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

[Horwath]

But it's not Hunter's Mark the class.

Hunter's Mark is just Iconic to Ranger. But Hunter's Mark sucks past level 11.

you get 4 abilities that buff a single spell.
and not that great spell to begin with.
what other class has that?

also out of those 4 abilities, it's the 1st level ability and the capstone ability. Yes, the ranger IS the Hunter's Mark class

 

[Minigiant]

you get 4 abilities that buff a single spell.
and not that great spell to begin with.
what other class has that?

also out of those 4 abilities, it's the 1st level ability and the capstone ability. Yes, the ranger IS the Hunter's Mark class

You shouldn't be casting Hunter's Mark often in 2024 at level 13.

That's the point

Those features are a buff to the first level feature.

If people didn't want free prepared spells then you wouldn't need the buff features.
But People want free prepare spells

 

[Horwath]

You shouldn't be casting Hunter's Mark often in 2024 at level 13.

That's the point

Those features are a buff to the first level feature.

If people didn't want free prepared spells then you wouldn't need the buff features.
But People want free prepare spells

OK, so to remove concentration problem, replace HM with Divine strength.

and rework 13,17 and 20th level to work with Divine strength instead.

 

[Minigiant]

OK, so to remove concentration problem, replace HM with Divine strength.

and rework 13,17 and 20th level to work with Divine strength instead.

So it is just damage then.
If 2 damage is all you care about then why is For Slayer bad to you?

 

[CreamCloud0]

Hunter's Mark is just Iconic to Ranger.

is it really though? maybe in the sense that nobody else got it but i can't say it ever really felt iconic to me, if anything you took it because the design seemed to 'expect' you to take it having offered few alternatives.

and now 2024 makes the same mistake going all in on this one spell they've somehow covinced themselves is the ranger's golden child that everybody is using all the time.

edit: the thing is it never should've been a spell in the first place, it should've been split into natural bonus damage die as their DPR crutch and a tracking ability you can trigger whenever.

 

[Minigiant]

is it really though? maybe in the sense that nobody else got it but i can't say it ever really felt iconic to me, if anything you took it because the design seemed to 'expect' you to take it having offered few alternatives.

and now 2024 makes the same mistake going all in on this one spell they've somehow covinced themselves is the ranger's golden child that everybody is using all the time.

edit: the thing is it never should've been a spell in the first place, it should've been split into an innate natural damage bonus and a tracking ability you can trigger.

Hunter's Mark is a spell because 5e was written as an apology addition for grognards.

So anything that was anyway vaguely extraordinary other than toughness which was traditionally grandfathered in as acceptable extraordinariness had to be made purely magical.

Hunters quarry with an iconic aspect of the fourth edition Ranger which was much beloved because it was the strongest class in the game.

When Hunter Corey was converted over to Hunters and Mark in 5th edition it got changed.

However it was deemedan extraordinary ability.

So focusing one's eyes on a single target while having better perception and tracking ability to them was considered to supernatural for the old guard.

 

[Horwath]

So it is just damage then.
If 2 damage is all you care about then why is For Slayer bad to you?

No concemtration on DS

 

[Minigiant]

No concemtration on DS

And?

Is this all about +2 damage?

 

[mellored]

you get 4 abilities that buff a single spell.
and not that great spell to begin with.
what other class has that?

Barbarian.
"Rage" as a spell that takes your concentration slot, and the class has multiple features build around it.

What if I want a Barbarian who doesn't concentrate on Rage? Don't be a Barbarian.

also out of those 4 abilities, it's the 1st level ability and the capstone ability. Yes, the ranger IS the Hunter's Mark class

And that's the closest thing to a concensus WotC was able to get.
Which option is best out of...

50% said hunter mark
20% said all ranger should have beasts
20% said rangers should not have any spells.
10% have their own unique idea.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Hunter's Mark is a spell because 5e was written as an apology addition for grognards.

So anything that was anyway vaguely extraordinary other than toughness which was traditionally grandfathered in as acceptable extraordinariness had to be made purely magical.

Hunters quarry with an iconic aspect of the fourth edition Ranger which was much beloved because it was the strongest class in the game.

When Hunter Corey was converted over to Hunters and Mark in 5th edition it got changed.

However it was deemedan extraordinary ability.

So focusing one's eyes on a single target while having better perception and tracking ability to them was considered to supernatural for the old guard.

looking up hunter's quarry and it's associated feats i am further convinced ranger should've been build more like warlock, if WotC wanted hunter's mark to be ranger's 'thing' they IMO ought to of made it a cantrip and the ranger gets a list of invocations that can be used to modify it further like eldritch blast(or take none of the HM associated boons to let them ignore it entirely), as it exists now it's functionally a pure damage bump with a ribbon addition about tracking some things, it's too shallow to be their 'thing' as is.