D&D (2024) UA Ranger (Playtest 6)

[doctorbadwolf]

Treantmonk has his playtest Ranger video up for Patreon viewers, soon for all viewers. And I, and he, were shocked that his damage calculations for a 13th level Beastmaster were much higher than expected. Second only to a Bezerker Barbarian. Now he makes assumptions, it's just one build at 13th level, and I'd note he never does any calculation for chances to lose concentration on Hunter's Mark - but he also never casts any other spells so maybe he is assuming slots are devoted to Hunter's Mark. Still in all, the damage was surprisingly higher than expected. Slightly over 50 damage per round at 13th level.

On the negative, he bashes choice of terrain and advocates they just get advantage on tracking. He has serious problems with hunters mark and thinks maybe they should get to remove concentration on that at 11th level. And there are some bonus action conflicts. Finally he seems to hate the revised Gloomstalker - not that the Gloomstalker didn't need a nerf (it did) just that this version is weird. Where is the "scary" coming from, why do they now teleport, and the Frightened condition doesn't even function if you're invisible to the target so two of their abilities directly conflict with each other.

Wow what a limited, even stunted, view of the game and class.

The features of the GS don’t “conflict”, they cover different situations. Hunters mark is what it is, they aren’t going to remove concentration. There are other spells. In an actual game, this isn’t an issue, because there are other uses of spell slots.

As usual, I find treatmonk’s analysis barely functional, certainly not useful for anything other than roughly comparing DPR (and even that is often innacurate to the actual game due to bad assumptions), and borderline deleterious to discussion of the game.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Treantmonk has his playtest Ranger video up for Patreon viewers, soon for all viewers. And I, and he, were shocked that his damage calculations for a 13th level Beastmaster were much higher than expected. Second only to a Bezerker Barbarian. Now he makes assumptions, it's just one build at 13th level, and I'd note he never does any calculation for chances to lose concentration on Hunter's Mark - but he also never casts any other spells so maybe he is assuming slots are devoted to Hunter's Mark. Still in all, the damage was surprisingly higher than expected. Slightly over 50 damage per round at 13th level.

On the negative, he bashes choice of terrain and advocates they just get advantage on tracking. He has serious problems with hunters mark and thinks maybe they should get to remove concentration on that at 11th level. And there are some bonus action conflicts. Finally he seems to hate the revised Gloomstalker - not that the Gloomstalker didn't need a nerf (it did) just that this version is weird. Where is the "scary" coming from, why do they now teleport, and the Frightened condition doesn't even function if you're invisible to the target so two of their abilities directly conflict with each other.

I did my own analysis and this does not surprise me but my biggest gripe is that past level 11 or so it would be better to swap out other primal spells for Hunter's Mark. In particular, it strikes me that Flaming Sphere would be more effective. You get a control effect and a pretty meaty bonus action attack. Though not, obviously so good for a beastmaster.
I do not have an issue with class utility being packaged as spells but in my head the ranger is a weapons damage dealer and making them better as a caster or weapons and spell hybrid is moving a bit further away from their core identity than I am comfortable with.

 

[Mistwell]

Wow what a limited, even stunted, view of the game and class.

The features of the GS don’t “conflict”, they cover different situations

They do not. If you're attacking someone using their dark vision, the frightened condition you're apply doesn't work. Not different situations its very often the same situation. In fact, theme-wise, THAT'S WHAT'S SCARY IS SOMEONE ATTACKING YOU FROM THE DARKNESS. It's very obvious someone at WOTC didn't notice the condition you apply happens to not function with the very invisibility which is scaring them. Pretty sure this is a whoops and we will see it fixed in the next iteration.

Hunters mark is what it is, they aren’t going to remove concentration.

They literally did just that in the prior playtest. This is a direct change to that very version. Didn't you realize that?

There are other spells. In an actual game, this isn’t an issue, because there are other uses of spell slots.

If you look at the subclass construction for this playtest, most features are not pairing off hunters mark. It's why it's so important now. Again, if you read the new Ranger, I don't see how you'd not be focused on Hunters Mark. They're giving you a free use of it (so not even always a spell slot), and it's tied to a whole lot now.

I am getting the sense you didn't even read what we're discussing?

As usual, I find treatmonk’s analysis barely functional, certainly not useful for anything other than roughly comparing DPR (and even that is often innacurate to the actual game due to bad assumptions), and borderline deleterious to discussion of the game.

Well I have a similar opinion of most of your analysis and an even lower opinion of your YouTube channel

 

[Mistwell]

I did my own analysis and this does not surprise me but my biggest gripe is that past level 11 or so it would be better to swap out other primal spells for Hunter's Mark. In particular, it strikes me that Flaming Sphere would be more effective. You get a control effect and a pretty meaty bonus action attack. Though not, obviously so good for a beastmaster.
I do not have an issue with class utility being packaged as spells but in my head the ranger is a weapons damage dealer and making them better as a caster or weapons and spell hybrid is moving a bit further away from their core identity than I am comfortable with.

yeah I think that's why he mentions maybe return to removing concentration on hunters mark at 11th level because otherwise they still don't want to use the concentration slot on this spell despite all the subclass features tying to it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

They do not. If you're attacking someone using their dark vision, the frightened condition you're apply doesn't work. Not different situations its very often the same situation. In fact, theme-wise, THAT'S WHAT'S SCARY IS SOMEONE ATTACKING YOU FROM THE DARKNESS. It's very obvious someone at WOTC didn't notice the condition you apply happens to not function with the very invisibility which is scaring them. Pretty sure this is a whoops and we will see it fixed in the next iteration.

If you attack, you probably aren't invisible anymore. If there is an oops they're g0ing to fix in the next version it's the invisibility with no "until you do xyz" clause.

They literally did just that in the prior playtest. This is a direct change to that very version. Didn't you realize that?

Did you think they changed it for no reason?

If you look at the subclass construction for this playtest, most features are not pairing off hunters mark. It's why it's so important now. Again, if you read the new Ranger, I don't see how you'd not be focused on Hunters Mark. They're giving you a free use of it (so not even always a spell slot), and it's tied to a whole lot now.

Let's see, it's tied to in the level 20 class feature, a Hunter ribbon feature, and a Beastmaster feature. That's it. THe BM feature could be easily replaced with anything else to add a die of damage regularly but not at-will. 2 out of 4 subclasses have one feature each that references HM.
If you read the new proposed ranger update, and you think players will just be spamming HM at all times...you've read the class incorrectly, or don't understand the game very well.

I am getting the sense you didn't even read what we're discussing?

I read it, and apperently did a better job of reading it than your bff treatmonk.

Well I have a similar opinion of most of your analysis and an even lower opinion of your YouTube channel

LOL When I start presenting my opinion for public consumption as if I'm an expert people should listen to, I'll care.

TM may have made good class guides once upon a time, idk I never read them. But his 5e work is...well, it reminds me of the axiom that generals are always trying to fight the war before the one they're in.

 

[Mistwell]

If you attack, you probably aren't invisible anymore. If there is an oops they're g0ing to fix in the next version it's the invisibility with no "until you do xyz" clause.

No that's not this invisibility. It's not a spell. While you are in Darkness you have the invisible CONDITION to any creature relying on darkvision to see in that darkness. It's not going to go away after an attack. Why would it, since they still can't see you due to the darkness and their vision type?

Did you think they changed it for no reason?

I think they had good reason to change it. I think they went overboard. Adding the no-concentration version back at 11th level would be better balance and encourage people to actually use it beyond the low levels, which appears to be their intent but it's not executed well here.

Let's see, it's tied to in the level 20 class feature, a Hunter ribbon feature, and a Beastmaster feature. That's it.

That's a lot, particularly the Beastmaster feature. And I'd say that Hunter one is no longer a ribbon feature. The designers obviously think it will always be on.

THe BM feature could be easily replaced with anything else to add a die of damage regularly but not at-will. 2 out of 4 subclasses have one feature each that references HM.

Hunter's Mark now scales and it's pretty obvious it's intended that way. Your beast is now doing scaling added damage with each hit while your Ranger is also doing that same scaling added damage with each hit. It's really quite a lot and also clearly part of the designers calculus for designing the class and particularly that subclass. I just think they failed to account for the full impact of concentration always-on at mid to high levels.

If you read the new proposed ranger update, and you think players will just be spamming HM at all times...you've read the class incorrectly, or don't understand the game very well.

I don't think they will at all, and I don't think you've understood the comments in this conversation very well if you thought that was Treantmonk's comment? How could you think that, when he said they should remove the concentration requirement at 11th level, and should allow the scaling version for the free casting of it? It lasts 8 hours at high levels by the way so I don't know what you mean by spamming. I absolutely think the designers INTEND the Ranger to have it on all the time, but I don't think that's what will happen at all and that's an issue given the importance they think they're placing on it with their behind-the-curtain power calculations.

I read it, and apperently did a better job of reading it than your bff treatmonk.

I don't know him, I just like his commentary often and some others do here as well. If you don't that's fine. If you think my liking his commentary is permission for your over the top aggression, you're wrong.

LOL When I start presenting my opinion for public consumption as if I'm an expert people should listen to, I'll care.

It was a joke. You have no YouTube channel obviously. That's what the smiley face was.

TM may have made good class guides once upon a time, idk I never read them. But his 5e work is...well, it reminds me of the axiom that generals are always trying to fight the war before the one they're in.

It's absolutely fine that it's not your thing. I don't get why you're insulting about him every time his name comes up - and then the people who bring him up to boot. If I don't like someone's commentary usually I just ignore it. But you go after him, and even the people who mention him, often when he comes up and I find that curious.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

No that's not this invisibility. It's not a spell. While you are in Darkness you have the invisible CONDITION to any creature relying on darkvision to see in that darkness. It's not going to go away after an attack. Why would it, since they still can't see you due to the darkness and their vision type?

Most invisibility works a certain way, not just from spells. Either way though, you're not going to be in darkness fighting creatures that rely on darkvision all that often.

I think they had good reason to change it. I think they went overboard. Adding the no-concentration version back at 11th level would be better balance and encourage people to actually use it beyond the low levels, which appears to be their intent but it's not executed well here.

People will still use it, when the situation calls for it. Other times they'll use those spell slots for other spells that better fit the circumstance. That's good. They should lean further away from making things rely on HM, anyway.

That's a lot, particularly the Beastmaster feature. And I'd say that Hunter one is no longer a ribbon feature. The designers obviously think it will always be on.

It's objectively very little. Ribbon features can be always on, they're ribbons because they don't really matter most of the time. Regardless, it's one feature each in two subclasses. The class isn't leaning heavily on the feature.

Hunter's Mark now scales and it's pretty obvious it's intended that way. Your beast is now doing scaling added damage with each hit while your Ranger is also doing that same scaling added damage with each hit. It's really quite a lot and also clearly part of the designers calculus for designing the class and particularly that subclass. I just think they failed to account for the full impact of concentration always-on at mid to high levels.

I doubt they failed to account for that at all. They put meaningful choices in the class, and gave different tools for different situations.

I don't think they will at all, and I don't think you've understood the comments in this conversation very well if you thought that was Treantmonk's comment? How could you think that, when he said they should remove the concentration requirement at 11th level, and should allow the scaling version for the free casting of it? It lasts 8 hours at high levels by the way so I don't know what you mean by spamming. I absolutely think the designers INTEND the Ranger to have it on all the time, but I don't think that's what will happen at all and that's an issue given the importance they think they're placing on it with their behind-the-curtain power calculations.

You're the one claiming the class is meant to be built so that rangers are casting HM frequently and judging it based on that. I'm telling you that this wouldn't be the case unless they busted the spell completely, which would be very bad for the class.

The last thing we should want is for a class to revolve around one spell.

I don't know him, I just like his commentary often and some others do here as well. If you don't that's fine. If you think my liking his commentary is permission for your over the top aggression, you're wrong.

I haven't been even low key aggressive. You always get like this whenever someone criticizes treatmonk and his opinions on the game.

It was a joke. You have no YouTube channel obviously. That's what the smiley face was.

You can't possibly have read my response and concluded that I was unaware that you were making a joke, my dude. Seriously, read what you're replying to.

It's absolutely fine that it's not your thing. I don't get why you're insulting about him every time his name comes up - and then the people who bring him up to boot. If I don't like someone's commentary usually I just ignore it. But you go after him, and even the people who mention him, often when he comes up and I find that curious.

Feel free to quote exactly where I insulted you, please. Hell, I didn't insult him, either, but if you think criticism of someone's analysis and how they view the thing they make their name analyzing is insulting, well... I think that's nonsense, but whatever.

 

[Mistwell]

I haven't been even low key aggressive. You always get like this whenever someone criticizes treatmonk and his opinions on the game.

You can't possibly have read my response and concluded that I was unaware that you were making a joke, my dude. Seriously, read what you're replying to.

Feel free to quote exactly where I insulted you, please. Hell, I didn't insult him, either, but if you think criticism of someone's analysis and how they view the thing they make their name analyzing is insulting, well... I think that's nonsense, but whatever.

"If you read the new proposed ranger update, and you think players will just be spamming HM at all times...you've read the class incorrectly, or don't understand the game very well. I read it, and apperently did a better job of reading it than your bff treatmonk."

I assume you realized those were insulting and aggressive comments when you made them. And don't try to justify them, please. There isn't justification for that tone over this issue and whatever defensive response you'd made would almost certainly make it worse.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

"If you read the new proposed ranger update, and you think players will just be spamming HM at all times...you've read the class incorrectly, or don't understand the game very well. I read it, and apperently did a better job of reading it than your bff treatmonk."

I assume you realized those were insulting and aggressive comments when you made them. And don't try to justify them, please. There isn't justification for that tone over this issue and whatever defensive response you'd made would almost certainly make it worse.

LOL So, if that’s “insulting”, what was it when you flat out stated that you don’t think I’ve read the playtest ranger?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Mod Note:

Do I really need to tell VETERAN ENWorlders to address the post and not the poster? Again?

Apparently yes.

I’m not naming names- everyone in this thread can probably see it as plainly as I can.

So knock it off, or get “involuntary vacations”.