Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ECMO3" data-source="post: 9440771" data-attributes="member: 7030563">No they were not unused.  Primal Awareness was used frequently.  After Tasha's was published Rangers cast SWA and Beast Bond more than all other classes combined IME.So now you admit it is a conflict?Yes those things are conflicts too, as Hunter's Mark would be without any class buffs.  The thing is they spent 4 separate class abilities buffing it.So now you admit it is a conflict?Yes those things are conflicts too, as Hunter's Mark would be without any other class buffs.  The problem is not Hunter's Mark is a conflict, but it is a conflict they spent 4 separate class abilities buffing.To start with earlier we were talking about Fey Wanderers, and they all have Misty Step (at level 5+).  Beast Masters have their Beast attack but it is not just these either -  it is hail of thorns and lightning arrow and  Lessor Restoration and swift quiver and ensnaring strike ...And the point isn't that these are conflicts.  Managing conflicts is part of action economy, the issue is the class design itself lends itself to only one of these.This would be far less objectionable if there were a Hunter's Mark subclass for people who wanted to concentrate in that narrow lane, but we are talking about the base class hereYes they are, but not with Hunter's Mark because HM is only able to be used if they are not concentrating on another spell, which is not going to be very often.   Hunter's Mark, even at 1d10, even being a bonus action to cast and even with a free casting is an extremely weak spell at that level.Swift Quiver, Conjure Animals, Conjure Woodland Beings, Summon Fey, Spike Growth, Summon Elemental, Web, Greater Invisibility,   ......  These are all substantially better than HM in most situations at high level.I agree a lot of Rangers do attack at high level.  Not a lot of them do it while relying on Hunter's Mark though because there are much better spells available.  When they do use it, it is typically on weak enemies or at the end of combat duing "mop up" in which case the class abilities do not matter a whole lot..When did I bring up a short rest.  Please provide a link/quote or politely retract your claim.If they are using up their higher level spells that is because they are not using 4 of their class abilities, in the toughest fights (the ones that require those higher level spells).  Having 4 class abilities used essentially in mop-up situations is poor class design.Moreover picking detect magic as your 18th level feature is a choice.  If a Wizard was forced to take detect magic, and no other spell, for the 18th level free casting feature, that would be a bad class design, just like the Ranger class design is.  Only difference is that would be 1 class feature instead of 4!Yes you are.Ok your table does not play RAW.  But I the discussion is on the current class being a bad design as written compared to the old.  This argument is irrelevant of you don't play RAW.Sure if you restrict the previous version of the class and did not let players play it according to the rules and use "exploits" then that play style is weaker.No it wasn't.  You replied about two specific characters, not a "generic Ranger" and you replied to a post about 20th level.  Your post said:"And yeah, instead of 4d6+20, a ranger would cast hunter's mark and deal 6d6+15 that turn. losing a whole negative two damage, or in other words.... doing more damage."With the 2024 wepon mastery rules Lena would do 5d6+4d4+28 on 4 attacks at level 16 (asuming nick) and Chromescale (who was not designed for melee) would have done 8d6+10 on 4 attacks at 20th level (again assuming nick and if you gave him a non-magic scimitar to use as well).  Those numbers do not include Favored Foe which would have added 4d8 to both. Giving up a bonus attack would drop Lena by 1d6+1d4+6.  Giving up a bonus attack by Chromescale would have cost 2d6.  Note this assumes Chromescale already set up shillaleagh.  If he did not set up Shillaleagh already then the difference is 5d6+10 casting Shilleleagh as a bonus vs 6d6+6 not casting shillaleagh and casting Hunter's Mark instead (note this does not take into account the lower chance to hit with a Scimitar).Further at 17th level every Ranger subclass has ways to add damage to attacks or add damage as a bonus action beyond base AND very few Rangers are going to have no bonues to their weapon attacks (if they primarily use weapons).If we were not discussing it then you should not said I did not care about it.  Saying I didn't care about it IS discussing it and claiming (falsely) that "Rangers lost nothing" is essentially dismissing it.There is a fundamental difference between saying that is not what makes it a bad subclass and saying that does not exist or that I don't care about it.  I never said the latter and my feelings are not really relevant to what is and isn't poor class design.Another thing they lost!If that is not part of your discussion then don't talk about what they didn't lose.  I am saying the class is poorly designed and your last counter to that was based on the idea that they lost nothing, which is patently false.Use a different argument to buttress your position.no it is just a bad class design .... like the Wizard who is forced to take Detect Magic for their free casting at 18th level.No.  My focus is that it is a bad class design.Further your argument has changed quite a bit since you originally posted on this thread.You started out by saying no one plays that way.Then when presented with examples that showed this was patently false your argument changed to well HM is better than Favored Foe and they lost nothing.When presented with objective facts that showed this was still untrue your argument changed to the current line that these "exploits" would not be allowed at my table, and a few dead levels don't matter while trying to reframe my position into something it isn't and that I never sadi.Who says I am upset?It is a bad class design.  That doesn't upset me though.The Ranger is improved, but it is a bad class design.  I am sorry you can't seem to understand this.</blockquote>

Verification