D&D (2024) UA Ranger (Playtest 6)

They're for when you, as the professional monster hunter, get hired to clear the cellar of all the giant rats.

I don't hate the buffed Barrage, even if finesse Fireball feels a little weird for Ranger. But Volley, it is still just a disgrace.

Charlaquin said:

I mean, if the argument is “rangers should get more interesting things to do at high levels than a couple AoE damage spells,” I don’t disagree. But “they aren’t monster killer spells” is not accurate. Killing monsters is literally the only thing those spells do.

Click to expand...

6th column is HPs,
from 40 to 19 HP.

This is your "target audience" for 17th level ability that costs a 5th level slot.
Those you can one shot, or probably one shot as you get 36 damage on average. If they do not save.

Horwath said:

6th column is HPs,
from 40 to 19 HP.

This is your "target audience" for 17th level ability that costs a 5th level slot.
Those you can one shot, or probably one shot as you get 36 damage on average. If they do not save.

Click to expand...

Ok? Again, if you’re saying the spells are weak, that’s one thing. If you’re saying they don’t kill monsters, that’s just factually incorrect.

Charlaquin said:

Ok? Again, if you’re saying the spells are weak, that’s one thing. If you’re saying they don’t kill monsters, that’s just factually incorrect.

Click to expand...

yes, they do kill monsters, only irrelevant monsters for a given level of play. And for spent resources.
yes, the spell is weak.

Charlaquin said:

Just because they don’t one-shot high CR monsters doesn’t mean they’re not for killing monsters. Anyway, they’re AoE spells, intended for use against large groups of weaker monsters rather than powerful individual ones.

Click to expand...

The spells kill creatures.

They don't kill monsters ie things rangers iconically were trained to kill.
Rangers were originally killers of giant-class monsters.
Neither spell is puts a dent on the weakest true giant 105hp hill giant. Nor stop the 59hp giant kin ogre.
Both spells are people killers and small vermin extinguishers. Killers of minor 1-3 HD humaniods and beasts.


It screams of a bias where the designers expect the DM to use swarms of 2HD orcs at level 20.
Of a "LOTR with Mages" playstyle.

So, I have been going through the UA document and comparing damage output and I am currently looking at the ranger. So, if I am reading it correctly, a Two Weapon Fighting Ranger with the Nick mastery and using a light weapon they can make the extra attack of the light weapon as part of their attack action.
This leaves their bonus action free.
The Beastmaster, can use that bonus action to command their beast to make and attack, and the Horizon Walker can use their bonus action to add the planar warrior damage bonus or to use ethereal step.
I wonder if any of the other bonus action ranger spells are going to be reworked. They do no seem competitive against a concentration Hunter's Mark. One of the nice things about the concentration free Hunter's Mark was that the other bonus action concentration ranger spells became viable.

UngainlyTitan said:

I wonder if any of the other bonus action ranger spells are going to be reworked. They do no seem competitive against a concentration Hunter's Mark.

Click to expand...

Hunter's Mark is +3.5 dmg/turn until lv9. You have access to all of Primal spell list now. You can do better with your concentration slot.

...buuut then you have to worry about losing your concentration, so unless people are also picking up Warcaster, maybe they will just settle for HM + casting some non-concentration Primal spells, now that the Ranger finally gets some.

fluffybunbunkittens said:

Hunter's Mark is +3.5 dmg/turn until lv9. You have access to all of Primal spell list now. You can do better with your concentration slot.

...buuut then you have to worry about losing your concentration, so unless people are also picking up Warcaster, maybe they will just settle for HM + casting some non-concentration Primal spells, now that the Ranger finally gets some.

Click to expand...

Nothing leaps out at me before level 2 spells. Thinking about it more, Hunter's mark could be more useful to a gish weapon build with a ranger dip than to a straight ranger.

Minigiant said:

I didn't say they are arcane.

Click to expand...

You said the following.

Minigiant said:

Either rangers learned a mix match of wizard and druid spells to be better monster hunters
OR
ranger attune themselves to nature to be better feral hunters

Click to expand...

What did you mean?

Minigiant said:

I said the Conjure Barrage nor Conjure Volley feel Primal nor Iconically Ranger.

They are situational. Rangers are iconically monster hunters. Traditionally of giants and monsters.
Neither spell is a monster killer spell.

Click to expand...

That’s a stretch, and even then rangers iconically hunt down raiding parties of goblins and orcs just as much as giants and “monsters”.

Horwath said:

Yes, I so need to have on my 17th level ranger ability to one shot a bunch of CR1 monsters(if they fail their save)...
Such an epic addition for Rangers epic tier of play

Click to expand...

Rangers get ALL the primal spells. Including stuff like swift quiver and wall of stone.

It's one extra known spell. A friendly AoE. Not exactly a bad thing to have on hand for a class that otherwise focuses on single target damage.