D&D 5E (2024) The Problem with Treantmonk's Hunter's Mark

[Tigris]

I have nothing against HM as a spell of itself, it's an OK spell, not great not terrible, what I hate is that even a fraction of rangers class budget is allocated to usage of HM.

free casts of HM are not free. They take place of something else that could be given to the class. Together with all improvements of it.

Again no. At least if we ignore the capstone (there I agree its bad). Level 13 and 17 the class would be given nothing normally. So these features are literally free.

So only the level 1 feature takes budget of the class. And thats a minor feature like paladins lay on hands. Also it must be even smaller than paladins because ranger has ritual casting while paladin does not.

Its comparable to the level 2 smite feature of the paladin. You always have 1 damage spell prepared and get a free use. Its a small class feature and the ranger got several additional uses for free over the paladin.


And the power budget of having spell always prepared and 1 free use is really small and mostly there that beginners cant do too much wrong.


So the fraction of the power budget used by the ranger for hunters mark is ignoreable.

 

[Minigiant]

that is lack of imagination, not grognardz..

Nah.


The point is their grognards do not want Rangers to be magical because Rangers in their world arent. They are like LOTR rangers.

They are okay with handwriting subtly magical spells as uses of skill because they hate subsystems other that spells.

 

[Horwath]

Again no. At least if we ignore the capstone (there I agree its bad). Level 13 and 17 the class would be given nothing normally. So these features are literally free.

Obviously ranger needs 13th and 17th level abilities as lower one sucks, especially 11th level.

So only the level 1 feature takes budget of the class. And thats a minor feature like paladins lay on hands. Also it must be even smaller than paladins because ranger has ritual casting while paladin does not.

Its comparable to the level 2 smite feature of the paladin. You always have 1 damage spell prepared and get a free use. Its a small class feature and the ranger got several additional uses for free over the paladin.


And the power budget of having spell always prepared and 1 free use is really small and mostly there that beginners cant do too much wrong.


So the fraction of the power budget used by the ranger for hunters mark is ignoreable.

So, OK
lets replace HM with other 1st level spell.

Divine favor.

1st level
Ranger knows divine favor and can cast it 2-6 times per long rest as HM.

at 13th level, to buff up 1st level spell used at 13th level, we will upgrade damage to +1d6. nothing special, I just hate rolling d4's.
at 17th level you have advantage on all attacks while DF is casted by you.

at 20th level, to have decent, capstone, buff up DF damage to +2d6, maybe even +3d6
if we compare it to barbarians +4 STR and CON it still looks bad.

 

[Horwath]

Nah.


The point is their grognards do not want Rangers to be magical because Rangers in their world arent. They are like LOTR rangers.

They are okay with handwriting subtly magical spells as uses of skill because they hate subsystems other that spells.

I would 1st to be on board for spell-less ranger, but that does not mean that Ranger have to be completely non magical.
they can have spell-like or supernatural abilities, just not spellcasting as wizards or whatever.

especially as cover ops, or guerrilla warriors, I hate that they have any spell components at all, specifically Verbal ones.

 

[CreamCloud0]

What? Hunter's Mark isn't (and shouldn't be) a tracking spell in that sense (see Locate Animals and Plants or Locate Creature for that).

yeah but those are second and fourth level spells respectively, i just feel a class known for being the iconic tracker archetype might have a spell or ability which manages to cover all of those scenarios for cheaper.

 

[Horwath]

What? Hunter's Mark isn't (and shouldn't be) a tracking spell in that sense (see Locate Animals and Plants or Locate Creature for that).

not exactly, but if you could target tracks or object, DM would just say that you roll skills with advantage when it would be appropriate, it would not be instant location. you would still need to follow tracks, beat stealth, etc.

 

[Minigiant]

I would 1st to be on board for spell-less ranger, but that does not mean that Ranger have to be completely non magical.
they can have spell-like or supernatural abilities, just not spellcasting as wizards or whatever.

especially as cover ops, or guerrilla warriors, I hate that they have any spell components at all, specifically Verbal ones.

When 5th edition was designed, it was heavily heavily heavily tilted to cater to grognards.

They prefer low magic Sword and Sorcery games.

But they want Rangers to be able to do specific feats that currently only allowable via magic spells.

This caused what I dub:
Design Dissonance.

Personally, id make Rangers create magic items like Artificers.

 

[Minigiant]

not exactly, but if you could target tracks or object, DM would just say that you roll skills with advantage when it would be appropriate, it would not be instant location. you would still need to follow tracks, beat stealth, etc.

3rd edition had a Ranger only spell that let rangers see old tracks as glowing green.

 

[Horwath]

Personally, id make Rangers create magic items like Artificers.

or like a warlock with lots of talents(invocations). 1 or 2 per level.
then if you want to have spells take a talent:

you learn two 1st level druid or wizard spells. gain 2 1st level spell slots. can be taken 2 times.

 

[Minigiant]

or like a warlock with lots of talents(invocations). 1 or 2 per level.
then if you want to have spells take a talent:

you learn two 1st level druid or wizard spells. gain 2 1st level spell slots. can be taken 2 times.

Crafted potions, dear friend.