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

[Minigiant]

3pp's like EN Publishing likewise don't have to deal with past baggage, and community bias. They do have to meet audience obligations because they do come out with product that has to be backwards compatible with WoTC's stuff. However, they have done a very good job listening to their base's feedback by keeping what works in D&D and fixing what doesn't. It's why I like Level Up in a number of ways.

However they have to cut off potential parts of their audience to do it.

Like a 3pp that makes a spell-less ranger cant work with any 1PP or 3PP subclass that assumes spells like Fey Wanderer.

Or a homebrew HM change to makes Vengence Pally or Feytouched overpowered.

A unified core has more customers that a segregated one.

 

[Corinnguard]

However they have to cut off potential parts of their audience to do it.

Like a 3pp that makes a spell-less ranger cant work with any 1PP or 3PP subclass that assumes spells like Fey Wanderer.

Or a homebrew HM change to makes Vengence Pally or Feytouched overpowered.

A unified core has more customers that a segregated one.

There are parts of D&D that don't really work well with the audience. If a 3pp fixes one or more of those parts, they aren't really cutting off parts of their audience. They're encouraging more people to come and become a part of the community.

As long as those at a particular table are okay with one of their number playing a spell-less Ranger, does it really matter? Every group that sits around a physical table or a virtual table plays D&D in their own way.

If a homebrewed version of HM is a Ranger class feature rather than a spell that can be picked up by another class via a feat like Fey-Touched, doesn't that help make the Ranger a better class?

It depends on who and what is doing the unifying.

 

[Minigiant]

There are parts of D&D that don't really work well with the audience. If a 3pp fixes one or more of those parts, they aren't really cutting off parts of their audience. They're encouraging more people to come and become a part of the community.

As long as those at a particular table are okay with one of their number playing a spell-less Ranger, does it really matter? Every group that sits around a physical table or a virtual table plays D&D in their own way.

If a homebrewed version of HM is a Ranger class feature rather than a spell that can be picked up by another class via a feat like Fey-Touched, doesn't that help make the Ranger a better class?

It depends on who and what is doing the unifying.

But does that help to ranger harm the rest of the game?

A LOT of ranger fixes hinge on a gentleman's agreement to not abuse the changes to break the rest of the game.

This is a sorta of leeway WOTC is never afforded.

Everybody says it's okay when a table does this.. however, it is rare that there's pushback. When a third party publisher or a content creator does this. This thread is an anomaly where fans criticize homebrew.

 

[Corinnguard]

This thread is an anomaly where fans criticize homebrew

True, the posters have been critiquing Treantmonk's HM. They're giving Treantmonk some Feedback on what they think of his version of HM. Even I critiqued it by presenting another homebrewer's version of HM on this thread. One where the HM was a class feature rather than a spell.

But does that help to ranger harm the rest of the game?

Having a version of HM that is a Ranger class feature and not a spell IMO doesn't harm the rest of the game. It simply removes the loophole that WoTC unintentionally created by making HM accessible to other classes via the Fey-Touched feat. As a class feature, HM becomes accessible only if you do a single level dip into the 2024 Ranger or a two-level dip into the 2014 Ranger.

A LOT of ranger fixes hinge on a gentleman's agreement to not abuse the changes to break the rest of the game.

A gentleman's agreement between a role-playing group and WoTC, or one between a player and their DM? The DM is the final arbiter in a role-playing session. They are the ones the player goes to, to get approval of what they want to bring into a game.

Or do you mean a gentleman's agreement between WoTC and the 3pp's who nowadays produce most of the 5e content for WoTC?

 

[Minigiant]

A gentleman's agreement between a role-playing group and WoTC, or one between a player and their DM? The DM is the final arbiter in a role-playing session. They are the ones the player goes to, to get approval of what they want to bring into a game.

Or do you mean a gentleman's agreement between WoTC and the 3pp's who nowadays produce most of the 5e content for WoTC?

Between player and DM.

Making Hunter's Mark a class feature doesn't remove it from the Vengence Paladin or Fey Touched.

Hunter's Mark is still a spell. WOTC, ENP, KP, MCDM or anyone else cant be compatible if Hunter's Mark is not a spell in their game.

So my ranger can still take Hunter's Mark (spell) on my ranger who has Hunter's Mark (class feature).

The gentleman's agreement is for the Players to not choose Vengence Paladin, Rangers to not take the spell AND the class feature, or the GM has to ban the spell.

 

[Valetudo]

I've never had a problem with the rangers "identity".I ve never understood this argument and every time one of my players have chosen ranger, flavor wise it works fine. I just think they made the rangers mechanically clunky in both 5e and 5.5e. I do think the newest version is better but the clunky mechanics where bandaided, not fixed. Honestly I'm fine with the rangers base spell list(other than hm being a spell) and think that the sub class is where it should get optional extra flavor of spells if you want that in the class.

 

[Corinnguard]

Between player and DM.

Making Hunter's Mark a class feature doesn't remove it from the Vengence Paladin or Fey Touched.

Hunter's Mark is still a spell. WOTC, ENP, KP, MCDM or anyone else cant be compatible if Hunter's Mark is not a spell in their game.

So my ranger can still take Hunter's Mark (spell) on my ranger who has Hunter's Mark (class feature).

The gentleman's agreement is for the Players to not choose Vengence Paladin, Rangers to not take the spell AND the class feature, or the GM has to ban the spell.

If HM was made into a class feature, would there be a need to keep it as a spell? If it were a class feature, the Vengeance Paladin could still get it by dipping one or two levels into Ranger. Or the Vengeance Paladin could have been given something like HM. The Mark of Vengeance or Vengeful Smite.

There probably a number of ways to maintain compatibility while ensuring that HM stays with the Ranger.

And if your DM said no to you taking the spell version and the class feature of HM? Why pick up the spell when you are already playing a Ranger who gets it for free as a class feature?

 

[Minigiant]

If HM was made into a class feature, would there be a need to keep it as a spell?

If you want to be compatible with 2014 stuff, yes.

Homebrewers dont have to worry about it. But publishers who want money do.

 

[FrogReaver]

Treantmonk has a new video series on fixing the 2024 Ranger which, to be clear, I am enjoying. I don't agree with a lot of the changes, but I respect the thought put into them and think that some of his suggestions are very good.

His Hunter's Mark spell, however, is very bad. Here it is:

You can find the original source here.

So why is it bad? Because it isn't a fix for the Ranger. It is a buff for everyone, and the Ranger suffers for it.

One of Treantmonk's main criticisms of the Ranger is that it lacks a clear identity, and he makes some changes to rectify it. One of the ways he does this is to make the Ranger spells more powerful, the problem is that Hunter's Mark doesn't just belong to the Ranger. Unfortunately, WotC decided to also give it to the Vengence Paladin, one of the strongest class/subclass combos in the game, as one of their automatic spells (this was a terrible thing to do, but it was done back in 2014, so there is probably no fixing it). They also made it available to ANYONE that takes the Fey Touched feat. This means that your Vengence Paladin, Eldritch Knight Fighter, Pact of the Blade Warlock, Valor Bard, Bladesinger Wizard, etc., etc. can take the Fey Touched feat and then spend at 3rd level spell slot to get +1d6 to every attack for the next 8 hours CONCENTRATION FREE! Yay?

I understand the problem with requiring Concentration on Hunter's Mark, but the correct place to fix this is in the Ranger class features (and probably a pretty high level feature). Not in the spell that just anyone can take and get the benefit of.

I’m struggling to find a practical use case on a non ranger where this is particularly strong. It still costs bonus actions. You still need extra attacks to really make use. If you decide you want to melee you still need to worry about concentration on whatever concentration spell you cast.

Like, Vengance Paladin or maybe bladesinger seems to be ideal for this, but it mostly seems like a minor power boost at most on either.

 

[Corinnguard]

Both Hunter's Mark and Hex do pretty much the same thing. If the former was made into a class feature, players could still find a way to pick up the latter in order to gain its' benefits.