D&D (2024) 2024 Player's Handbook reveal: "New Ranger"

"More than any other class, the ranger is a new class."

​

It has been a year (less a day) since we last saw the Ranger in UA Playtest 6. There still could be a lot of change. My sense is that they are more or less happy with three of the subclasses (Fey Wanderer, Beastmaster, and Gloom Stalker), but many questions remain: Will anyone be happy with the favored enemy/relation to the land abilities? Will Hunter's Mark be foregrounded in multiple abilities? Will rangers at least get a free casting of the Barrage/Volley spells? For the Hunter, will the "Superior" abilties at levels 11 and 15 continue to be things you didn't choose at lower levels? For the Gloom Stalker, will they pull out 3rd level invisibility from "Umbral Sight"? Any chance for a surprise substitution of the Horizon Walker? Let's find out.

OVERVIEW

• "widely played, but ... one of the lowest rated"
• Spellcasting and Weapon Mastery at 1 (as with Paladin). Spellcasting can change spells after long rest (not every level)
• NEW: Favored Enemy: Hunters Mark always prepared, and X castings per day. (was level 2 in PT6, where it was WIS times/day)
• NEW: Fighting Style at 2 (no limits on choice). or you may choose two cantrips (again, like Paladin).
• NEW: Deft Explorer at 3: expertise in a proficient skill, +2 languages. NO INTERACTION WITH LAND TYPES. This is a nerf from PT6, where at least you got a bonus to Intelligence (Nature) checks.
• Extra attack at 5, Roving at 6 (+10' move, Climb Speed, Swim speed).
• Two more expertise options, at 9, presumably. Compared to the playtest, this is a nerf: PT6 gave 1 expertise, the spell Conjure Barrage always prepared, and +2 land types for Explorer. These had problems, but it's a lot to lose for one additional expertise.
• At 10, Tireless (as in PT6) -- THP and reduced Exhaustion.
• NEW: At 13, Damage no longer breaks concentration with Hunter's Mark.
• At 14, Nature's Veil -- invisibility. At 18, Blindsight.
• NEW: At 17, advantage vs person marked with Hunter's Mark.
• NEW: Damage of Hunter's mark increases to d10, not d6. (This too is a nerf from the playtest, which gave +WIS to hit, and +WIS to damage.)

The clear expectation is you are using Hunter's Mark, occupying your concentration and taking your first Bonus action every combat, from levels 1-20.

SUBCLASSES
Beastmaster

• command Primal Beast as a bonus action, and higher level abilities as in PT6, apparently.
• stat blocks level up with you (as in Tasha's and PT6). Beast gets Hunter's Mark benefits at 11.

Fey Wanderer

• vague on specifics; apparently just as in Tasha's.

Gloom Stalker

• as in PT6, Psychic damage bonus a limited number of times per day. +WIS to initiative (cf. Assassin and Barbarian)
• Umbral Sight, darkvision bonus, and invisible in the dark.
• NEW: psychic damage goes up at level 11. Mass fear option of Sudden Strike mentioned, nothing about Sudden Strike.

Hunter.

• Hunter's Lore at 3: know if there are immunities/resistances of creature marked by Hunter's Mark.
• NEW: Hunter's Prey at 3: you have a choice and can change your choice every short/long rest.
• NEW: Defensive Tactics at 7: you have a choice, and again can choose after a rest. The choices are Escape the Horde, Multiattack defense (not Evasion, Uncanny Dodge, and Hunter's Leap, as in PT6).
• NEW: At 11, Hunter's mark now "splashes" damage onto another target.
• NEW: you can choose to take resistance to damage, until the end of your turn.

 

[Gladius Legis]

at least in 3.5e there were several official spell-less options for ranger and paladin.

They were absolute trash, though.

 

[Minigiant]

at least in 3.5e there were several official spell-less options for ranger and paladin.

And that mostly all sucked

 

[Chaosmancer]

Apply this logic to a fighter or a rogue, who in the real world are beating up peasants or stealing from velvet-encrusted nobles with gout.

Why would I apply the logic of hunting massive beasts that don't exist in our world, to a fighter beating up a peasant?

Also, Rogues stealing from the rich works in both concepts, The arcane trickster and soul knife are both at least somewhat a response to the realization that rich people in DnD... probably have magic. Just like thieves in the real world have to deal with technology.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Sigh...

So..I say I'm good with magic stuff outside of Hunters Mark.. repeatedly..

And you defend Hunter's Mark. BC exotic creatures require exotic solutions..or something..with no more justification than that.

And when I mention that you haven't made the case for the exotic solution we've been talking about...

You shotgun the effects of a bunch of obviously magical stuff, which I've already said I'm good with, with reasonably well-reasoned justifications for the usefulness of each..

Until we get back to Hunters Mark (the spell that I actually have a problem with)..
..where you again fail to make a case for how it's magical..
..or what it does that's any different from a 'focused attack'
..or what narrative aspect of the wyvern drives a need for whatever magic that Hunters Mark is bringing to the table.

Edit: Note that this conversation thus far has been in narrative terms and about what mechanics could be. Talking in terms of current settled mechanics kinda misses the point in two different ways.

I took your line about "You say that adding a little magic would be helpful in hunting more exotic creatures. This certainly could be true, but you haven't actually made a case for when and why it is needed.. When and why does nonmagical ability fall short?" to be about the ranger having magic in general, not about Hunter's Mark in specific. Because this line of the conversation came from this post

Do you really think there are people who require a ton of explanation for why a great hunter (the ranger class fantasy), should be able to be great at normal hunting activities, without needing to memorize a spell?

Which again, is about magic in general, not Hunter's Mark in specific.

So, if you are fine acknowledging that Ranger's as hunters in DnD are greatly aided in their class fantasy by having magic in general, we can drop this. If your only problem with Hunter's Mark is that it isn't magical enough... I'm fine agreeing that the tracking portion of the spell should be a little more magical. If it actually worked like a tracking beacon, then I would fall in love with the spell, to be honest, because it would have so many utility uses.

In fact, I may just do that as a homebrew. It is an unused niche, and it actually gives some really great utility to the longer durations of the spell.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why would I apply the logic of hunting massive beasts that don't exist in our world, to a fighter beating up a peasant?

Also, Rogues stealing from the rich works in both concepts, The arcane trickster and soul knife are both at least somewhat a response to the realization that rich people in DnD... probably have magic. Just like thieves in the real world have to deal with technology.

They why are nonmagical subclasses handling these situations present at all, if magic use is the obvious answer?

 

[Gammadoodler]

I took your line about "You say that adding a little magic would be helpful in hunting more exotic creatures. This certainly could be true, but you haven't actually made a case for when and why it is needed.. When and why does nonmagical ability fall short?" to be about the ranger having magic in general, not about Hunter's Mark in specific. Because this line of the conversation came from this post


Which again, is about magic in general, not Hunter's Mark in specific.

So, if you are fine acknowledging that Ranger's as hunters in DnD are greatly aided in their class fantasy by having magic in general, we can drop this. If your only problem with Hunter's Mark is that it isn't magical enough... I'm fine agreeing that the tracking portion of the spell should be a little more magical. If it actually worked like a tracking beacon, then I would fall in love with the spell, to be honest, because it would have so many utility uses.

In fact, I may just do that as a homebrew. It is an unused niche, and it actually gives some really great utility to the longer durations of the spell.

My complaint is that both the damage (e.g. aiming for the weak spots) and the tracking (e.g. tracking) are things that you could expect a hunter to do normally because hunting is their profession.

Hunter's Mark unnecessarily ties those things to spellcasting in the form of a spell with no obvious magical effect.

It is a failure to reinforce the hunter class fantasy..AND a dilution of the wonder of magic.

Maybe the solution IS to make spell more magical.

But, for me, I see no compelling narrarive reason for it to be a spell in the first place. It'd be simple, instead, to just say that Rangers can "aim for the weak spots" (to do more damage), and "track" (to track) the creatures they are hunting.

Edit: To illustrate, if you were to interview the most grizzled, experienced Ranger in all of D&D and ask them how it is that they can find and kill their chosen prey..would you expect the first words out of their mouth to be "Well you see, I've got this spell.."

 

[UngeheuerLich]

My complaint is that both the damage (e.g. aiming for the weak spots) and the tracking (e.g. tracking) are things that you could expect a hunter to do normally because hunting is their profession.

Ans fighters should do more damage because it is their profession.

Hunter's Mark unnecessarily ties those things to spellcasting in the form of a spell with no obvious magical effect.

Ok.

It is a failure to reinforce the hunter class fantasy..AND a dilution of the wonder of magic.

Afor you. There seem to be many people who lile this. Calling it a failure just because you prefer different thing is a fallacy.

Maybe the solution IS to make spell more magical.

Or not.

But, for me, I see no compelling narrarive reason for it to be a spell in the first place. It'd be simple, instead, to just say that Rangers can "aim for the weak spots" (to do more damage), and "track" (to track) the creatures they are hunting.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Ans fighters should do more damage because it is their profession.

Ok.

Afor you. There seem to be many people who lile this. Calling it a failure just because you prefer different thing is a fallacy.

Or not.

Fighter's do do more damage because it is their profession. What do you think their scaling on Extra Attack is intended to represent?

Otherwise.. yeah, we're talking about an opinion I have. I've given the reasons I have for it. The "others who like it" are giving theirs.

This is how discussion works. No?

 

[Incenjucar]

Why would I apply the logic of hunting massive beasts that don't exist in our world, to a fighter beating up a peasant?

Also, Rogues stealing from the rich works in both concepts, The arcane trickster and soul knife are both at least somewhat a response to the realization that rich people in DnD... probably have magic. Just like thieves in the real world have to deal with technology.

So fighters and rogues shouldn't be able to fight ogres and wyverns without spells?

Edit: If you LIKE rangers to have spells, that's cool. You don't need to defend your preference with logic in a fantasy world.

 

[jmartkdr2]

They why are nonmagical subclasses handling these situations present at all, if magic use is the obvious answer?

They still use magic, though, in every game I've been in. They just get it from items rather than class features.

Have you ever seen a high-level (10+) assassin who didn't use any magic items?