by my post55 statement though & I'll use the 3.5 dmg to demonstrate why it's so important, mainly because it was the last adventuring day attrition based edition★ to include such guidance. The 3.5 dmg started with ch1 running the game on pg5 & (effectively) ended with the glossary on page289. Out of those 284 pages there were 72 pages of magic items and rules for crafting them in unique balanced flavors. Beyond that were numerous pages dedicated to supporting the gm with guidelines for how much & why to give them like treasure per encounter wealth by level body slot/slot affinity bonus types & so on. There was even a whole book dedicated specifically to expanding upon that (magic item compendium) & almost every splatbook had at least a few pages of new toys the GM could employ in creating those items. It wasn't just 3.5 though, ad&d2.0dmg had a whole ~12 page chapter aimed at getting the GM up to speed on the hows & whys wrt a lot of those kinds of things and some of those 12 pages were expanded upon significantly in other areas of the 3.5dmg. All of this hasn't even gotten to the player facing phb crafting related rules & pc abilities.

Before anyone says it... Yes it was possible to make truly absurd & powerful magic items but the DMG provided GMs with a lot of tools to limit moderate & even encourage players to weigh keeping the result despite things like body slot conflicts getting in the way of expected churn vrs outright disposing of those to keep up with expected growth progression before tools like disjunction needed to be considered.

TL;DR: d&d has always been positively swimming in a hycean ocean of magic items & they play a critical role that past editions were clear about conveying to the GM. It's only possible to pretend that a statement like "If your 5E characters have no magic items, the game would still be balanced. Magic items are pure candy" is true if you limit the scope of play to tier1 & early tier2 of play where they often take a back seat to goals like filling out PCs with mundane adventuring gear such as platemail.

★4e was ADEU & too different for useful comparison

 

[Aurel Guthrie]

I like the idea of casting HM through tracks, but why level 13?

it's really a ribbon feature then. 5th level would also be fine.
It will not come up that often and even if it does, it rewards using Survival, and exploration pillar needs more utility in this game.

You're totally right. I will move it down

 

[Horwath]

Fourth, there's going to be a ranger in my next campaign. I'm modifying Favored Enemy thusly:

Favored Enemy: At 3rd level, you may spend your uses of Favored Enemy to modify Hunter’s Mark for its duration. The spell:

• No longer requires concentration
• Requires no bonus action to cast or move
• Does an additional d6 damage

Each use of Favored Enemy modifies Hunter’s Mark in one way.

We'll see how it goes.

to paraphrase prince Arthas Menethil:

I will give anything or pay any price if it would remove Concentration from Hunter's mark.

 

[Horwath]

There are magic potions.

Really, the image of a ranger brewing potions out of herbs, spices, and animal parts in a small cooking pot tracks for the fantasy.

maybe, but that is also any herbalist, who will maybe outsource animal parts to hunters.

But almost no game has a good crafting system.

probably never will.

but 5.5E is OK, you have the money, skill and tool?
Make the item.

 

[tetrasodium]

There are magic potions.

Really, the image of a ranger brewing potions out of herbs, spices, and animal parts in a small cooking pot tracks for the fantasy.

But almost no game has a good crafting system.

I think post MiC it was pretty decent once the gm was equipped with things like conceptual /metaphorical components (ie the sigh of a cat) because those launched into players thinking and brainstorming adventure seeds/shells for the GM a lot of the time as part of creating the magic item

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Goodness sake just make it a class feature already.

 

[Minigiant]

Goodness sake just make it a class feature already.

Can't.

Backwards compatibility. Spell in 2014 has to be a Spell in 2024.

WOTC screwed it up by grognarding it up and making it a spell in the first place. Then they screwed up by caving to fans who demanding referencing backwards compatibility.