Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ashrym" data-source="post: 9462926" data-attributes="member: 6750235">Yes, Hunter's Mark is a spell but "spell" is just a label in how rules apply to the ability.  WotC could have just called it a class ability that uses the magic action and requires concentration and it would be no different in how it works.I don't agree that rangers rely on spells extensively.  They rely on martial combat extensively supplemented with spells.  Wait a sec.....  martial combat extensively.  I underlined it too because that makes the argument more betterer.  :-DYes, that is just my sense of humour there.  ;-)It's just 5e-ified Hunter's Quarry.  It's iconic because it represents the advantage the ranger has against a favored foe, which is an iconic trait in every edition even if it's been a different mechanical representation in how that has been applied.Why do you think that?I think spellcasting is typical of rangers, but they are not a full caster and aren't meant to be.  They used to barely cast spells at all and we still see arguments that they shouldn't cast spells at all.A favored enemy has always been iconic.If it's weak why to people keep insisting it conflicts with other spells and should always be on?  If it were true that it's "objectively pathetic" (which sounds like very subjective opinion to me ;-) just sayin') then the arguments would have been that no one is using it.Instead, DPR calculations often include Hunter's Mark.Yes, they each have a different capstone.  Many classes have different capstones.  How often do you think bards are actually going to use their capstone instead of the the spells they selected?  I'd wager the ranger capstone gets used far more often.  ;-)We've kind of shifted the discussion here at this point.  It seems like the conversation has moved on from "but conflicts with concentration and bonus action" and "rangers don't have good combat spells" to "rangers have good combat spells they need to use" to reinforce the "concentration and bonus action conflict" on a spell that needs to be up all the time for a spell that players don't want to use.It seems like the arguments are all over the place trying to justify the argument when it's really, "nah, I'm not a fan".Are we now arguing that rangers are suffering from having good combat spells to use?  ;-)With their rather poor DPR outside of trashing large numbers of weak opponents via AoE?  You were just telling me that rangers are iconic spell casters using spells against the BBEG.  15 spell slots, none of which have to be used for Hunter's Mark (6 freebees), and the same save DC isn't giving ranger a hard time in this department compared to the typical 22 spell slots of a bard or cleric or druid and more than a warlock before resting.The difference is in the access to higher level spells, but rangers still have a significant amount and can have the same DC.  Weapon mastery is the martial version of cantrips, and nature's warrior allows the ranger both weapon mastery and cantrips.It's still hard to argue against extra attack, better hit points, and better armor class without expending spell slots and actions or having more skill benefits as not being advantageous to the ranger over those classes.I'm not following where you're going with these examples.  They seem like mixed comparisons.  A ranger isn't giving up concentration to take the attack action either.  Sorcerers and wizards do have to give up spells with concentration for other spells with concentration, or to cast rituals, or to cast a spell with a longer casting time just like rangers do.If a sorcerer casts a concentration spell then they give it up for a different concentration spell.  If they used a metamagic option on that concentration spell then they give up that metamagically enhanced spell too.  They don't get to somehow keep the metamagic they just used when they cast a different concentration spell.If a wizard casts a spell with spell mastery and that spell has concentration then the wizard gives up that spell as well for another with concentration.There's nothing in those classes that let's them keep the spells used under those features when they cast another concentration spell.  That's still no different than a ranger giving up the casting of Hunter's Mark for another concentration spell. Well, no.  You didn't highlight that.  You compared rangers to wizards and sorcerers with spells when rangers aren't wizards or sorcerers.  Hunter's mark is an enhancement to martial combat with a long duration, which is something typical of rangers and atypical of wizards and sorcerers.Sure.  Spells for rangers has been around a long time.  But they are still a hybrid class and various forms of favored enemy abilities have always been there, getting back to what Hunter's Mark represents.I would argue that favored enemy abilities are more iconic given the historical delay in accessing spells.Marking an enemy so that they cannot run and hide while enhancing damage against them seems very thematic to me.I would need to get a citation from you for that, and possibly the methodology behind it.</blockquote>

Verification