Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9388240" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Stepping back and thinking things over, I think overall things are 90% fine. I was watching a stream with a guy who isn't a big mechanics guy, just a fan of the game. His conception of the ranger changes was that they got nothing until level 10, then the class started getting cool improvements. I, myself, have done multiple breakdowns of the 2014 ranger over the years. Repeatedly, I found that [just from the 2014 PHB subclasses] the Hunter worked perfectly fine, and the Beastmaster was the only really weak Ranger. The Ranger's damage was actually quite good and quite competetive in 2014 from levels 1 to somewhere around 5 or 7, only really dropping noticeably by level 11. Now the Ranger is getting some noticeable boosts and conceptually interesting ideas for levels 11 to 19. So, I think overall we are not going to be looking at anything particularly bad for the ranger. Some potential build concepts using the Hunter, since we know most of the 3rd level hunter abilities are the same, and I think the 11th level ability works in a particular way. A Hunter Ranger using a Musket (assuming the Firearms feat to counter loading property) can attack a Creature from range, hitting for 2d12+2d6+1d8+8 for a total of 32.5 damage every turn, slowing their speed by 10 ft a turn. It sounds like they will also deal 2d6 or 7 damage to a nearby creature. Sticking with Hordebreaker and Dual-Scimitars, they should be capable of 3d8+3d6+12 or 36 to one target and 1d8+3d6+4 or 19 to a second target. Dropping a comparison with the Paladin using a Greatsword, GWM, and a 1st level Divine Smite, the Paladin will do about 4d6+2d8+2d8+8+4 or 44 damage. Which is a bit higher in single target, less overall compared to the hordebreaker, but burns through more resources faster than the ranger is doing in either case. ///This isn't to say I would make no changes. I think I would end up saying that if Hunter's Mark is cast with a 3rd level spell which is possible about 9th level, then it doesn't require concentration. That is a 3rd level spell, lasting 8 hrs, and chops off a bit of their higher level spell utility, so I think that is balanced. Additionally, I still like the idea of altering the capstone to be "Hunter's Mark increases to 1d10 damage. You are considered to always have Hunter's Mark cast without concentration, and it applies to all enemies within 120 ft. You always have advantage on Survival and Perception checks" It is level 20, this seems fine to me.</blockquote>

Verification