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

[Horwath]

The problem is there is no single way to boost Goodberry for those who want that and Hunter's Mark for those who want.

And if someone wants Speak with Animals....

then you make ability broader for whole ranger class,

I.E:

1st level: Replace bonus HM with bonus 1st level spell slots, for RANGER SPELLS ONLY, no extra Shield or Silvery barb cheese here. Please... Or you can pick 1st level RANGER spell and get that bonus castings for that spell only if this is too much of a versatility.
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.


You get same number of extra 1st level slots, but now not forced into HM
You get nonbreakable concentration, pretty useful for gish. Paladins got their weaker version with Cha bonus to Con saves and 7 levels earlier.
While concentrating on nature magic, your combat is improved with both 17th and 20th level abilities. And your capstone still sucks to be in theme with the ranger class for last 10years.

 

[Horwath]

Oh, so if rangers got free casts of a single non-concentration spell that would be fine?

Yes.

Maybe that's your take, but that's not the vibe i'm getting from others.

Well, we have these forums for exactly that thing.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yes.

Chose one.
One that does not step on other's toes.
No concentrationless damage upgrade.
No healing spell.
My proposal: animal friendship. What is more rangery?
Maybe allow for a choice:
"ranger order"
Chose one of two diets:
1. Meat: you gain the hunter's mark spell.
2. Vegan: you gain the animal friendship spell

Well, we have these forums for exactly that thing.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

my idea of ranger is a martial using, stealth capable, primal halfcaster. it is not accomplished by anything to do with hunter's mark.

But it is accomplished by an Eldritch Knight, paladin, multiclassed Fighter/Druid or artificer. "Stealth capable" means nothing in 5e - all classes are stealth capable if you make your character that way. "Primal" means nothing in 5e, it was purely a 4e mechanic.

it's like saying "i want to play wizard, and not have half my class features dedicated to specifically using acid stream or cause fear, shadow blade or hold person"

And you see an awful lot of this kind of thing (highly specialised) where people try to add additional classes were there isn't any gap in the current class line up. Pathfinder has hundreds of such classes.

For me it is a spells first class with some ability with weapons.

That sounds like an artificer to me.

what if you do not want HM to be your fallback position?
why not give same amount of bonus 1st level spell slots for RANGER spells only?

Or just Cure wounds?
That is always useful. Maybe not as fun or exciting, but everyone usually takes damage during the day.

What is "rangery" about that? If you were sitting down to design a class from scratch, would you really say "what this game lacks is a class that can fight a bit and cast spells a bit, and gets some extra casts of first level spells"? And if you did, why would you choose to name that class "ranger" rather than "artificer", "slightly-more-eldritch-knight" or "fighty-castly-person"?

The fact is, the ranger class is a (metaphorical) appendix. It exists because of tradition, but it has NO FUNCTION in the modern D&D game. The sensible course of action would be to cut it out, and replace it with a proper gish class with a different name, but the force of tradition is too strong.

 

[Ashrym]

I'm not a fan of spells as a class feature either like how Hunter's Mark is being implemented either, but I would point out that this was a suggestion among the complaints when the 2014 ranger came. Implementing those suggestions was WotC listening to the player base, who had a public playtest for feedback and this is the result.

Sometimes the majority of feedback wins out on what some of us want.

After catching up on several pages, I want to reinforce something that has been mentioned: No one is required to use Hunter's Mark over another spell at any time just because they also have the option to use Hunter's Mark. We select ever other spell we prepare because we want to use those spells too, and when the situation comes up which spells we choose to use or maintain we make a decision on which to the best of our knowledge at that time.

The impression I get from "but concentration conflict" or "but bonus action conflict" is "my ranger needs to have Hunter's Mark up all the time" so that the PC can benefit from it while people are arguing they don't want to use it. That seems incongruent to me.

If a person doesn't always want to use it, then don't. Since it's built into the class anyway use it when it's appropriate.

Spike growth the edge of the moat.

Summon Elemental and use an earth elemental to build more moats.

then capstone can steal from barbarian/monk as +4 STR, DEX and WIS

So... better than the barbarian or monk capstone why?

Personally, I'd take free casts of just Goodberry over HM, just because at least a Beastmaster / Horizon Walker could actually use that spell, instead of HM which hogs up the bonus actions their subclass demands.

I'm not convinced that transferring Hunter's Mark happens often enough to significantly impact those other options. Either let Hunter's Mark drop (there are free castings after all) or give up that one bonus action for it if it's worth keeping.

Having a decision point to evaluate which is more important in the moment isn't a bad thing. We can't always eat our cake and have it too. ;-)

If Rangers got Primal Awareness

I would argue that Commune with Nature is similar enough to cover the flavor. That comes much later but rangers can also cast it as a ritual now so there's some give and take overall.

There'd have to be people playing lv13+ for that.

Did you just completely dismiss every person who does play those levels? I'd rethink that. The game doesn't stop at 10th level. ;-)

Heck, many of the OP abilities people attribute to spellcasters being OP don't start until those levels.

 

[Horwath]

I'm not a fan of spells as a class feature either like how Hunter's Mark is being implemented either, but I would point out that this was a suggestion among the complaints when the 2014 ranger came. Implementing those suggestions was WotC listening to the player base, who had a public playtest for feedback and this is the result.



So... better than the barbarian or monk capstone why?

Is it really?
you need to look what ranger gets from +4 to 3 abilities vs. what barbarian and monk get from +4 to two abilities. And as STR and DEX as usually prime vs dump relationship except vs STRangers(and they are worse off with MAD than DEX or WIS rangers), having both +4 to STR and DEX does not really gives much.

 

[Ashrym]

Is it really?
you need to look what ranger gets from +4 to 3 abilities vs. what barbarian and monk get from +4 to two abilities. And as STR and DEX as usually prime vs dump relationship except vs STRangers(and they are worse off with MAD than DEX or WIS rangers), having both +4 to STR and DEX does not really gives much.

Yes, +4 STR, DEX, AND WIS is better than +4 DEX and WIS. Just giving the same capstone as the monk would make more sense since WIS and DEX are the 2 primary ability scores for the ranger.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Is it really?
you need to look what ranger gets from +4 to 3 abilities vs. what barbarian and monk get from +4 to two abilities. And as STR and DEX as usually prime vs dump relationship except vs STRangers(and they are worse off with MAD than DEX or WIS rangers), having both +4 to STR and DEX does not really gives much.

I tend to agree here.
I just think it is a boring capstone as the ranger does not have unarmed defense.
Why not have it remove concentration from hunters mark and increase to 1d10 damage. And something on top.

 

[Ashrym]

I tend to agree here.
I just think it is a boring capstone as the ranger does not have unarmed defense.
Why not have it remove concentration from hunters mark and increase to 1d10 damage. And something on top.

The concern is WIS and DEX cover a lot of skills already, common saving throws, attacks and AC, and in the ranger's case the DC of his spell list that would exceed other spell casters. That's already a lot so adding in STR too because why?

 

[Horwath]

Yes, +4 STR, DEX, AND WIS is better than +4 DEX and WIS. Just giving the same capstone as the monk would make more sense since WIS and DEX are the 2 primary ability scores for the ranger.

what about the STRangers?