D&D 5E (2024) Ranger 2024 is a bigger joke than Ranger 2014:

[TiQuinn]

This feels Stormwind-adjacent.

I don’t get it.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I don’t get it.

The "Stormwind Fallacy" essentially states that roleplaying and optimisation are not mutually exclusive. As in a highly optimised character can still be roleplayed well by the player.

I think the argument in this thread is that you can still enjoy playing a mechanically awkward or weak character, as long as those mechanics aren't so bad as to be a complete deal-breaker.

Personally, I view it as possible to enjoy playing a character in spite of bad mechanics, but you would likely enjoy playing it more if those mechanics were better and more evocative of the character you want.

 

[Horwath]

This Is the crux of the issue

You were not going to get a free skill at level 13.
You are not going to get a extra feet at level 13.
You were not going to get bonus action options at level 13.

but you do now get something at level 13, and it's a naughty word feature that you do not want and you didn't ask for.
and everything you get at levels 1,13,17 and 20 that is tied to HM is payed by not getting something else.
It's class resource pool.
those 4 abilities cost something in "class feature point pool", whatever value that is.
you could be getting something else for that value.

Those would have increased the power of the Ranger class and made it not backwards compatible.

and?
and are all classes backwards compatible?

sure you can use them, but I'm not sure how 2014 monk would feel next to 2024 monk...

Yes it is.
The averages are the same.
2014 has a higher base ceiling but a lower base floor.
2024 has a higher base floor but a lower base ceiling.

They both averaged to the same math. It is just easier to make a good character in 2024. 2014 you have to optimize to get a good character but that optimization is rewarded more due to higher numbers and additional loopholes.

so not the same math.

There are no first level Ranger spells that are combat equivalent that is built into its damage calculation.

There are no other first level damn it spells for Ranger in their calculation. It's just Hunter's Mark.

Zephyra Strike was cut. that's on purpose.

Level 13 is where you get your first fourth level spell. This gives you enough Second Third and Fourth level spells to cast one of them every encounter.

That is when your first level spells age out of the damage calculation.

But now you get a new class feature that buffs your first level damage spell and now it becomes an option again.

The feature is not forcing you to use Hunter's Mark.
The feature is allowing you to use Hunter's work.
Because at level 13 if not buffed Hunter's Mark is not worth casting.

At level 13 a full caster's first and second level spells are not good enough for damage.
At level 13 a half caster's first level spells are not good enough for damage.

The 13th and 17th level features allow your only good offensive first level spell to be useful at those levels..

Think of it like this imagine if the sorcerer got free castings of burning hands. Burning hands eventually is not good enough damage to be used against the monsters that a sorcerer faces at Tier 3. But if they got an ability that increased the damage of burning hands burning hands becomes an option again. Force they're not forced to use only burning hands. Burning hands just doesn't suck anymore.

That's what they did with Hunter's Mark. Hunter's Mark doesn't match up well enough to other Ranger buffs and summons at higher levels. But you still have first level slots. So they buffed the strength of those first level slots vis a buff to the spell.

This is the problem.
I would not mind getting burning hands on a ranger and some features than buff it later.
Or getting divine strength instead of HM.
or getting cure wounds instead of HM,


problem is when mandatory spell uses your concentration slot which is very valuable resource.
when you give out usages of spells per short/long rest and especially when you lock several class features to that spell, that spell better be worth is or make sure you can ignore concentration tag on that spell.
otherwise it's limiting for your play options.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

but you do now get something at level 13, and it's a naughty word feature that you do not want and you didn't ask for.

So just remove it and be done with it.
It is sad that people complain about freebies.
Minigiant explained well enough why ribbon abilities were replaced with ribbon abilities.
Or ribbon abilities were added (a little more than ribbon... rather fall back options).

Wizatd spell mastery and signature spell ability is not more powerful than hunter's mark. At will first or second level spells. Just fall back options. Nothing more. If you happen to cast them at that level regularily, you are doing something wrong.

You use them to conserve spell slots if in low stake battles and it frees up spell preparation slots.

When I think about that, I actually think the wizard features are comparatively worse because they don't even improve those spells.
I have not seen people complain there.

 

[TiQuinn]

The "Stormwind Fallacy" essentially states that roleplaying and optimisation are not mutually exclusive. As in a highly optimised character can still be roleplayed well by the player.

I think the argument in this thread is that you can still enjoy playing a mechanically awkward or weak character, as long as those mechanics aren't so bad as to be a complete deal-breaker.

Personally, I view it as possible to enjoy playing a character in spite of bad mechanics, but you would likely enjoy playing it more if those mechanics were better and more evocative of the character you want.

I think that’s fair. My rangers have never been the most powerful in the party but I felt powerful enough and had a clear role each time as the mobile scout who could survive trouble. I never felt like I made “bad” choices with my feats or the class abilities I received.

 

[Horwath]

Wizatd spell mastery and signature spell ability is not more powerful than hunter's mark. At will first or second level spells. Just fall back options. Nothing more. If you happen to cast them at that level regularily, you are doing something wrong.

You use them to conserve spell slots if in low stake battles and it frees up spell preparation slots.

When I think about that, I actually think the wizard features are comparatively worse because they don't even improve those spells.
I have not seen people complain there.

are those spells chosen for you by default in "take it or leave it style" or do you have some saying what those spells can be?

that is why rangers needs something similar to:

1st level: Replace bonus HM with bonus 1st level spell slots, for RANGER SPELLS ONLY, no extra Shield or Silvery barb cheese here. Please...
13th lvl: you cannot lose Concentration on a RANGER SPELL while you are consciuos.
17th lvl: while you are Concentrating on a RANGER SPELL, you have advantage on all attacks
20th lvl: while you are Concentrating on a RANGER SPELL, you deal extra d6 damage. Damage type is chosen from Acid, Cold, Fire, Lightning, Poison or Thunder.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

are those spells chosen for you by default in "take it or leave it style" or do you have some saying what those spells can be?

that is why ranges needs something similar to:

1st level: Replace bonus HM with bonus 1st level spell slots, for RANGER SPELLS ONLY, no extra Shield or Silvery barb cheese here. Please...
13th lvl: you cannot lose Concentration on a RANGER SPELL while you are consciuos.
17th lvl: while you are Concentrating on a RANGER SPELL, you have advantage on all attacks
20th lvl: while you are Concentrating on a RANGER SPELL, you deal extra d6 damage. Damage type is chosen from Acid, Cold, Fire, Lightning, Poison or Thunder.

Horwath, being allowed to focus on Ranger Spells, rather than just Hunter's Mark, is an elegant solution that gives a little more power and a lot of flexibility. I may use that if someone really doesn't like Hunter's Mark.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Horwath, being allowed to focus on Ranger Spells, rather than just Hunter's Mark, is an elegant solution that gives a little more power and a lot of flexibility. I may use that if someone really doesn't like Hunter's Mark.

I 100% agree with you.

Hunter's mark in 2014 was a feel bad spell, because it felt bad to waste a known spell on it and slots. But not taking it felt bad as you missed an obvious damage upgrade. So I actually like the solution to have your cake and eat it.

 

[Minigiant]

but you do now get something at level 13, and it's a naughty word feature that you do not want and you didn't ask for.
and everything you get at levels 1,13,17 and 20 that is tied to HM is payed by not getting something else.
It's class resource pool.
those 4 abilities cost something in "class feature point pool", whatever value that is.
you could be getting something else for that value

These features are not paid to give you something else.

If people didn't focus on Hunter's mark Wizards would not have given you anything for these features.

They are completely free

You were either going to get free Hunter's mark which is bad at high levels buffed.
Or
Free Conjure Barrage which is bad at high levels buffed
Or
Nothing

 

[Horwath]

These features are not paid to give you something else.

If people didn't focus on Hunter's mark Wizards would not have given you anything for these features.

They are completely free

You were either going to get free Hunter's mark which is bad at high levels buffed.
Or
Free Conjure Barrage which is bad at high levels buffed
Or
Nothing

nothing is not an option and it should never be.

obviously, rangers needed to get something more than in 2014, and they did. and what they did got, cost something is class resource pool, like EVERY class feature of EVERY class in the game.

Every class feature has some numeric value, now we can argue what values is for what feature exactly and does every class get exactly the same amount of points and we would argue about it while humanity discovers warp drive around us.

but, ranger did get more of those "points" in 2024 than is 2014.
Like most of the classes. Some got more, some got little less more.

only problem is here; did rangers got their money worth and are those features the right features to buff up rangers to let's say; paladin like levels? heh!

that is the argument here:
Is the (over)focusing on Hunters mark worth the class resources and is it a good idea by itself to "straitjacket" whole class to a single 1st level spell?