D&D (2024) Ranger 2024 is a bigger joke than Ranger 2014:

[Minigiant]

I don't find HM to be an iconic Ranger spell, I don't think it was a spell at all until 5E AFAIK. Perhaps they intend to make it a class defining spell, but if so it is a bland attempt and one much of the community appears dissatisfied with.

I think spellcasting generally is a more iconic Ranger trait than HM spell specifically.

Hunter's Quarry from 4e was an Iconic Ranger feature.

I think WOTC saw that the 4e ranger was actually good and beloved so they ported that over.

My guess is they converted it to a spell to placate grognards and make it simpler to design.

If you looked at 2014 5e, anything that even hinted of being complicated or mystical in any way was converted into a spell in order to make the base game very simple and ported over complexity to the magic system.

 

[ECMO3]

Hunter's Quarry from 4e was an Iconic Ranger feature.

Perhaps, but 4E was the shortest-lived and probably least played version.

That makes it difficult for me to buy it as iconic, and in any case as you noted it is a spell now.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Speaking of 4e, I preferred the Hunter's and Scout's stances that modified your attack action over the OG Quarry.

Speaking of which they could be easily converted to 5e ( probably as 1st level spells?).

 

[Minigiant]

Perhaps, but 4E was the shortest-lived and probably least played version.

That makes it difficult for me to buy it as iconic, and in any case as you noted it is a spell now.

4e may have been the shortest addition.

However 4e Ranger is the ONLY version of a D&D Ranger since the strategic review that created a ranger in a fanzine that took the D&D community even liked.

1e Ranger was not liked
2e Ranger was not liked
3e Ranger was not liked
3.5e Ranger was not liked
5e Ranger was not liked

And now we're in a topic about the 2024 Ranger that people don't like.

Whereas the 4E Ranger was not only well-liked but had working Archer, TWF, Thrower, and Beastmaster builds. And not only working, they were strong.

And it's funny that in the last year or so there has been a 4e resurgence as people have gone back to 40 and said it doesnt look so bad.

And that's not counting 4 million Kickstarter MCDM's Draw Steel pretty much looking like the next iteration of 4E.

 

[ECMO3]

4e may have been the shortest addition.

However 4e Ranger is the ONLY version of a D&D Ranger since the strategic review that created a ranger in a fanzine that took the D&D community even liked.

1e Ranger was not liked
2e Ranger was not liked
3e Ranger was not liked
3.5e Ranger was not liked
5e Ranger was not liked

1E Ranger was LOVED if you could roll the stats to be one. The only people who did not like it were those who did not roll high enough to be a Ranger and had to settle for a Fighter. When playing pregens the Ranger was the most fought over character. How many people wanted to play Sturm, Tanis or Flint over Riverwind in Dragonlance? No one IME.

I can't speak about 2E and 3E because I was not playing with enough different groups during those eras to really know.

 

[Minigiant]

1E Ranger was LOVED if you could roll the stats to be one. The only people who did not like it were those who did not roll high enough to be a Ranger and had to settle for a Fighter. When playing pregens the Ranger was the most fought over character. How many people wanted to play Sturm or Tanis over Riverwind in Dragonlance? No one IME.

I can't speak about 2E and 3E because I was not playing with enough different groups during those eras to really know.

Well that's why people wouldn't like the 1e ranger.

Because there is no way you could be one without cheating or being handed to the sheet that had the cheat stats on it.

Because there's no way you can roll those scores in front of your DM. And doing so with drain all your luck for the day and you would die to a random crossbow bolt.

It was brokenly OP but almost literally unplayable.

 

[Ashrym]

Hunter's Mark is a spell, so if you are using your class features then you are relying on spells. In that respect I think some Rangers rely on weapon attacks more than others, but in 2024 pretty much all Rangers rely on spells extensively.

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. :-D

Yes, that is just my sense of humour there. ;-)

I don't find HM to be an iconic Ranger spell, I don't think it was a spell at all until 5E AFAIK. Perhaps they intend to make it a class defining spell, but if so it is a bland attempt and one much of the community appears dissatisfied with.

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.

I think spellcasting generally is a more iconic Ranger trait than HM spell specifically.

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.

HM is a spell, not an ability and the improvement is an objectively pathetic improvement on a very weak for the level spell.

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.

A Barbarian gets +4 in two abilities and a Ranger gets +4 or so damage per round when using a spell that he will logically only be using against weak opponents when not using a more potent spell.

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? ;-)

Wizard and Sorcerer class abilities are FAR, FAR more effective with spells than Ranger abilities.

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 don't think any Sorcerer would give up metamagic for damage not ending concentration on a 1st level spell and I don't think any Wizard would take advantage on weapon attacks while concentrating in exchange for Spell mastery.

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.

This serves to highlight how pathetically weak these are as spell boosts compared to what other classes get/have at that level.

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.

Spells are thematic for Rangers and spells in general have been part of the Ranger class far longer than the Hunter's Mark spell specifically has been.

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.

Further when talking about thematics, Hunter's Mark is not thematic at all. It is one of the most bland and flavorless spells in the game!

Marking an enemy so that they cannot run and hide while enhancing damage against them seems very thematic to me.

The numbers floating around here (which may not be true) are that only 15% are happy with the new Ranger, making it the worst class in 2024 and worse even than the revised Ranger for 5E.

I would need to get a citation from you for that, and possibly the methodology behind it.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Perhaps, but 4E was the shortest-lived and probably least played version.

That makes it difficult for me to buy it as iconic, and in any case as you noted it is a spell now.

Just googled the 1e ranger.

His tracking ability sure looks like hunter's mark without a damage bonus amd slower.
He needs to observe a creature for 30 minutes and can then track the creature.

May favoured enemy should add "without components".

 

[Ashrym]

To me the iconic Beastmaster Ranger is Dar the Beastmaster.

A regular warrior and tracker who can swap companions and have an eagle or big cat pounce from the bushes or sky and maul someone.

After that Warcraft's Rexxar.

I was just thinking about beast master rangers. The new beasts gain the ranger's proficiency bonus in any ability check they make. We can have a violin playing octopus or a monkey picking locks regardless of what the ranger is actually proficient in because the ranger can give them other actions outside of the stat block.

I'm sure there is a way to leverage that but it sounds fun if nothing else.

The "conflict" with Hunter's Mark is also lessened when the ranger has a choice of using a bonus action or an attack to command the beast. So use the bonus action to move the Hunter's Mark target, make an attack action, attack once and give up one attack to command the beast. At 11th level the beast even gets Hunter's Mark bonus damage on one hit.

 

[ECMO3]

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.

You can say that about any spell. Hunter's Mark is a spell, it works like a spell, you concentrate like a spell.

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. :-D

All 2024 Rangers that use their class features rely on spells. In 2014 there may have been rangers who picked up things like Goodberry and Speak With animals and really were all weapons in combat, but that is no longer the case as a combat-focused spells are part of the class abilities and in a volume that is significant.

As for relying on martial combat extensively that depends entirely on the build and the game. I 've played many Rangers using the 2014 rules who did not rely extensively on combat with weapons. Starting in tier 2 they were mostly controllers and spell casters in combat.

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.

It is 11 additional points of damage per round at level 20 .... if you hit twice. For the level it is objectively weak and the spell itself is objectively weak compared to other spells Ranger can concentrate on at this level.

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. ;-)

Power Word Heal that targets 2 creatues? That is going to be used all the time in play. I have played a lot of 2014 characters to level 20and this was actually a common spell to get for Bards before it had this buff. Here is one of my characters that had it from Bard:

D&D Beyond Character Sheet

The World's most intelligent Dungeons and Dragons Character Sheet.

www.dndbeyond.com

Power word kill is going to be used less often, but let's compare this: PWK is going to do 78 damage average to 2 creatures (156 total) with no save in one action. Your Ranger using HM is going to take about 6-7 rounds to do that and HM, at 20th level is only actually only doing a 3rd of that damage, about 50 or so.

156hps in one action vs 50 hp in 6 rounds. Are you really saying the Ranger ability is more valuable?

How about we just compare this to something the Ranger could concentrate on at this level:

HM is a base extra 11 DPR, it can be higher with certain feats and builds but that is the base increase at 20th level. Swift Quiver is 19 DPR, Conjure Elemental is 28 DPR plus is another creature giving extra control and extra actions, CWB is 22.5 per creature in your emanation, Summon Fey at 3rd level is 13 DPR (or 28 on a 4th level slot) plus an effect every turn, in addition to being another ally, Spike Growth is difficult to calculate explicitly but it will usually be more than HM and is one of the best spells in the game. Then there are subclass spells like Web and Fear.

There is little logical reason to use HM, even at 1d10, when these other, better options are available at level 20.

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.

Rangers have some great combat spells, especially if you take more spell-casting focused subclasses. Hunter's Mark is not one of them though.

What they don't have are great combat spells that are not concentration and Hunter's Mark conflicts with those spells that are concentration.

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".

Ok let me break this down for you. I play Rangers more than any other class.The reason I am not a fan is twofold:

1. The 13th/17th level abilities focus on a specific spell and the 20th level capstone is pathetic. Rangers have some really awesome concentration spells, there are others available through feats and abilities that would let them leverage spells besides HM would be better.

2. I think the new Ranger is a big step backwards from the old Ranger in terms of flavor, abilities and thematics. Specific things I miss are Primal Awareness and getting Nature's Veil later. I also would rather have Favored Foe than Favored Enemy, but that is not as big a loss.

As for the other things you mention, that is just pointing out that:
1. Hunter's Mark is a weak spell (which underscores why everyone does not love it)
2. The Ranger capstone is a weak capstone.

Are we now arguing that rangers are suffering from having good combat spells to use? ;-)

I have always said they have great concentration spells available. I said they had poor non-concentration spells generally.

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.

I think you misunderstood what you replied to. Wizard and Sorcerer ABILITIES (not spells) are far more effective than the Ranger ABILITIES we are talking about.

The Ranger abilities we are talking about are talking about are precise Hunter and Relentless Hunter. The contention was they can't do that because Wizard and Sorcerer players would be upset if these abilities worked with any spells.

I pointed out they have no reason to be upset and their abilities with spells are far more effective. Metamagic and Spell Mastery are way better class abilities than Precise Hunter and Relentless Hunter and they are still better if the Ranger abilities apply to any 1st level concentration spell.

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.

This is irrelevant to the discussion. The contention was we can't let PH and RH apply to any spell because Wizards and Sorcerers would be "complaining". They wouldn't.

I'm not following where you're going with these examples. They seem like mixed comparisons.

Yeah you are not following what you posted earlier. You made this mixed comparison by bringing Wizards and Sorcerers into the discussion in your last post.

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.

Right. But the Wizard has Spell Mastery at 18th level .... the Ranger has Precise Hunter at 17th level. So these are at a similar level.

Which do you think is a better ability? Would the Wizard "complain" if PH applied while concentrating on any 1st level Ranger spell? Would Wizards really rather have PH than what they get?

I don't think so on any of those.

Well, no. You didn't highlight that. You compared rangers to wizards and sorcerers with spells when rangers aren't wizards or sorcerers.

YOU brought Wizards and Sorcerers into this discussion. Not me.

I answered your post suggesting it was unfair to apply RH and PH to any Ranger spell, by pointing out how much better their abilities (which apply to their spells) are than this would be.