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

[FrogReaver]

Anyways back to the strength of favored for vs hunters mark. In 2014 I think favored foe was better. 1 bonus action attack would do more damage than hunters mark with 2 attacks. The free action part helped there. However, with 3 attacks (2 and nick) hunters mark will typically do more than a bonus action attack. In a 2 round sequence of 3 attacks + hunters mark bonus action and then 3 attacks and dual wielded bonus action, hunters mark will quickly outperform pb free action uses of the old favored foe even without the additional ranger class features dedicated to making hunters mark better. We can quantify this. But pretty much as soon as you get 4 rounds of just d6 hunters mark (assuming you need the bonus action every other round) then hunters mark surpasses the old favored foe.

 

[FrogReaver]

Two things.

First off if you accept this interpretation then if I hit Bob and damage him and don't use FF and then I hit Bob a second time and damage him and use FF with that 2nd attack then I don't do additional damage him because I already hit and damaged him this turn?

Was bib your favored for the first time you damaged him? If not then that wasnt the first time you damaged your favored for this turn.

That is an interpretation with seemingly no real purpose other than to nerf what is already a weak ability.

It’s a legitimate raw reading. That’s the purpose. I don’t care if the ability is strong or weak. My only purpose is understanding it raw.

Second in terms of raw damage it is irrelevant, because while this interpretation would mean I can't damage Bob a second time, I can still for sure damage both Jill and Mike in addition to Bob on the same turn, which is really one of the biggest shortfalls of HM.

That’s not necessarily true either. I used bob as a single entity example to make it easier. But whether bob is your favored foe in attack 1 and Jill on attack 2, the same question is asked, is this the first attack against your favored foe this turn?

 

[ECMO3]

Anyways back to the strength of favored for vs hunters mark. In 2014 I think favored foe was better. 1 bonus action attack would do more damage than hunters mark with 2 attacks. The free action part helped there. However, with 3 attacks (2 and nick) hunters mark will typically do more than a bonus action attack. In a 2 round sequence of 3 attacks + hunters mark bonus action and then 3 attacks and dual wielded bonus action, hunters mark will quickly outperform pb free action uses of the old favored foe even without the additional ranger class features dedicated to making hunters mark better. We can quantify this. But pretty much as soon as you get 4 rounds of just d6 hunters mark (assuming you need the bonus action every other round) then hunters mark surpasses the old favored foe.

With 2024 you can get 4 attack with nick and Dual Wielding, so we are still back to losing a bonus action and the damage that comes with it and that is before we consider multiple enemies.

To outperform the old FF in the same scenario, considering chance to hit; in tier 3 you would need around 3 meaningful rounds of fighting without concentration on something better and I don't see that happening in a normal 7 fight day. I don't see it happening in a 10 fight day.

Like I said we will see. My new Ranger is 2024 RAW. She won't have Favored Foe and my bet is she usually goes to bed with free uses of HM from level 6 on.

There is one thing that might change that. Wrathful Smite is now Necromancy, not concentration and is activated on a hit (using a bonus action). This means Shadow Touched-Wrathful Smite will replace Shadow Touched-Cause Fear on many Fey Wanderer builds and I plan to get it at Ranger 4.

Because it is not concentration there is the potential to spam it which will drain spell slots faster than would have otherwise been the case on a Ranger. Using more spell slots will make the free castings more valuable (and would have made favored foe more valuable).

I still don't think I am going to use them all most of the time, but we will see.

 

[ECMO3]

That’s not necessarily true either. I used bob as a single entity example to make it easier. But whether bob is your favored foe in attack 1 and Jill on attack 2, the same question is asked, is this the first attack against your favored foe this turn?

No because once Jill is my Favored Foe, Bob is no longer my Favored Foe. If Bob is still my favored foe after concentration is dropped then he would still be my Favored Foe on next round and even after Bob dies he is still my favored foe and even next year he is still my favored foe.

This would mean I could use Favored Foe once period in my career, which defeats the purpose of PB uses per day.

 

[FrogReaver]

With 2024 you can get 4 attack with nick and Dual Wielding, so we are still back to losing a bonus action and the damage that comes with it and that is before we consider multiple enemies.

No, because hunters mark bonus action even with just 3 attacks does more damage than the dual wielded bonus action attack.

In 2014 you lost damage because the bonus action attack was stronger than what hunters mark provided. That’s not the case now.

To outperform the old FF in the same scenario, considering chance to hit; in tier 3 you would need around 3 meaningful rounds of fighting without concentration on something better and I don't see that happening in a normal 7 fight day. I don't see it happening in a 10 fight day.

maybe. I think you’ll see it. Especially if you wait to take the dual wielder feat. Without that feat the bonus actions arent nearly as conflicting.

Like I said we will see. My new Ranger is 2024 RAW. She won't have Favored Foe and my bet is she usually goes to bed with free uses of HM from level 6 on.

There is one thing that might change that, but I will have to see. Wrathful Smite is now Necromancy, not concentration and is activated on a hit (using a bonus action). This means Shadow Touched-Wrathful Smite will replace Shadow Touched-Cause Fear on many Fey Wanderer builds and I plan to get it at Ranger 4.

Because it is not concentration there is the potential to spam it which will drain spell slots faster than would have otherwise been the case on a Ranger. Using more spell slots will make the free castings more valuable (and would have made favored foe more valuable).

I still don't think I am going to use them all most of the time, but we will see.

I think you are focusing on the wrong question. It’s not whether you use all the free hunters marks. It’s whether they are more effective than old favored foe.

 

[FrogReaver]

No because once Jill is my Favored Foe, Bob is no longer my Favored Foe. If Bob is still my favored foe after concentration is dropped then he would still be my Favored Foe on next round and even after Bob dies he is still my favored foe and even next year he is still my favored foe.

This would mean I could use Favored Foe once period in my career, which defeats the purpose of PB uses per day.

This doesnt remotely follow from what I said??

 

[ECMO3]

No, because hunters mark bonus action even with just 3 attacks does more damage than the dual wielded bonus action attack.

I am comparing ot to FF. 3 attacks with HM is less than 4 attacks with FF

maybe. I think you’ll see it. Especially if you wait to take the dual wielder feat. Without that feat the bonus actions arent nearly as conflicting.

I won't be taking the dual wielder feat, but I also don't think I am going to use HM much at all. Too many good concentration spells.

I think you are focusing on the wrong question. It’s not whether you use all the free hunters marks. It’s whether they are more effective than old favored foe.

A feature I don't use is not effective at all. It is irrelevant. Like someone said above a free cast of Hunters Mark is the same as a Free cast of Find Traps if I never use it.

At high level, considering FF is more damage per hit and FF is easier to use, I don't see how HM can be more effective.

 

[ECMO3]

This doesnt remotely follow from what I said??

If I change my Favored Foe to Jill them Bob is not my Favored Foe and if I have not hit Jill then I have not hit my Favored Foe this turn.

 

[Horwath]

And at level 13 17 and 20 that spell gets boosted. Or maybe both spells.

or maybe, just maybe ranger should have other features at those levels that do not require you to concentrate on 1st level spell.


off-topic, FF sucked as well, I asked DM to replace it and additional damage increases with another instance of deft explorer.

 

[Ashrym]

Yes, but the other casters' spell list isn't 90% concentration spells only. Let me just Zeph... oh. Let me just Ensnaring... oh never mind.

I did a quick check for you, however, and 27 ranger spells have the concentration tag and 34 do not. That's approximately 44% instead of the extremely over-exaggerated 90%. ;-)

1. ~35% cleric
2. ~38% bard
3. ~44% ranger
4. ~44% wizard
5. ~46% paladin
6. ~48% druid
7. ~49% warlock
8. ~50% sorcerer
9. ~66% AT/EK

These can change when we look at magical secrets and subclass spells. The ranger is ratioed among the lowest on the list when it comes to concentration spells. This is something all spell casters deal with.

As you can see with the AT/EK entry the lower level wizard spell list is loaded with concentration spells.

2024 at least made archers have something they could spend their slots on with Hail of Thorns becoming concentration-free (and no, it's not a great option). If they'd bothered to do that for the other low-level spells, Ranger would be in a better spot, instead of waiting until Conjure Barrage to be able to cast something else in combat.

Hail of Thorns is bonus action damage in an AoE. The ranger does the regular attack damage and then spends a bonus action for 1d10 to that creature again and every creature within 5 ft. The range of the effect is based on the range of the weapon.

To which first level spells are you comparing it that have that kind of range and AoE and are also getting an attack action? Seems good to me.

As it is, forced Hunter's Mark is in direct opposition to Rangers being a caster (of anything other than HM). This should not be hard to see, given it's been the main problem of Ranger for 10 years, and now WotC only made it worse.

Hunter's mark is a spell as a class feature. It's not in direct opposition of spell casting. It's a spell among other spells that the class is always guaranteed to have. That's not the same thing as "forced" any more than any other class feature.

It kind of is hard to see how Hunter's Mark has been the main problem for rangers for 10 years. 10 years ago players were claiming Hunter's Mark should be a class ability. Now it is.

Yes, the player should be able to choose. I'm cool with letting people who want nothing other than do basic attacks and spam HM pick that, let me pick some free Goodberries instead.

When people were complaining about rangers in 2014 and beyond no one was asking for free Goodberry. They were, however, asking for Hunter's Mark.

Nothing is stopping a ranger from casting Goodberry, however. They are just using using a slot for Goodberry and a free slot for Hunter's Mark instead of a slot for Hunter's Mark and a free slot for Goodberry. There's little point in free Goodberry, however, because the main point of the spell is meant to be 1 day of nourishment. Nobody needs more than a day of nourishment and unused berries disappear anyway.

I imagine if the free ability was to cast Goodberry there would be more negative feedback. ;-)

It's actually a good example of a bad feature being promoted so much

How so? It's based on the positive feedback of the play testers who filled out surveys so that would indicate the opposite of your claim.

, that some people start to think it is important to the class.

That was feedback from the player base with regards to the ranger. It's not "some people". It's the players who gave feedback on it that was positive. That's how the feedback process was implemented. You are allowed to have a different opinion, but yours doesn't trump anyone else's here. ;-)

Having dextrous telekinesis sounds cool, but seeing how the spell has Verbal components and a 1 minute duration, you cannot use it to do something sneakily and without drawing attention to yourself, and you often cannot take it into combat pre-cast (not that there would be any point to, before lv13)...

Of course the PC can. Cast, climb into a window, sneak into the spot they want, and then use it for 5-8 more rounds. It's verbal but it's also invisible.

Or use it outside of combat. Use it in combat to manipulate objects at range. Or don't use it in combat in favor of another bonus action. Just like Hunter's Mark, there's no obligation or requirement to use these features all the time while ignoring the other options available.

You really should have a look at the Ranger spell list.

Oh, I have. I find it silly of you to assume otherwise.

I dunno about that - if we're taking into account a small percentage of players in the first place, I'm just a smaller percentage, so I guess I need to be taken just as seriously.

We might want to enter any conversation with the understanding that we aren't entitled to be right or that sometimes we are the minority. As I said earlier, I'm not a fan of adding Hunter's Mark to the class instead of other class options. But it's already done at this point. We can't just "be taken more seriously" because that doesn't change thing when we already tried that feedback and it didn't make it.

There are things I don't agree with in the 2024 PHB but it looks to be working as intended.

It's not mechanically bad or thematically bad. It just is whether we like that or not. I'm not a fan of using a spell like that but I do like this version better than the 2014 version.