D&D (2024) How to simply fix Ranger in 2024.

[Minigiant]

perhaps published adventures should be designed with optimized characters with experienced players?
that would be a lot better.

few TKPs never hurt anyone, it's a learning curve.

But, "easy" mode can be added, just halve all monsters HP and/or make them deal minimum damage.

Adventures and Encounters charts should have Difficulty ratings.

Or at least optimization ratings. Because people don't like being told that you're going easy on them.

But tone and optimization assumptions?

Casual
Normal
Tournament
Hardcore

 

[Horwath]

Casual
Normal
Tournament
Hardcore

3 modes;
Hardcore
Casual
sub-casual

 

[Minigiant]

3 modes;
Hardcore
Casual
sub-casual

There really is no designing for less than casual play.

There are levels up in optimization.

 

[ECMO3]

I have seen that. I think this analysis is terrible. Very bad indeed.

It is an "optimzer" channel. Absolutely not representing our games and probably not most games.

I think it does represent most games.

But if it applies to your games. Good for you.

And I think you don't know how math works.
Math needs certain assumptions to be applied. If your assumptions are wrong, you can calculate correctly and still have a wrong result.

Sure and I stated them - concentrated fire and combats averaging 4 rounds.

This is why I like treantmonks analyses. He is open with his assumptions and he knows the limits of his modelling.

Treantmonk talks about Hunter's Mark on this video and says pretty much the same things you challlanged above.

A couple quotes:

"Hunter's Mark uses your bonus action a lot, not just the initial action but you are changing targets regularly"

"Hunter's Mark is not the Ranger's best play after higher level spells are an option"

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I think it does represent most games.

I think it does not.
If you look at your games and mine, I guess it is 50% divide.

Sure and I stated them - concentrated fire and combats averaging 4 rounds.

Yes. And I challenged that assumption.

Treantmonk talks about Hunter's Mark on this video and says pretty much the same things you challlanged above.

2014 video. Different game regarding bonus actions.

A couple quotes:

"Hunter's Mark uses your bonus action a lot, not just the initial action but you are changing targets regularly"

"Hunter's Mark is not the Ranger's best play after higher level spells are an option"

It should not be your best play. It is a very low resource option in 2024.

 

[Minigiant]

If you are switching Hunter's Mark every turn, your combats aren't hard enough to warrant HM or the DM is running a horde encounter and HM shouldnt you go to spell.

The games difficulty These based off of moderate optimization over a long adventuring day with no magic items. If your group Is highly optimized, uses a short adventuring day and uses magic items, You do not match the base difficulty that they came was designed around at the DM must increase the difficulty of your entire adventuring day (XP budget) to once again reestablish the base difficulty per encounter.

If the players are doing things that make the game too easy then the DM has to make the game harder if the players still want a challenge.

A major problem with the whole hunters mark discussion is that it relies on optimizers using magic items on a short adventuring day in a game that's not designed for that.

 

[Horwath]

It should not be your best play. It is a very low resource option in 2024.

6× 1st level spell slots(that we get in the end from "free" HM) is 12 spell points.
those 12 spellpoints at later levels could be spent better on higher level spells. That is extra 5th and 3rd level spell slot. or 2× 4th level spell slots.

at that level, I would rather have 2× casting of Summon elemental or extra Swift quiver and Conjure barrage.

 

[Minigiant]

6× 1st level spell slots(that we get in the end from "free" HM) is 12 spell points.
those 12 spellpoints at later levels could be spent better on higher level spells. That is extra 5th and 3rd level spell slot. or 2× 4th level spell slots.

at that level, I would rather have 2× casting of Summon elemental or extra Swift quiver and Conjure barrage.

It's not a 5th level spell though.

It's a boosted 1st level spell you get 2-6 castings of.

That's the issue. You can't say 6 Xs is equal to 2 Ys unless it was designed to be. Ranger spells were not designed to be convertible in power at a decent exchange rate.

Ranger 1st level spell slots are good at level 1, expendable at level 11, and insignificant at level 20.

Think of them like Cantrips. Cantrips are not your go to at level 11+. They are 3rd, 4th, or 5th options unless you build for it.

Same with Ranger. At high levels you are supposed to cast Swift Quiver or use a Summon as your primary combat gimmicks.

 

[Horwath]

It's not a 5th level spell though.

It's a boosted 1st level spell you get 2-6 castings of.

That's the issue. You can't say 6 Xs is equal to 2 Ys unless it was designed to be. Ranger spells were not designed to be convertible in power at a decent exchange rate.

Ranger 1st level spell slots are good at level 1, expendable at level 11, and insignificant at level 20.

Think of them like Cantrips. Cantrips are not your go to at level 11+. They are 3rd, 4th, or 5th options unless you build for it.

Same with Ranger. At high levels you are supposed to cast Swift Quiver or use a Summon as your primary combat gimmicks.

I'm just comparing at relative power level and since we do have rules for spell points, that comparison is by the rules.

6×1st level spell slots=2×4th level spell slots.

 

[Minigiant]

I'm just comparing at relative power level and since we do have rules for spell points, that comparison is by the rules.

6×1st level spell slots=2×4th level spell slots.

Spellpoints is poor system due to how incompatible it is with DND dungeon design.

D&D spells are not designed on a linear scale.
D&D spells casting system was designed based on vibes and tropes not math.