Search results

Yes, Hunter's Mark is a spell but "spell" is just a label in how rules apply to the ability. WotC could have just called it a class ability that uses the magic action and requires concentration and it would be no different in how it works. I don't agree that rangers rely on spells extensively...

They still won't show up until after the hard part is over.

House ruling like that where the DM will exchange heavy armor for expertise a person might just ask for the druid spell list instead of the wizard spell list and to use it with WIS instead of INT.

Force cage has concentration now. The advantage on using ensnaring strike is it's a bonus action spell that takes effect after hitting with the regular attack actions. It's less bonus damage than hunter's mark assuming 2 hits but can also be cast in a higher level slot for more damage and...

Other classes rely on their spells more for combat. Rangers rely on martial attacks as well, and those don't require concentration. The point of concentration is to prevent stacking effects. Rangers should be prevented from stacking effects just like other casters too. I also think that...

I think you already took the L on that line of argument when I demonstrated that rangers have one of the lowest ratios of concentration spells. ;-P Concentration is something every spell caster deals with in their decision making. Rangers don't need to be exempt from that choice with Hunter's...

The problem with that is what to do with the 13th, 17th, and 20th level abilities that enhance hunter's mark. Adding an ability to enhance each spell a new thing, and not doing so turns it into "pick a spell you can cast a few times more" as kind of boring. I'm not a fan of using a spell this...

I imagine players would be saying "why goodberry? why not hunter's mark?" lol

That would be the 13th, 17th, and 20th level abilities. It's already been argued these don't count because of how high the level is so now they are "most" of the class features. I don't agree with your assessment.

I did a quick check for you, however, and 27 ranger spells have the concentration tag and 34 do not. That's approximately 44% instead of the extremely over-exaggerated 90%. ;-) ~35% cleric ~38% bard ~44% ranger ~44% wizard ~46% paladin ~48% druid ~49% warlock ~50% sorcerer ~66% AT/EK These...

I'm not sure I'm misreading your post or missing something from the rules. It looks to me like you're saying arcane tricksters gain a free casting of that spell. The main benefit I see here is being able to use a reaction to save oneself from a spell effect. The lack of 4th level spell slots...

Concentration choices are also something every spell caster deals with. Again, this is demonstrating the expectation that hunter's mark always be on. It doesn't have to always be on. False equivalent, but rage also isn't always on and can be lost. It's chosen to be used by the player at...

That was the first thing I thought of. Except the ability to spell steal requires a saving throw so it incentivizes itself to invest in that INT score. Magical ambush is not just the first save. Any way to maintain the invisible condition maintains the disadvantage on saves. Greater...

That's not true. Every class has decision points in the action economy. The only difference here is you seem the be under the false impression that rangers should be entitled to have hunter's mark up at all times just because they have hunter's mark. That's an opinion. It doesn't change the...

The stun or other monk abilities are not as versatile at the ranger spells.

Monk's "spell DC" is misleading because of the lack of a spell list. There's literally no reason to stack the ranger's spell DC like that. The only issue is favoring a DEX ranger vs a STR ranger when DEX is the primary class ability score. If you want to make this inclusive for an ability...

Making a good capstone better for no other reason than "because we can" or "why not" isn't a reason to make it better. That's silly. You'd be better off to argue +2 in those 3 stats for more parity to other capstones.

The concern is WIS and DEX cover a lot of skills already, common saving throws, attacks and AC, and in the ranger's case the DC of his spell list that would exceed other spell casters. That's already a lot so adding in STR too because why?

Yes, +4 STR, DEX, AND WIS is better than +4 DEX and WIS. Just giving the same capstone as the monk would make more sense since WIS and DEX are the 2 primary ability scores for the ranger.

I'm not a fan of spells as a class feature either like how Hunter's Mark is being implemented either, but I would point out that this was a suggestion among the complaints when the 2014 ranger came. Implementing those suggestions was WotC listening to the player base, who had a public playtest...