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

[pukunui]

if that is 1st level feature, I would not mind the whole hunter's mark feat chain.

Yeah, I mean I would either make it so Favored Enemy lets you cast hunter’s mark without needing to concentrate on it, or I would just remove the concentration requirement from the spell.

I suppose I could replace Relentless Hunter with a bonus feat.

 

[Horwath]

That's not bad design.

You get 2-6 free uses of HM. That's not mandatory. That's extra.
This is the part the community gives stuck on.

it's not free, nothing is free.
it's usage of class resources that could have been spent somewhere else. More masteries, more expertise more skills, heck just flat more 1st level spell slots(for Ranger spells only).
and it is mandatory as if you do not use it, you are wasting your class resources.
And if you use it, you lock yourself out from ALL other concentration spells.

not to mention that your 17th level ability practically forces you to have HM in combat 100% of the time.
And capstone that is beyond pathetic.

If you do 2 short rests between long rests then it doesn't cover all your encounters until level 5. Then there is the possibly to have more than 3 encounters per day (as you should).

OFC, that was never the issue

Then you have more free castings to reapply after dropping concentration due to damage or casting another concentration spell.

The only real problem.with Ranger is WOTC doesn't design cool spells for it like they do for full casters.

you still waste your spell slot before spell expiration duration.


In the end, if they added Divine favor instead of HM for this mechanic, no one would complain.

 

[Bacon Bits]

You get 2-6 free uses of HM. That's not mandatory. That's extra.

OK, so I agree that HM on Ranger is not an inherently bad design, but this take is like calling the spell slots full casters gain at even levels "extra". Sure, you don't have to expend those slots, but it's not a "ribbon" feature like bonus languages. It has a real, tangible effect on combat and play and ignoring them means ignoring some of the abilities that you're expected to use to reach the appropriate level of combat ability. At the design level that feature has an opportunity cost. They put PB HM on the class features table, and it means they couldn't put something else there instead.

 

[Minigiant]

it's not free, nothing is free.
it's usage of class resources that could have been spent somewhere else. More masteries, more expertise more skills, heck just flat more 1st level spell slots(for Ranger spells only).
and it is mandatory as if you do not use it, you are wasting your class resources.
And if you use it, you lock yourself out from ALL other concentration spells.

It's an additional new feature.

That's free uses.

The main problem with Hunter's Mark was that it competed with your other spell slots and rangers were half casters.

Rangers needed more 1st level spells slots. Vis free spells or free casting.

 

[Minigiant]

OK, so I agree that HM on Ranger is not an inherently bad design, but this take is like calling the spell slots full casters gain at even levels "extra". Sure, you don't have to expend those slots, but it's not a "ribbon" feature like bonus languages. It has a real, tangible effect on combat and play and ignoring them means ignoring some of the abilities that you're expected to use to reach the appropriate level of combat ability. At the design level that feature has an opportunity cost. They put PB HM on the class features table, and it means they couldn't put something else there instead.

But that's was the problem...

Ranger iconic stuff is mostly 1st level and 2nd level stuff that competed with HM for the few slots of magic they had.

So if you create more Marks and silo Marks to their own resource.... 90% of the problem is solved.

Then all you have to do is create high level ranger spells like creating a pack of hunting dogs to track or fusing with beasts or plants or shooting death arrows.

 

[aco175]

I thought the meme would have been posted by now. I did not want to make one specifically for this, but found this one I thought was funny. Cheers.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

it's not free, nothing is free.

Not totally free. But more like a ribbon. Yeah, at level 13 removal of concentration would have been ok. But even better would have been removing concentration from ranger exclusive spells like swift quiver.

What I don't get is people claiming tasha's favoured foe is better. That was terrible. Even if you only get prof bonus rounds out of hunter's mark. With TWF it is 2 or 3d6 extra damage in these rounds with vex and twf.
At level one it is 2 times 2d6 damageif you hit. Not bad at that level. And this is on top of full caster level spellcasting (1/2 rounded up) including ritual casting of the alarm spell, weapon mastery, medium armor proficiency, one extra skill, d10 hp.
So even if you took that ribbon feature away, the ranger would be a great level 1 dip.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The Ranger class only exists because TRADITION. If you were designing from scratch, a wilderness guy background with fighter, rogue, barbarian or paladin (Aragorn) completely fulfills the role in 5e.

So it’s a class frantically trying to justify its existence with its rather silly hunters mark mechanic.

 

[Bacon Bits]

But that's was the problem...

But that doesn't mean it's "extra".

2014 Ranger's Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy were amazing and quite powerful.... for a character that would be involved in a campaign where wilderness recovery was difficult, and actual resource attrition once you leave town had real teeth. But D&D hasn't been that game since the 90s. In 5e D&D, the only RAW attrition you actually need to care about is ammunition. That's why people tend to ignore it.

So the 2014 Ranger didn't have free mechanics that did nothing. It had real mechanics that the design bought and paid for that don't interact with the rest of the game. That doesn't mean that literally anything that changes that and actually does interact with the rest of the game is "extra." It means it was fundamentally misconfigured before, and now it isn't.

Similarly, Sear Undead existing doesn't mean that Destroy Undead didn't exist or didn't have a design cost or that Sear is "extra."

Like I kind of see what you're driving at, but it's really weird to describe it the way you have. Better than bad isn't necessarily good. The logic just doesn't follow.

 

[mellored]

OK, so I agree that HM on Ranger is not an inherently bad design, but this take is like calling the spell slots full casters gain at even levels "extra".

I would compare it more to Channel Divinity or Wild Shape.

In fact getting a use back on a short rest would fit better IMO.

At the design level that feature has an opportunity cost. They put PB HM on the class features table, and it means they couldn't put something else there instead.

And rogued get sneak attack, which takes thier weapon slot.
And barbarians get rage, which takes their concentration slot.
And monks get unarmed attack dice...
And spells take an action, preventing you from attacking.

The whole game is filled with features on class tables that prevent you from using other features.