Horwath
Legend
those are not real magic items, hehe
D&D 5E (2024) The Problem with Treantmonk's Hunter's Mark
- Thread starter Lord Twig
- Start date
CreamCloud0
Hero
honestly i think an invocations based customization system is exactly what the ranger needs due to their broad concept wanting to take them in lots of different directions but they can't be good at all of them at once else you'd make them OP as heck, letting the player pick which individual aspects of rangering they want to be good at is the best solution.
There are magic potions.
Really, the image of a ranger brewing potions out of herbs, spices, and animal parts in a small cooking pot tracks for the fantasy.
But almost no game has a good crafting system.
CreamCloud0
Hero
saying they 'create magic items' really makes that sound like something that it's probably not, though a ranger focused around creating potions and suchlike would be good, honestly you could probably just slap the artificer alchemist subclass on them with a few minor tweaks and it'd be great (especially if you could use HM's free castings to fuel creating experimental elixirs)
This thread exploded six pages last night but I've done a lot of math across my various 5e tables over the years & never noticed any problems with ranger PCs contributing or keeping up with anyone but late★ tier2★ & tier3★+ warlock★/monk★. Perhaps part of the reason some people feel like ranger is so awful comes down to attempting to compare the result of this claim about 5e still being balanced without "pure candy" magic items against the 1hr 2-3 action round nova loop 5mwd output from a pair of classes that gain an extreme bump in power when they cross into high levels that weren't really tested?
★Lets Take a short rest ⇝ Nova ⇝ Nova ⇝ I'm totally out of spells/qi & couldn't possibly go on⇝ Nova ⇝My class is designed to need it! fine nova
★Lets Take a short rest ⇝ Nova ⇝ Nova ⇝ I'm totally out of spells/qi & couldn't possibly go on⇝ Nova ⇝My class is designed to need it! fine nova
I mean the original ranger, especially dualwield (especially beastmaster) was quite awefull. Thats why he got sooo many improvements in Tashas and even more in 2024.
I know several people who played rangers originally who were completly frustrated about playing ranger and felt like just a worse fighter.
The 5.0 ranger was bad. It was designed for people who dont and wouldn't switch to 5e.
5.1 (post tasha) was okay.
The 5.5 ranger is okay too. It just doesn't play how many "want" it to. However, that's only because many people either want it to play. Like a low level Rangers all the way to high level. Or they just don't care about utility and run pure combat games but they don't run enough encounters for the ranger sustainability, to kick.
The ranger only really suffers because WOTC and 3pps dont create 3rd-5th level spells for its fantasy. It mostly runs druid spells with a better attack routine and skill options.
Last edited:
There's plenty to unpack here.
First, I like what Treantmonk is doing. I mean, I just like Treantmonk overall and believe he's a boon to the community. I view his changes as mostly quality of life improvements. He's not reinventing anything from the ground up. That's a perfectly valid approach, but it limits the overall impact.
Second, in my perfect version of 5E, the ranger would be built on the same chassis as warlock. It offers the type of customization that I believe the ranger needs, since there are so many competing ideas about what a ranger should be.
Third, the ranger lacks a core mechanic that defines the class. Think sneak attack for a rogue or rage for a barbarian. Again, in my perfect version of 5E, that would be a feature that grants the ranger advantage against its quarry. Advantage on skill checks, advantage on saving throws, advantage on attacks, maybe even advantage on damage rolls. Clearly this would start with just one or two benefits and scale up with level.
Fourth, there's going to be a ranger in my next campaign. I'm modifying Favored Enemy thusly:
Favored Enemy: At 3rd level, you may spend your uses of Favored Enemy to modify Hunter’s Mark for its duration. The spell:
We'll see how it goes.
First, I like what Treantmonk is doing. I mean, I just like Treantmonk overall and believe he's a boon to the community. I view his changes as mostly quality of life improvements. He's not reinventing anything from the ground up. That's a perfectly valid approach, but it limits the overall impact.
Second, in my perfect version of 5E, the ranger would be built on the same chassis as warlock. It offers the type of customization that I believe the ranger needs, since there are so many competing ideas about what a ranger should be.
Third, the ranger lacks a core mechanic that defines the class. Think sneak attack for a rogue or rage for a barbarian. Again, in my perfect version of 5E, that would be a feature that grants the ranger advantage against its quarry. Advantage on skill checks, advantage on saving throws, advantage on attacks, maybe even advantage on damage rolls. Clearly this would start with just one or two benefits and scale up with level.
Fourth, there's going to be a ranger in my next campaign. I'm modifying Favored Enemy thusly:
Favored Enemy: At 3rd level, you may spend your uses of Favored Enemy to modify Hunter’s Mark for its duration. The spell:
- No longer requires concentration
- Requires no bonus action to cast or move
- Does an additional d6 damage
We'll see how it goes.
Similar Threads
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
June 18 2026 -
October 1 2026
