if anything it feels like hunter's mark has been a trap for the designers. they seem to have tunnel vision for the ability which imo takes away from actually cool stuff they could give to rangers instead. like, does anyone really want the ranger's identity to revolve around "I can choose a specific enemy and do a d6 extra damage to them"?
It'd be fine if you had ways to modify the HM, similar to how Paladins have different flavors of smites and Warlocks have the EB Invocations. You could have the obvious no Concentration Mark but you can only apply it to one enemy (and no Hex stacking), or you could choose to instead apply Mark to 2 (later 3) enemies, then you break it down with additional abilities that can lean either towards more efficient damage or crowd control effects. I wouldn't mind concentrating on a HM that bogs down multiple enemies with a taunt or fear effect, and the damage dealers can have their no concentration, and stuff like no bonus action to reapply or advantage.
This. Absolutely. It's like, they made a flavorsome tracking spell for rangers, then gave it a d6 damage boost because it was weak. Now the d6 IS the spell, and so you end up with a spell with a flavorsome name/ rider and a totally generic effect. And then people copium themselves into thinking it delivers on the class fantasy
You’re absolutely right. I like in the playtest that they tried incorporating more into hunters mark for the hunter subclass. In the last playtest the great old one warlock got “also disadvantage on saving throws” added to hex. Can we get that for all the ranger subclasses? Different thematic abilities your subclass uses HM for that outshine the d6 damage. A gloomstalker hiding in the shadows and a swarm keeper tracking with his swarm should have a unique way of “marking” their prey.
@@joshuawinestock9998 Hex gives a d6, Rune Knight gives a d6, everyone gets a d6. Though some of those aren't concentration and are just for one attack, but depending on how often your DM remembers concentration checks, no concentration might be better.
Honestly, since the numbers did wind up being so close, the video ultimately boiled down to "...and again, this is why feats at Level 1 in 5E are powerful."
D&D was not built for feats at level 1, hence only 'variant' human got it originally, an optional race Also why in 2024 sharpshooter and crossbow expert at level 1 are no longer going to be available in the new core rules, while other weaker feats certainly will be available such as tough Also why feats like sharpshooter and great weapon master are losing the "power attack" mechanic, because genuinely that will always skew high level builds, with ridiculously high accuracy scores and +3 legendary weapons, into taking them Also, just because why not, gloomstalker will no longer be able to get an extra attack on round 1, and I believe it was implied that hunters mark will still take a bonus action to move, but instead it will now be a pbxpd class feature which you can burn spell slots for additional uses This is technically speculation, but ranger is finished and no more playtests for it will be released so I suppose we probably won't know until the first draft of the new PHB comes out That being said I do like the idea that weapon masteries are the low level reason to pick one weapon over another, rather than when you took the feat which you have to take on everyone eventually anyway
Also kinda drives home the idea that optimization is really mostly a for-fun thing. I mean, if something can swing from “must have” to “it’s a trap” then the bounds can’t be wildly far apart.
The numbers are flawed at their very base due to a misinterpretation of CBE. It only ignores loading property, not ammunition so you still have to have a hand for the bolt. Noone will have a repeating crossbow of any sort at level 1 so CBE level 1 is actually not helpful.
Just a few days ago my girlfriend was making a character for Out Of the Abyss, a drow ranger. And although I suggested Hunter's Mark, she opted for Crossbow Expert and Favored Foe. That way she could pick Goodberry and Entangle as her first 2 spells. And I was just wondering if she made the right choice, and then you made this video and did the math. Thank you for that! All things considered, I think CBE is the right choice for a Drow in the Underdark. Range won't be an issue, and it suits the flavor and the lore of the Drow
Zephyr Strike is also a great bonus action escape spell for when the enemies close to melee with the ranger. It's yet another reason not to use concentration or bonus actions for something else.
I HIGHLY RECOMMEND your GF check out Zephyr Strike since she passed on Hunter's Mark. ZS is fucking GODLIKE and got my ranger out of so many jams, I was borderline frustrating the DM. For all intents and purposes, it's basically a level 1 Misty Step without actually teleporting. It's a bonus action spell that makes you immune to attacks of opportunity, gives you 30 feet of extra movement for a round, gives you advantage on your next attack, and adds 1d8 damage to your next hit. A 1st level spell with FOUR functions, let alone four USEFUL functions, is insane. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. 10/10 spell. Also, have her pick up Absorb Elements too. A reaction spell to half incoming elemental damage is very good and Rangers don't get many reaction spells.
@@ljmiller96 I Had a Ranger Hunter/Rogue Scout Drow and was considering using Zephyr Strike so he could get advantage and an extra d8. Though I believe Ranger/ Rogue Assassin would be more interesting with that. I wasn't sure how often I would be able to use the Assassin's ability given the way surprise works.
Basically the real argument there is know your environment. Personally I feel that a longbow is always the right choice for a Ranger. The Crossbow is a Fighter weapon especially after lvl 10. Plus if I build for sharpshooter then I have the numbers to longbow attack in melee.
Hunters Mark and Eldritch Blast deffinitly should have been a Feature like Cleric and Paladin have Imagine if Hunter's get the highest damage scaling, Monster Slayer become Party Damage Support, Fey Wanderer is Status spamming, Swarmkeeper is AOE, Gloomstalker is a Burst
100% agree. Eldritch Blast always was, so it suddenly becoming a cantrip in 5e was always very confusing. With regards to Hunter's Mark, even the designers posted that the spell was a necessary part of the design process and not taking it hampered the ranger class. Well, if it's so important, why not make it a key class feature? One D&D is missing that too by having the subclasses use the spell in unique ways, but the base class only gives the spell to you for free, which you still need to use spell slots for. It's dumb. It's why I'm glad the Dungeon Coach posted a free ranger fix on his Patreon.
@@eldinoor7072Its only trap ability if it has a lot more downside than upside I mean no one complained about Paladin and Cleric, other than Peace Cleric being too potent than the 1st level spell Bless I personally think Ranger SHOULD have Hunters Mark as their gimmick in combat, its just Wizards are not willing to make it even gain support based on Subclass Meanwhile Warlock somehow gets Eldritch Blast Modifiers despite EB is not even a Class Feature
@@RenoKyrie Sorry. I did not mean to imply I thought HM was a trap ability. Just that the ones who do have this hate boner for the spell would act that way. I agree with your sentiment about HM being a ranger ability and the ideas you had all sound pretty nice!
Something else to consider for early level is the question of oneshotting enemies and overkilling them. SS damage might guarantee a oneshot on a Goblin; or it might severely overkill a wounded enemy.
One of the big intangible unaccounted-for factors in this Hunter's Mark/Crossbow Expert comparison is that the former is weapon agnostic. When the DM starts handing out magical weapons, the Ranger that uses HM can theoretically benefit from any weapon they find. However, for the Ranger that replaces HM with CBE, many magical weapons that are not hand crossbows are trash, because the increase in damage they receive from the weapon's magical properties has to be taken into account alongside the loss of the bonus action attack. Ironically, even a lot of magical crossbows are of limited use to the Crossbow Expert Ranger, because the extra attack only applies to hand crossbows. That, along with other feats and abilities like Polearm Master and Flurry of Blows, is actually one of the things that makes me think that the direct weaponization of bonus actions may be bad for the game's overall design. Bonus action abilities that directly deal damage often end up being either completely useless or considered near-mandatory to the point where character builds get completely warped around focusing on them to the detriment of other features that get ignored as a result, with very little middle ground between those two extremes.
Their is one variable I didn't heard you talk about. The durability of the target. Sure if you are fighting 5HP goblin, you need a bonus action to switch hunter mark on each attack since you will most likely kill a goblin in a single hit. making hunter mark very weak since it consume your bonus action every round. But if you are fighting a 26 HP zombie then you are using your bonus action every 3 rounds since you need multiple attack to deal 26 damage and overkill the zombie so it do not come back with relentless feature. And this distinction is very important. Some spell are better against horde of weak monster (AoE spells for example) while other spell (like hunter mark) is better against strong BBEG
I mean, the zombie isn't a great example because you will, presumably, also have friends beating on that zombie. But I get your point; Storm King's Thunder has a pair of ogres that you fight at level like 2, and giants pretty consistently have enough HP to survive a round or two of whooping from the whole party.
It also matters because the AC changes by CR, which is used for the hit chance base, and you wont always face single enemies so the hit chance increases (which impacts XBE more greatly).
Two of my favorite ranger subclasses are the Drakewarden and Revised Beastmaster. (Heck, they are two of my favorite 5e subclasses period.) I end up never taking hunter's mark because regardless of the math, I'm never NOT going to want to use my cool pet to help me in battle.
I personally love Gloom Stalker, Fey Wanderer, and Swarmkeeper But yeah, Hunters Mark is just awful when other spell options is just THAT much better Way better to roleplay and actually helps the party with the utilities
The Ranger just has too many choices for their bonus action. Tons of ranger spells, animal companion, off hand attack if you're going two weapon fighting. So you're really limited in which cool thing you can do.
@@pedrogarcia8706if you use the regular beastmaster it doesn't take a bonus action to command your pet. Biggest problem there is actually that spells that buff your pet are actions instead of bonus actions.
Despite the assurances of backwards compatibility, I think my table is going to lean toward using only the new core books once they release. I can't properly express how tired we are of the current lvl 1 feat experience and its impact on the game. The new system with specific feats designed for use at lvl 1 seems way more healthy.
It’s probably gonna go the route of them turning all of 5e into legacy content and subsequently with my experience with D&D community most tables will ban all of 5e as non official content.
@@AtelierGod One would think that, but there was a studio update earlier this week with Chris Perkins and Jeremy Crawford where they made the absolutely baffling claim that they were designing it to not just be backwards compatible but fully symbiotic. As in, having a table where one player is playing a Champion Fighter using the 2024 rules and another player is playing a Champion Fighter using the 2014 rules. I can't wait for this channel's reaction video to that interview. That moment will probably become the most confused Chris has been since Jeremy Crawford said that the 2024 Bard didn't need any more public testing.
@@CivilWarMan The thing is, when Crawford and Perkins claim it is backwards compatible, what they mean is that on paper it works. What they aren't saying is that in practice it probably isn't going to work. If you have two fighters, the 2024 fighter is more powerful and better than the 2014 fighter. It is very unlikely a player playing the 2014 version of the fighter is going to be happy playing alongside the 2024 fighter. The other question that comes up is if you are playing a 2014 version of a class, which set of spells are you going to use? There is the hint from Crawford and Perkins, that they assume you would be using the 2024 rules and spells and feats. I definitely don't think in actual play you can have a Champion Fighter from both rule sets who play together and everyone is happy. But on paper it works. In practice, one of the two classes will absolutely be more powerful and its going to be the 2024 version because they have to get you to buy the books. The moon druid might be an exception, in which the 2014 version may be more powerful than its new version due to the way HP work. But that also means you can't really have a 2014 and 2024 moon druid together and both players be happy. Unless the 2024 player really hates having lots of HP.
@@bradleyhurley6755 I went back to the video, and here is the exact quote from Jeremy Crawford. You can check it yourself by searching D&D Studio Update 2024 core rulebooks, and it starts around 3:30: "All of that new [class features, monsters, etc.] is going to coexist seamlessly with the material that is already in the game. And in any case where we may have adjusted how something functions, the core rule books will walk right beside you and make it clear how that new functionality interacts with 5th edition books you already have. So you're not going to need a conversion guide, or anything like that. You're going to be able to just get these books and keep playing. And you'll even have the option of having mixed character groups. You might have someone who has made a character using the 2014 version of a class and its subclasses right next to someone who's using the 2024 version of that class and subclasses." Chris Perkins then interjects with mixing in stuff from older modules, monster manual, etc. Which is all perfectly reasonable and doesn't break anything. But then we get this exchange between Todd Kenreck and Jeremy Crawford clarifying what Jeremy said: Todd: "You can have two different players playing Fey Warlocks, one from 2014 and one from 2024, and they're going to be seamless and work together fine?" Jeremy: "Yes. Now, I think people are going to want to play the 2024 versions..." The thing that really makes that whole exchange insane is that, by their explicit logic, a group where one player plays a single-class 2024 Fighter, while another player plays a Wizard with a 2 level dip into 2014 Fighter for the version of Action Surge that allows them to cast multiple leveled spells per turn, is not only allowed via the official rules, but is in some way *intended*
@@CivilWarMan I have a feeling this is mostly marketing to try and stop what happens towards the end of every edition. The decline of sales in late edition products in anticipation of the new release. The constant reiteration of the point of backwards compatibility is probably to reassure the potential buyers of things like Bigby's or Book of Many Things that those products will slot in with new books. And with the way those books have had lvl 1 and lvl 4 feats and other similar language I think they are probably correct that books released ~Monsters of the Multiverse and on will probably work ok with their current design intent. Granted the dogpile release caused by the OGL debacle delays and the delay of physical Deck Of Many Things has probably made the metrics for this incredibly difficult to separate from general edition fatigue. TL;DR: They are trying to bolster product sales of current releases while also riding the hype of a "new edition."
Damage aside, the tracking component of the spell is underrated. The Ranger for the party I'm DMing saved everyone when they were fighting the BBEG Lich, by using Hunter's Mark to track their location after the Lich used Dimension Door to escape to a hidden room in the lair, to recover spell slots with lair action.
I think that, RAW, that wouldn't actually work. The spell gives you advantage to track the marked quarry, but in this instance, what are you actually tracking? The lich didn't physically move from where they were to where they are. That said, I do think hunters mark should allow you to magically know the direction and distance of the marked target.
You seem not to have added Archery fighting Style on the level 5 builds. You wrote out the +10% on both of them, but the totals of 30% and 35% don’t include it.
True. However, it shouldn't change the overall conclusion as the mistake was made for both builds. The impact of increasing chance to hit is roughly comparable when both builds are using Sharpshooter at that point.
@@coleserfass3101 quickly calculated and it looks like lvl 5 CBE should be 31,54 average and Longbow is 32,7, so both higher but the difference is smaller. With advantage I get the average for CBE to 49,77 and longbow to 51.66, so roughly the same results. IDK however if these are really correct because I used the same bonuses as the video for favored foe and dreadful ambusher, so the damage numbers might be off if these were calculated with the wrong percentage.
My players use HM for damage. But if an enemy tries to escape, even with teleports, fly or dimension travel, my rangers are always "hey, I had a HM on him, I'll track him!". And why not, they are given all information they need, as this use is quite narrow!
I play a ranger in icewind dale with Gritty realism resting rules, so we are always really short on time and resources. For me, it has been evident that going the CBE route has been correct only because it conservs my spellslots for Absorb elements and entangle, which have both really saved the day on many occasions.
I got a laugh out of Treantmonk dismissing the advantage on tracking the target. Mostly because in my last session it did come up, Twice! I was so thankful for that as it was mission critical that we could find the monster that was causing trouble for my Characters family (some kids got abducted). It was also my first encounter in a long while with an enemy that decided to be slippery and sneaking with illusion magic instead of trying to fight the party head-on. A fresh change to be honest.
Locate Object target whoever you’re tracking’s clothes/weapons. No check required, you just know which direction they are relative to you, and with some trigonometry, you know exactly where they are.
The issue I have with rangers is their entire spell list is clogged with concentration and Bonus Action spell. If your using hunter's mark or Favored Foe, most of your spell list is now out of bounds. Also, the need for a high dex on this build means that you can't boost wisdom as much, so the other spells just aren't effective enough to compete with either HM or FF. 90% of the ranger spell list is just never going to be used, and that sucks.
I’d say the biggest problem with Hunter’s Mark is that you only have one bonus action, so once you have extra attack, you might at the start of your turn move your Hunter’s Mark onto one creature, kill it with your first attack, and then, when you go to attack a second creature, you can’t move your Hunter’s Mark on the next guy. Hunter’s Mark is also an anti-combo with Sharpshooter: taking a penalty to-hit gets worse when the attack’s base damage is higher. It’s not dramatic in this circumstance, but it becomes especially noticeable in, say, Rogues.
The additional attack from XBE can also cut down on overkill damage, putting it to use against another target. The spell slots and Concentration can't be ignored either (and the FF Concentration does indeed compete, but only minorly due to limited uses that be used before you even start Concentrating on a spell). Thats a Goodberry spell which is very highly likely to be more impactful than the slight damage differences of the two builds. Could also be a Longstrider spell, getting the Barbarian into range a turn earlier, or allowing the Ranger to kite more easily. Also Entangle/Snare if set before combat at a chokepoint. Of course, once you get 2nd Level Spells at Ranger 5 you have Pass without Trace and/or Summon Beast to contend that Concentration with. Other considerations is that the since XBE is more reliant on SS for the damage (no HM, additional attack), this makes accuracy more important for XBE. Chris is well-known for using the least favourable hit chance for these builds, due to not using magic weapons and always putting it up against the higher AC mobs of the CR being faced. This is especially true when you move away from a single enemy encounters, since the lower CR of each enemy (and therefore AC) can rocket up the hit chance.
Additional consideration that missed the list is Damage Break Points. The value of Sharp Shooter at low levels really sky rockets if the +10 to damage is going to cause you to more often take out an opponent on round one, even though it may not be the better average damage. Traversely, if a single hit without Sharpshooter is enough to land a kill, Crossbow Expert shoots up in value. Like with the other Additional Considerations, this is very much "depending on how things are run at your table, and what niche you are trying to fill, either can be good". I think it's something we don't talk about enough in white room math, so I really appreciate seeing the list of additional considerations here.
Another thing to note is hunters mark may often use your bonus action, but won't always use it. Could be useful for a variety of things, like homebrew bonus action potions rules, multiclass options or other feat options. Also a crossbow expert ranger can also use hunters mark for fights vs tanky enemies you likely won't need to transfer on. While feats aren't free, you should also note that for higher level play having a +2 ability score a level sooner means you have less effective feats later for straight damage. That means you might take crossbow expert later anyway, or might get more utility instead. This is also all different with a different subclass. My friend is playing a beastmaster ranger and as such is using her bonus action for beast of the land attacks if she isnt using hunters mark. There is no reason to take crossbow expert for her so a longbow is better, but for other subclasses like swarmkeeper or hunter the extra damage is more likely to apply from another attack, so crossbow expert might edge hunters mark out. Something you also don't discuss is magic items. Magic items can affect your chance to hit, benefitting hunters mark more, and or could increase damage per attack, benefitting crossbow expert more. And what of consumables? An arrow of dragon slaying might be pivotal but the attack it is made with is the one that matters, so a spell like ensnaring strike to grant you advantage to hit the one arrow could be more valuable than either of these options. Overall just know your options and what they're good for.
Magic bows, as well as bracers of archery, can also give longbow users an edge over hand crossbow users. Even with a DM who enjoys creating homebrew magic items, I figure magic bows are still more common than magic hand crossbows.
@@Shadescape12 Or the common sense to say that the longest reloading time ranged weapons in history should never be able to fire faster than a bow because of a Feat. 😛 Just ban the "ignore loading property" ability of crossbow expert and gunner. Change Sharpshooter to remove the -5/+10, rename that ability "power shot" or something, and give it to all Martials as something they can do once per round. Add +1 Dexterity or Wisdom to compensate the Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert feats; maybe even give them +1 attack bonus on "power shots". Make double crossbows common and magazine fed crossbows Uncommon to better explain multiple shots per round from a crossbow user. This also gives crossbow users something to spend money on. This same concept would apply to Great Weapon Master. Take away the -5/+10 and give that ability to all Martials, once per round, and call it "power attack". Make GWM "Cleave", granting +1 Str or Con, and the extra attack occurs as part of the attack action, limit the user to a number of Cleave attacks equal to their proficiency bonus per round. If it still needs more buffing, give the Cleave feat +1 attack bonus on power attacks. This would open the door on some other modifications which could help weaker classes and subclasses. For example, allow Barbarians to make two power attacks at a certain level, leaning into their ferocity. Allow Arcane Archers to make up to two power shots per round, making them the deadliest ranged attackers.
Something that isn't mentioned here: Even if you do need to spend your Bonus Action on round 1 and occasionally on later rounds to reapply Hunter's Mark, you do have more opportunities to use your Bonus Action for something else than with the Crossbow Expert build (assuming you want to keep the damage output). For instance for Cunning Action if you dip into Rogue, but there could also be many other use cases (e.g. many DM's allow drinking healing potions with a Bonus Action, or maybe interacting with an element of the encounter). Of course it's not a huge thing because if you really wanna use your Bonus Action for something else as a Crossbow Expert, you do have that option, but overall it's still an advantage of the longbow build.
Honestly, I think the real moral of this story is that +2 DEX is underrated. Running a few numbers through a spreadsheet, the Crossbow Expert character could also take +2 DEX at level 4, and they would deal about the same damage on round 1 as Crossbow Expert + Sharpshooter, thanks to a higher chance to land dread ambusher. Slightly less DPR on subsequent turns, but...barely less (only 0.9 less). The longbow build using hunter's mark could be a Custom Lineage to get 18 DEX at level 1, getting 20 DEX at level 4, and they would deal slightly MORE damage than the longbow build with Sharpshooter presented in this video. (No, I'm serious: 8.85 damage per attack instead of 8.1, and slightly more damage from the dread ambusher die too). Provided that the other bonuses of sharpshooter don't come up, and provided they don't run out of Hunter's Mark. Granted, you still probably want Sharpshooter just in case you get advantage (you ARE a gloomstalker after all, advantage will just happen sometimes). But uh, yeah, raising your primary stat is good.
At early levels the hit chance is often quite a bit lower than at higher levels when you've had the chance to increase your primary stat. The thing is that Rangers also have access to the Archery Fighting Style, that +2 to hit is essentially a +4 dex in terms of hit chance (of course the damage is not added), which is quite insane at low levels. This really helps out the sharpshooter feat as well. So as always it's a combination of things that make this work, in this case I think archery giving +2 to hit makes it so +2 dex isn't as missed as it would be when you don't have that +2 to hit. I'm sure someone can do the math on this.
As someone currently playing a horizonwalker, I've never once felt the need to use this spell. It's always felt like a bad pick because I want to use the ranger's spell list for information gathering and other more impactful applications than damage. Death is the best CC, but turns out CC is also good at CC too. At 1st level I want to cast entangle and fog cloud to support my team, providing more advantage and effective healing than a measly goodberry in the process. I think my next character I want to try making a druid with a few fighter levels just to see if it feels better than going straight ranger.
As you mentioned you could be spending your first level slots on goodberries and what was not mentioned was spells like entangle and fog cloud can provide far more value than single target damage. Additionally, you didn't mention that it's unrealistic to even have the slots available for hunters mark every fight as a half caster because you only have 2-3 slots per long rest in a game that suggests 6-8 encounters per long rest.
Duration is an hour. At 6-8 encounters per day, it isn't unreasonable to assume one casting of Hunters Mark could last through 2 or occasionally 3 of those encounters.
Obligatory correction that 3/4ths cover adds +5 to the target's AC rather than the +4 stated. I think Hunter's Mark is still entirely relevant to the conversation once we reach 2nd and 3rd level spells, because those slots get used up. Eventually you're down to just 1st level casts. Concentrating for an up to an hour can be quite difficult on Rangers. No Con save proficiency, and when does anyone consider War Caster or Resilient Con on a Ranger? Maybe at super high levels? XBE can't be down and out as easily. The biggest factor is overkill though. The thing hardly ever factored into DPR. Especially at early levels, 10 extra damage rarely competes with an extra chance of dealing damage. We consider the fact that Hunter's Mark has to be moved. We don't consider that the DPR has to be divided up into many different combinations of health pools. This issue crops up more often on a Tier 1 Gloom Stalker where the overkill potential is high.
You mentioned that "adv on perception and survival checks" never coming up. There are SO many things that the 2014 designers created that they thought would be happening all the time. Might make for a good video, things in 5e rules that never get used...and for good reason.
I'm glad you made a video about this. What's always bothered me is that Favored Foe isn't as good as the hunter's mark spell, yet the designers have said straight up that hunter's mark is necessary to take. In 2015, a UA was released discussing how you can modify the PHB classes, as people wanted a spell-less ranger. While possible, it's not recommended. Why? Quote: "Much of the ranger’s extra potency in combat comes from spells such as *hunter’s mark* and from the class features granted by the ranger archetypes." and "Rangers gain a lot of their combat potency from spells, especially *hunter’s mark*." See, when it's spelled out like this, it makes me wonder then why wasn't this a core feature of the class like the monk's unarmed strike? Makes me grateful to Dungeon Coach for releasing a free ranger fix that has a scaling hunter's mark. Regarding the UA, I did find it funny that if you did go spell-less, that the battle master fighter archetype should be added to the ranger class, so that it has a chance.
Great video Chris. If we're on the theme of iconoclasting, simple hunters mark longbow w.o sharpshooter deals VERY similar damage to the SS version, and has added advantages like more feat and race flexibility
Ranger use known spells, which they can replace 1 at each level.(Tasha probably has some variant on this). This means you can use Hunter's Mark in the early levels where its still useful to concentrate on, and replace it at higher levels when its not as useful.
It has been a while since I played a ranger, but the fact that "bracers of archery" exist, always nuged me towards the longbow. Sure specific magic items are rarely a given, but if you can get your hands on a pair, the two damage per hit feel really signifcant. Though I also played the hand crossbow ranger, and it just feels really cool. tl;dr: both styles cater to different fantasies, there is no right choice.
dear god that was so in depth, I played a ranger up to level 14 with crossbow expert and i think you missed a little thing, that being Zephyr Strike. It feels so good to use that spell, its a bonus action dash and disengage, only painful thing being you need to loose concentration on whatever you had before, but honestly when I get hit with that signature max damage roll critical strike my DM loves to roll, there's no chance even with proficiency in con saves and paladin aura that I'm passing a DC 35 concentration check. Later on I got Misty Step from Fey Touched, but Zephyr Strike came in clutch a lot of times. Lovely video as always, and I couldn't have asked for a better conclusion than "actually both are viable"
The big thing for me is that Crossbow Expert future-proofs your build. Once you hit level 5 and Hunter's Mark has zero value anymore, you really want your bonus action squared away. Also, using your spell slots on Entangle or Goodberry instead of Hunter's Mark is likely to be more impactful, even if it doesn't necessarily show in dpr calculations. Especially for the kind of table that likes to start at level 3-4 (as is very popular in my experience), using a longbow for a single level just feels bad. Also, longbows are Heavy weapons, and there are a lot of reasons to want to be a Small race as a Ranger. Again, it doesn't show up in the dpr calculations, but being able to afford and ride a mule at level 1 is pretty significant, and the ability to stay mounted in Medium spaces remains useful even at high levels. The really important thing is that One D&D trying to entice players with cheap Hunter's Marks and Hexes as higher level class features is very definitely a trap that encourages clearly suboptimal concentration use. If a perhaps oversimplistic appraisal of Hunter's Mark as a trap keeps that dark future from coming to pass by energizing the playerbase against it, then I'll take that as a win.
We should also consider survivability as well. CBE ranger can cast Zephyr Strike instead to keep skirmishing away. On the flip side, longbow sharpshooter has 600' range so in theory many rounds of "free" attacks before the enemy closes into striking distance. As a handcrossbow archer, the 30' effective range before getting sharpshooter is extremely limiting since it often places you in danger.
A few things to always remember when it comes to Hunters Mark that isn't taken into account when just looking at damage comparisons: 1) It eats up your concentration so you can't use it on other spells the ranger would want to have access to. 2) Since it's concentration it can drop early due to either status effects or failing a con save which Rangers aren't proficient in. 3) It means keeping your spell slots saved up for HM use, something that half casters have fewer of and also greatly effects the Ranger who makes more use of support and utility spells. 4) It's a learned spell so it does have the opportunity cost of not instead grabbing something better in the spell list such as Good Berry or Absorb Elements. So basically while using Hunters Mark you're Ranger effectively turns into a full martial, and if you try to use support spells your ranger will likely end up losing it's DPS. Hunters Mark just basically makes you play as an even more boring Fighter which I feel is the biggest trap of the spell.
I want to say this now that i have the opportunity, every time WotC tries to push hunter's mark for rangers, it makes me want to scream "make it class feature with no concentration" it's just a d6 on a single target that does not scale well at all, upcasting hunter's mark just let's you concentrate it for longer, that becomes irrelevant the second you get spike growth, you get way more milage for your limited number of spells slots.
They don’t want to make it a class feature because there are a lot of people that DON’T play rangers and think it would be Hunters mark then cast hex to add a lot of damage at lower levels.
I use Fey Touched on a lot of martial characters to add Hunter’s Mark as a bonus action. Swords Bard, Hexblade, Cleric, Paladin. They can all benefit from this addition.
One additional point to consider is that without Gloomstalker, the Longbow doesn't get its round 1 advantage over the Hand Crossbow. That means that Hand Crossbows are likely just better in that case.
Hi Treantmonk, thanks for this great comparison! Only thing i was missing is the fact that many rangers, especially gloomstalkers multiclass after lvl 5, often to rogue. Having a bonus attack is a tremendous help to trigger sneak attack, if the other attacks miss. But for pure ranger, i would choose longbow+HM anytime.
(before watching video) I think it's neither, I think it's just a pretty good spell that accomplishes the fantasy it sets out to, you are focusing on one target as your prey and now deal more damage when you hit it, and if it escapes you get advantage to track it, a solid pick.
One important detail in favour of CBE is target switching, particularly if you kill something on your turn. There's also consistency because its damage is spread across multiple attacks. Usually hand crossbows provide plenty range, but the extra longbows circumstantially provide shouldn't be underestimated. Killing off fleeing enemies so they won't bring in reinforcements, holding a better position, forcing enemies to approach from further away, etc. Crossbow users should still consider having a longbow (or heavy crossbow) in their back pocket just for the utility it provides. It doesn't matter how high your DPR number is, it matters how much higher your number is in comparison to the enemy's number - and sometimes range makes that difference.
Hunter's Mark can be used on a dangerous target among many innocents. The ranger can walk away from the immediate vicinity. Until, the target moves into another location to then be confronted. Rangers can also track from a significant following distance. The target may lead the party right where there is a need to go.
I played a GS to lvl 12. My DM allowed me to prepare spells and I found myself preparing ZS almost exclusively at lower levels. In addition to no AoO, I liked the advantage and extra damage on my dread Ambusher turn. At higher levels, I prepared both ZS and HM but they were back-ups to Conjure Animals.
@@TreantmonksTemple Not only mobility, but also burst dmg. Zephyr Strike with my GWM attacks (would work with Sharpshooter as well) mean so much dmg not only thanks to that 1d8 bonus, but mainly that advantage is huge with -5/+10. And you can easily combine this with Favourite Foe on the same turn for: BA for ZS casting. Then attack with -5/+10, 1d8 bonus dmg AND advantage AND bonus 30 ft of movement AND you can immediately activate Favourite Foe on the same hit for another 1dX bonus dmg. All this easily excedes bonus dmg from Smite and gives mobility obnus on top. Underrated combo IMO. Simplified Math: GS GWM - normal attack is 0.6x(10+2.5)=7.5 dmg, 7.98 with crits, GWM ZS attack is 0,5775x(20+2.5+4.5)=15.59, 16.99 with crits.
I think ultimately the issue with hunters mark is that it's just not att all fun to use. No one likes something that they have to do to be ok that everyone else does almost passively and is stronger in the hands of other classes
Great vid! It's good to see how close they actually are! thank you for doing this. I noticed around 9:00 the math seems off, you have 55+10-25= 30 when it should be 40... the same mistake is on the hunter's mark slide at 10:15. This just means the bonus from the Archery fighting style wasn't included in the calculations, and it isn't a super huge deal for the overall comparisons (adding 10% to hit more on each one just increases the damage by about 1 point per line so it balances out). :)
I think Game style is also a factor. If you regularly face hordes of minions, HM is lackluster due to the cost of switching targets. If you often face Big Sacks of HPs (tm) with a few minions for your team mates to clean up, HM + Moar Attackz pays dividends, and using it *with* Crossbow Expert (if you're out of FF uses) or TWF can be worth considering.
I don’t understand why the conversation about Hunter’s Mark often boils down to, “a better use of your bonus action”. Once you use that first round to cast it, you’re free to use your subsequent bonus actions however you want. And the extra damage still applies. Hunter’s Mark+Crossbow Expert is a good combo.
Even a LVL 20 can be doing the right thing with using Hunters mark - you don't know what the rest of the adventuring day will bring at the best of times, and often you know this is just the starter. The bigger spell slots want to be saved for when you actually need them, but consuming a single first level for hopefully a whole hour of hunters mark as you mow through the trivial minion horde of your BBEG is clearly good resource management. And that is one of the biggest traps this sort of DPR calculation falls into - just because you can do big numbers in one combat or even only for the opening rounds of a combat doesn't mean it is actually as universally good as those numbers suggest - there will be days with long long single combats of many rounds and ones with heaps of baby skirmish and everything inbetween. Also worth considering the min and max damage that can be dealt and not just a mean average - your bigger weapon die and hunters mark can swing across a wider range of damage with a higher peak potential - and that can really be a bigger swing in the combat than it seems if it leads to you taking an opponent down. When you do remove an opponent you shift the action economy in your teams favour which is arguably the most important thing to winning - its not the amount of damage you can do, but can you do it to the right targets so your team take less hits back.
The way I see it, if your one and only goal is damage, which honestly it shouldnt be, but IF IT IS, then Hunters mark is a reasonably competitive option at levels 2, 3, and 4. From levels 5 to 9 you have Pass Without Trace for those sweet sweet surprise round ambushes, or summon beast when you cant arrange for that. When you get third level spells, well theres really no competing with conjure animals, though if your table disapproves of CA theres still decent mileage to get out of summon fey.
After trying ranger for the first time in Baldur's Gate 3, I would be very interested in using my concentration on ensnaring strike at times to give myself and others advantage or just hold someone in place.
@@RenoKyrie it has felt great in game. Why is it bad in tt (ik it can fail)? I definitely have moved to spike growth since getting it, though. One of my favorite spells in the game. (Add in the caveat that in my tt playthroughs, we have a new DM right now and it would be rude to go hardcore optimized while he's trying to learn to balance combats and stuff lol.)
@@zebrastripe665 The AI is not very intelligent and it makes spells like cloud of daggers, ensnaring strike, and disarm (from the Command spell) sooooooo much more powerful than they seem. lol. I'm sure if Larian helps the enemies become stronger in the later update, these spells will be about as useful in TT as they will eventually be in the video game. lol
Heavy Crossbow + Hunter’s Mark is the most powerful option and it requires CBE. Everyone gets happy! What I also like about CBE is the possibility to play out with other spells that are often ignored, like Ensnaring Strike and Hail of Thorns.
I'd still be interested in seeing these spells/abilities that seem to be thought of as core things for a class (such as Hunter's Mark, Eldritch Blast, Smites, etc) to scale with class level, and you could do this in several ways. Hunter's Mark for example, if we disregard the crossbow expert option, the problem with HM seems to be that it requires concentration at higher levels. So you could add something like, if you reach 6th level in Ranger, HM no longer requires your concentration. If you dip into Ranger for HM (for whatever reason) you won't be able to do this, but a more dedicated Ranger would. I'd personally like to see this go even further and have it become a more specialized option. For example what if it becomes "Ranger's Mark" initially it's a 1st level spell, concentration adds a d6 in damage - NONE of the other stuff. But depending on subclass it adds something else. Perhaps a Beast Master allows for the Beast Master's mark to also work when your beast companion attacks the target. Perhaps for a Hunter the Hunter's Mark tracking could be emphasized giving the persuasion advantages and allow for the hunter to entangle a marked prey so it's less likely to get away. Perhaps for Gloomstalker the Stalker's Mark damage is doubled whenever you attack from hiding. Of course these are just examples from the top of my head and there'll always be a 'best' option this way, but as the video also mentions, as long as they're relatively close to each other in terms of performance/utility, it doesn't matter and it simply adds flavour to the entire class/subclass.
For the lv 5 maths with the longbow at 10:24, shouldn't the chance to hit be 45%? 60%(base)+10%(archery)=70%, -25%(sharpshooter) should be 45% as 70-25 is 45. That would mean the damage per hit would be 9.9 for the longbow rather than 7.7, and then the total damage would be (not including the slight increase to dread ambusher damage from higher accuracy) 32.9 damage on round one and 20.6 on further rounds, which becomes a lot higher than the crossbow expert. Also, watching it back, I just noticed that the crossbow calculations in the same section also seems wrong. 55+10-25 should be 40 not 30. So in this case it would be 6.6 not 4.95, so an additional 1.64 per hit, meaning 31.5 on the first round, and 20.35 on following rounds (in both cases without favoured foe). The numbers are still very close, if higher, but the gap does seem to have shrunk a bit.
I think it depends on a couple things at higher levels. The big one is encounters and rests. After level 5, while there are better spells to concentrate on the ranger's number of spells in those slots is limited. It is just cheaper to use a first level slot when the day has gone on long, but that is entirely table dependent and, from what I know, very few tables have enough encounters to push the ranger enough for hunter's mark to be good compared to other concentration spells at those higher levels
I've cast hunters mark as a paladin (vengeance) for utility (we were trying to find an entrance to the enemy's base)... But despite playing multiple rangers over the years I don't think I've ever cast hunter's mark in combat, since I usually weaponize my bonus action giving up an attack for a +1d6 to damage isn't usually in my favor.... There have definitely been times it would have been in my favor, because it applies to each attack, but not enough that I actually feel the need to prepare the spell. Having said that I don't consider it a mistake unless you are over 5th level because after level 5 you have better spells to concentrate on (same reason I say warlocks should dump hex at level 3), so I don't really have a strong opinion going in.
Good video. One thing I kinda disagree with is that it saves you a feat. This is not tested here with that math, as on first level you did spend your feat on sharpshooter to keep up and at 4th you did spend it on dex to keep up damage wise. So it would be more fair to say that at 4th level you get the benefits of having 1 more dex modifier rather, than having a feat you can do something with.
I've seen at least one other comment here start to address this issue, but overkilling can definitely be a concern, especially at lower levels. I'd put more weight on 'hitting' a creature, over reducing that chance for extra damage (sharpshooter/GWM). Calculations don't typically take this into account. I'm also a big proponent of what feels good at the table. Hitting more often feels better than missing more often, but doing spikes of damage. Maybe that's just me. Same line of thinking about spending a smite when attacking as a Paladin when a creature is probably already dead or injured. You probably just shouldn't always have Sharpshooter/GWM 'online', but use it selectively when it makes sense. Granted, this was just to compare the two ranger specs, so it could be a wash, but something worth considering in an overall build. I'd rather have an extra attack, not because I get another sharpshooter attack, but because maybe my second attack killed a target and the third one would be a prime candidate for sharpshooter, or maybe my second attack just left the target on death's door and a non-sharpshooter attack against them with hand crossbow would be just enough.
For people that dont want to optimize to an absurd degree and/or dont want crossbow expert and having to rely on solely handcrossbows to dish damage... Then yes. Hunter's mark isnt bad. You wanna make a heavy crossbow sniper fantasy or live on the bowman aesthetic? Then yes, Hunter's mark is pretty great for those builds. I feel like it needs to be said, just for new people wandering in and wanting regular ranger advice.
Crossbow expert has the advantage of being able to spread out the damage against multiple enemies if necessary with their more attacks. Plus at level 5, summon beast does good damage and can be pre-cast before combat.
As someone playing a low-level ranger in one of my campaigns, I think this dramatically overestimates Favored Foe. Unless you're fighting a single legendary creature, the damage output of a XBE ranger is high enough that most enemies will just die after one or two rounds. You mentioned at the beginning that one of the downsides of Hunter's Mark is that you have to spend many turns reapplying it after your first target goes down - well, Favored Foe can't be reapplied at all. Once your initial target is dead, it's gone. Longer combats against multiple foes are therefore more likely to favor Hunter's Mark, unless you want to blow all of your Favored Foe uses in a single combat.
Well a factor would also be ammunition, when looking over multiple rounds... The crossbow Expert uses 4 the first round, and then 3, while the longbow is 1 less each round... So can be a factor too... For me, the voice will always depend on the image I want of my ranger,but nice to see that the numbers are close
Assuming you wouldn't take CBE anyway just to ignore the disadvantage without disengaging, it's 1 ASI vs 1 spell known for roughly the same thing. ASI are incredibly precious and generally irrevocable, while spells know can be swapped out at every level. You do have to spend the first-level spell slot on Hunters Mark to use it, and it only lasts for an hour, but that's still not a big deal unless you're also expected to cast Cure Wounds & Alarm for the party. It's a fine "baseline" option to utilize your Concentration and Bonus Actions until you get something more valuable to do with them.
Those two spells are generally the least likely to be the alternatives in my experience; more likely to be Goodberry, Longstrider, even Entangle/Snare if precast at a chokepoint. Any of these can be far more valuable to the party than the Hunter's Mark ends up being. The ASI cost is less impactful than you consider - the likelihood is that you'll be taking it eventually anyway as HM rapidly falls off even if you ignore the Spell Slots/Concentration issue, and then you need the alternative. Feats are generally very powerful for the reason XBE exists - if you don't use them for that then they aren't that powerful; consider taking Actor or something instead and see how powerful that is. Yes, the Dex increase is powerful if not taking a Feat, but you can only do that twice (and thus taking the Feat doesn't subtract from this).
Some thoughts: Most rangers, on average, can't afford two hand crossbows at level 1 so that's not really a thing. In the 6 or 7 published adventures I have played in, I wouldn't be able to acquire a second hand crossbow until level 3... maybe. I liked that you are mentioning range, but I'd like to see that actually added to the damage chart. A long bow user, if enemies are double moving at 60 feet, will be able to set up situations with two full round of combat at short range before melee enemies are in range. So that's a massive damage increase. If you are big game hunting, you don't need to use your bonus action for hunter's mark every round. That bumps the value of hunter's mark with two hand crossbows. A character is MUCH more likely to find a magic long bow. Even if you don't consider the rarity of hand crossbows, the need for a second magic weapon, especially one as specific and rare as hand crossbow, is unlikely unless the DM goes out of there way to set you up. All that said, I really like the option to cast hunter's mark without concentration for the ranger - just not at first level where ranger splashes could abuse it.
yeah that, also even if things were otherwise rangers literally have "any two martial weapons" as one of their starting equipment options@@adambielen8996
It’s the same logic as crossbow master, only your damage and to hit are different. You forgo the use of your bonus action HM to do do an extra attack, just check the beasts average damage and substite for the crossbow
I’ve regularly played a Swarmkeeper Ranger who uses a Whip for melee combat. Even then, if in a normal combat encounter, I rarely have to use Hunter’s Mark, and instead tend to save my SS for Entangle and Cure Wounds. Only time I ever pull out HM is for a boss-esque encounter, and that’s a maybe. It’s situational depending on circumstance and your party.
I must be missing something, I think the hour long hunters mark is great. If we get into a couple of quick scuffles, it can be the world of difference. I can stay right outside of sight of regular darkvision enemies, getting advantage, moving hunters mark around, while crushing some great damage.
I feel like we kinda needed to see with the final version of HM that is used in OneDnd. For 5e my ranger/rogue just used zephyr strike all the time and its freakin amazing.
You should have gone Custom Lineage taking the Piercer feat at level 4 instead of ASI. this would still give you 18 dex but now you get 2 added small damage benefits.
Everyone in the comments mentioning if you’re fighting 5hp goblins then you have to switch hunters mark continuously to get the damage If you’re fighting 5hp goblins, then at level 4 with the longbow build you’re guaranteed to knock out the goblin without hunters mark so there’s no point even mentioning it
I never understood what the debate here was. Hunter's Mark, in practice, is near identical to Hex, and Hex is seen as a must have spell for early game Warlocks. The argument that you'll have better concentration options later on is a given for both Hunter's Mark and Hex.
@@MatthewDragonHammerIt's melee specific, which is less optimal than range, mainly useful if your class or multiclass gives you extra protection for melee.
@@wassentme1891This Also would you REALLY spend your low amount of Warlock slot for Hex and Agathys when you can cast idk Spike Growth for Shutdown Fireball for AOE Damage Honestly a lot of the Subclass 1st level list are better than the actual Warlock 1st level list
With 90ft range, You can safely cast Hunter's Mark before combat starts (unless your DM is like "cast spell = combat begins"), and with a 120ft crossbow's range, it's really difficult to be caught in melee, if You didn't fall into some kind of trap. So probably the best option is Crossbow Expert with Hunter's Mark.
I look forward the the playtest Crossbow Expert feat forever fixing hand crossbows. At that point, there is no need for a comparison because they arent competing, but doing very different things.
(Heavy Crossbow+ Crossbow expert) to ignore loading property is king for D10 that can be paired with favoured foe or hunters mark. Mind I say a ranged weapon Fighter or warlock is superior to a ranger though full caster outright outdo any other class options.
I know this is mainly looking at the numbers form using the spells, but I personally feel using spells like Entangle to get targets stuck and out of the way, following Web given with Swarmkeeper.
If hunters mark let you move it around for free without bonus action, it would definitely feel better. But I was pretty shocked to see how close this actually was. I guess it comes down to how it actually feels when playing. Also, hunters mark kind of asks you not to ever switch targets for optimal damage whereas crossbow expert doesn't care. If you realize that the boss you hunters marked isn't as big of a threat as the orc that just crit the wizard, it can feel bad to switch and help the person who is probably going down next turn since you lose damage. Crossbow expert can kinda just switch on the fly.
Hunter Marks' target switching mechanic could work like Vow of Emity, without using an action at the start of the turn. Furthermore, if a favorite enemy allowed you to cast hunters mark more times at the highest possible level, it would be cool if it became concentration free from level 3 onwards (more or less like bestow curse).
Ranger is my favorite class and if I’m playing them as an archer I always choose longbow over hand crossbows. The main reason is the terrible short-range of the hand crossbows. I absolutely never ever want to be within 30 feet of the enemies unless the constraints of the map give me no other choice. If I’m doing a sniper AC and HP are probably not a priority, so being far away IS my defense. Your damage per round is 0 if you’re dead. Also if you’re getting hit, whatever you’re concentrating on will probably be go down and be useless since rangers are not proficient in constitution saves. I’ll move to 90 and cast hunters mark then use my movement every turn to get further and further away from the enemies until the map stops me, or I get to 600 ft.
I wish hunters mark replaced favored enemy. Make it "focused target" where you are paying special attention to where that creature is and when it is vulnerable. You would still need to start with a bonus action, but swapping would be a reaction to the current targets' death or a bonus action again if they were not dead, and it would be an ability instead of a waste of a spell slot. It fits the semi-feral woodsman a lot more, in my opinion.
I actually wish everything boiled down to this, because then you'd be free to choose whichever options sound more fun to you without worrying about having to make sacrifices with your choice.
nice review with the numbers! maybe you already reviewed in another video about the new 2024 game rules with the different versions of the feats? the new versions = better chance to hit but less damage, although different kinds of options are available for adding damage
It's a good spell to keep around for a level 1 spell slot, even at higher level gameplay. Extra damage is extra damage, and that boss might make you lose concentration on your higher level spells.
I'd love to add a couple things about ha nter's mark: there will be rounds when you don't have to use you bonus action to switch target so you can you use it for some other things (if you cna disengage/hide as a rogue, or if you can drink a potion like a common houserule or something else) What happens if you add elven accuracy or bigbear to the comparison? Does it move balance between ss and crossbiw expert?
if anything it feels like hunter's mark has been a trap for the designers. they seem to have tunnel vision for the ability which imo takes away from actually cool stuff they could give to rangers instead. like, does anyone really want the ranger's identity to revolve around "I can choose a specific enemy and do a d6 extra damage to them"?
It'd be fine if you had ways to modify the HM, similar to how Paladins have different flavors of smites and Warlocks have the EB Invocations. You could have the obvious no Concentration Mark but you can only apply it to one enemy (and no Hex stacking), or you could choose to instead apply Mark to 2 (later 3) enemies, then you break it down with additional abilities that can lean either towards more efficient damage or crowd control effects. I wouldn't mind concentrating on a HM that bogs down multiple enemies with a taunt or fear effect, and the damage dealers can have their no concentration, and stuff like no bonus action to reapply or advantage.
This. Absolutely. It's like, they made a flavorsome tracking spell for rangers, then gave it a d6 damage boost because it was weak. Now the d6 IS the spell, and so you end up with a spell with a flavorsome name/ rider and a totally generic effect. And then people copium themselves into thinking it delivers on the class fantasy
100% agree. The actual quality of the spell aside, when did "And fuck THIS GUY in particular" become the ranger's class identity?
You’re absolutely right. I like in the playtest that they tried incorporating more into hunters mark for the hunter subclass. In the last playtest the great old one warlock got “also disadvantage on saving throws” added to hex. Can we get that for all the ranger subclasses? Different thematic abilities your subclass uses HM for that outshine the d6 damage. A gloomstalker hiding in the shadows and a swarm keeper tracking with his swarm should have a unique way of “marking” their prey.
@@joshuawinestock9998 Hex gives a d6, Rune Knight gives a d6, everyone gets a d6. Though some of those aren't concentration and are just for one attack, but depending on how often your DM remembers concentration checks, no concentration might be better.
Honestly, since the numbers did wind up being so close, the video ultimately boiled down to "...and again, this is why feats at Level 1 in 5E are powerful."
D&D was not built for feats at level 1, hence only 'variant' human got it originally, an optional race
Also why in 2024 sharpshooter and crossbow expert at level 1 are no longer going to be available in the new core rules, while other weaker feats certainly will be available such as tough
Also why feats like sharpshooter and great weapon master are losing the "power attack" mechanic, because genuinely that will always skew high level builds, with ridiculously high accuracy scores and +3 legendary weapons, into taking them
Also, just because why not, gloomstalker will no longer be able to get an extra attack on round 1, and I believe it was implied that hunters mark will still take a bonus action to move, but instead it will now be a pbxpd class feature which you can burn spell slots for additional uses
This is technically speculation, but ranger is finished and no more playtests for it will be released so I suppose we probably won't know until the first draft of the new PHB comes out
That being said I do like the idea that weapon masteries are the low level reason to pick one weapon over another, rather than when you took the feat which you have to take on everyone eventually anyway
Whoa 4 months ago, I knew video's were released early to patrons but that's a long time!
Also kinda drives home the idea that optimization is really mostly a for-fun thing. I mean, if something can swing from “must have” to “it’s a trap” then the bounds can’t be wildly far apart.
I like the new 5e idea of scaffolding feats for this purpose.
Top of the line feats shouldn't be available at level 1.
The numbers are flawed at their very base due to a misinterpretation of CBE. It only ignores loading property, not ammunition so you still have to have a hand for the bolt. Noone will have a repeating crossbow of any sort at level 1 so CBE level 1 is actually not helpful.
Just a few days ago my girlfriend was making a character for Out Of the Abyss, a drow ranger. And although I suggested Hunter's Mark, she opted for Crossbow Expert and Favored Foe. That way she could pick Goodberry and Entangle as her first 2 spells. And I was just wondering if she made the right choice, and then you made this video and did the math. Thank you for that! All things considered, I think CBE is the right choice for a Drow in the Underdark. Range won't be an issue, and it suits the flavor and the lore of the Drow
Zephyr Strike is also a great bonus action escape spell for when the enemies close to melee with the ranger. It's yet another reason not to use concentration or bonus actions for something else.
I HIGHLY RECOMMEND your GF check out Zephyr Strike since she passed on Hunter's Mark. ZS is fucking GODLIKE and got my ranger out of so many jams, I was borderline frustrating the DM. For all intents and purposes, it's basically a level 1 Misty Step without actually teleporting. It's a bonus action spell that makes you immune to attacks of opportunity, gives you 30 feet of extra movement for a round, gives you advantage on your next attack, and adds 1d8 damage to your next hit. A 1st level spell with FOUR functions, let alone four USEFUL functions, is insane. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. 10/10 spell. Also, have her pick up Absorb Elements too. A reaction spell to half incoming elemental damage is very good and Rangers don't get many reaction spells.
@@ljmiller96 I Had a Ranger Hunter/Rogue Scout Drow and was considering using Zephyr Strike so he could get advantage and an extra d8. Though I believe Ranger/ Rogue Assassin would be more interesting with that. I wasn't sure how often I would be able to use the Assassin's ability given the way surprise works.
Basically the real argument there is know your environment. Personally I feel that a longbow is always the right choice for a Ranger. The Crossbow is a Fighter weapon especially after lvl 10. Plus if I build for sharpshooter then I have the numbers to longbow attack in melee.
she made the choice that made her happy, so she made the right choice
Hunters Mark and Eldritch Blast deffinitly should have been a Feature like Cleric and Paladin have
Imagine if Hunter's get the highest damage scaling, Monster Slayer become Party Damage Support, Fey Wanderer is Status spamming, Swarmkeeper is AOE, Gloomstalker is a Burst
And then all the people who hate hunter's mark and swear it as a trap would belly ache that the designers are focusing on a trap ability.
100% agree. Eldritch Blast always was, so it suddenly becoming a cantrip in 5e was always very confusing. With regards to Hunter's Mark, even the designers posted that the spell was a necessary part of the design process and not taking it hampered the ranger class. Well, if it's so important, why not make it a key class feature? One D&D is missing that too by having the subclasses use the spell in unique ways, but the base class only gives the spell to you for free, which you still need to use spell slots for. It's dumb. It's why I'm glad the Dungeon Coach posted a free ranger fix on his Patreon.
@@eldinoor7072Its only trap ability if it has a lot more downside than upside
I mean no one complained about Paladin and Cleric, other than Peace Cleric being too potent than the 1st level spell Bless
I personally think Ranger SHOULD have Hunters Mark as their gimmick in combat, its just Wizards are not willing to make it even gain support based on Subclass
Meanwhile Warlock somehow gets Eldritch Blast Modifiers despite EB is not even a Class Feature
@@RenoKyrie Sorry. I did not mean to imply I thought HM was a trap ability. Just that the ones who do have this hate boner for the spell would act that way. I agree with your sentiment about HM being a ranger ability and the ideas you had all sound pretty nice!
Something else to consider for early level is the question of oneshotting enemies and overkilling them.
SS damage might guarantee a oneshot on a Goblin; or it might severely overkill a wounded enemy.
One of the big intangible unaccounted-for factors in this Hunter's Mark/Crossbow Expert comparison is that the former is weapon agnostic. When the DM starts handing out magical weapons, the Ranger that uses HM can theoretically benefit from any weapon they find. However, for the Ranger that replaces HM with CBE, many magical weapons that are not hand crossbows are trash, because the increase in damage they receive from the weapon's magical properties has to be taken into account alongside the loss of the bonus action attack. Ironically, even a lot of magical crossbows are of limited use to the Crossbow Expert Ranger, because the extra attack only applies to hand crossbows.
That, along with other feats and abilities like Polearm Master and Flurry of Blows, is actually one of the things that makes me think that the direct weaponization of bonus actions may be bad for the game's overall design. Bonus action abilities that directly deal damage often end up being either completely useless or considered near-mandatory to the point where character builds get completely warped around focusing on them to the detriment of other features that get ignored as a result, with very little middle ground between those two extremes.
Their is one variable I didn't heard you talk about. The durability of the target.
Sure if you are fighting 5HP goblin, you need a bonus action to switch hunter mark on each attack since you will most likely kill a goblin in a single hit. making hunter mark very weak since it consume your bonus action every round.
But if you are fighting a 26 HP zombie then you are using your bonus action every 3 rounds since you need multiple attack to deal 26 damage and overkill the zombie so it do not come back with relentless feature.
And this distinction is very important. Some spell are better against horde of weak monster (AoE spells for example) while other spell (like hunter mark) is better against strong BBEG
I mean, the zombie isn't a great example because you will, presumably, also have friends beating on that zombie. But I get your point; Storm King's Thunder has a pair of ogres that you fight at level like 2, and giants pretty consistently have enough HP to survive a round or two of whooping from the whole party.
It also matters because the AC changes by CR, which is used for the hit chance base, and you wont always face single enemies so the hit chance increases (which impacts XBE more greatly).
Right but crossbow expert is just plain better for both scenarios.
Two of my favorite ranger subclasses are the Drakewarden and Revised Beastmaster. (Heck, they are two of my favorite 5e subclasses period.) I end up never taking hunter's mark because regardless of the math, I'm never NOT going to want to use my cool pet to help me in battle.
I personally love Gloom Stalker, Fey Wanderer, and Swarmkeeper
But yeah, Hunters Mark is just awful when other spell options is just THAT much better
Way better to roleplay and actually helps the party with the utilities
Since pet attacks use a bonus action, Xbow Expert and TWF both become irrelevant as well. Pet subclasses are awesome!
@@MatthewDragonHammer If you use your pet as mount, CBE can be relevant actually.
The Ranger just has too many choices for their bonus action. Tons of ranger spells, animal companion, off hand attack if you're going two weapon fighting. So you're really limited in which cool thing you can do.
@@pedrogarcia8706if you use the regular beastmaster it doesn't take a bonus action to command your pet. Biggest problem there is actually that spells that buff your pet are actions instead of bonus actions.
Despite the assurances of backwards compatibility, I think my table is going to lean toward using only the new core books once they release.
I can't properly express how tired we are of the current lvl 1 feat experience and its impact on the game.
The new system with specific feats designed for use at lvl 1 seems way more healthy.
It’s probably gonna go the route of them turning all of 5e into legacy content and subsequently with my experience with D&D community most tables will ban all of 5e as non official content.
@@AtelierGod One would think that, but there was a studio update earlier this week with Chris Perkins and Jeremy Crawford where they made the absolutely baffling claim that they were designing it to not just be backwards compatible but fully symbiotic.
As in, having a table where one player is playing a Champion Fighter using the 2024 rules and another player is playing a Champion Fighter using the 2014 rules.
I can't wait for this channel's reaction video to that interview. That moment will probably become the most confused Chris has been since Jeremy Crawford said that the 2024 Bard didn't need any more public testing.
@@CivilWarMan The thing is, when Crawford and Perkins claim it is backwards compatible, what they mean is that on paper it works. What they aren't saying is that in practice it probably isn't going to work. If you have two fighters, the 2024 fighter is more powerful and better than the 2014 fighter. It is very unlikely a player playing the 2014 version of the fighter is going to be happy playing alongside the 2024 fighter.
The other question that comes up is if you are playing a 2014 version of a class, which set of spells are you going to use? There is the hint from Crawford and Perkins, that they assume you would be using the 2024 rules and spells and feats. I definitely don't think in actual play you can have a Champion Fighter from both rule sets who play together and everyone is happy. But on paper it works. In practice, one of the two classes will absolutely be more powerful and its going to be the 2024 version because they have to get you to buy the books.
The moon druid might be an exception, in which the 2014 version may be more powerful than its new version due to the way HP work. But that also means you can't really have a 2014 and 2024 moon druid together and both players be happy. Unless the 2024 player really hates having lots of HP.
@@bradleyhurley6755 I went back to the video, and here is the exact quote from Jeremy Crawford. You can check it yourself by searching D&D Studio Update 2024 core rulebooks, and it starts around 3:30:
"All of that new [class features, monsters, etc.] is going to coexist seamlessly with the material that is already in the game. And in any case where we may have adjusted how something functions, the core rule books will walk right beside you and make it clear how that new functionality interacts with 5th edition books you already have. So you're not going to need a conversion guide, or anything like that. You're going to be able to just get these books and keep playing. And you'll even have the option of having mixed character groups. You might have someone who has made a character using the 2014 version of a class and its subclasses right next to someone who's using the 2024 version of that class and subclasses."
Chris Perkins then interjects with mixing in stuff from older modules, monster manual, etc. Which is all perfectly reasonable and doesn't break anything. But then we get this exchange between Todd Kenreck and Jeremy Crawford clarifying what Jeremy said:
Todd: "You can have two different players playing Fey Warlocks, one from 2014 and one from 2024, and they're going to be seamless and work together fine?"
Jeremy: "Yes. Now, I think people are going to want to play the 2024 versions..."
The thing that really makes that whole exchange insane is that, by their explicit logic, a group where one player plays a single-class 2024 Fighter, while another player plays a Wizard with a 2 level dip into 2014 Fighter for the version of Action Surge that allows them to cast multiple leveled spells per turn, is not only allowed via the official rules, but is in some way *intended*
@@CivilWarMan I have a feeling this is mostly marketing to try and stop what happens towards the end of every edition. The decline of sales in late edition products in anticipation of the new release.
The constant reiteration of the point of backwards compatibility is probably to reassure the potential buyers of things like Bigby's or Book of Many Things that those products will slot in with new books.
And with the way those books have had lvl 1 and lvl 4 feats and other similar language I think they are probably correct that books released ~Monsters of the Multiverse and on will probably work ok with their current design intent.
Granted the dogpile release caused by the OGL debacle delays and the delay of physical Deck Of Many Things has probably made the metrics for this incredibly difficult to separate from general edition fatigue.
TL;DR: They are trying to bolster product sales of current releases while also riding the hype of a "new edition."
Damage aside, the tracking component of the spell is underrated. The Ranger for the party I'm DMing saved everyone when they were fighting the BBEG Lich, by using Hunter's Mark to track their location after the Lich used Dimension Door to escape to a hidden room in the lair, to recover spell slots with lair action.
I think that, RAW, that wouldn't actually work. The spell gives you advantage to track the marked quarry, but in this instance, what are you actually tracking? The lich didn't physically move from where they were to where they are.
That said, I do think hunters mark should allow you to magically know the direction and distance of the marked target.
@@ilovethelegend yep, can't track teleport, there are no tracks, making it totally DM dependent.
You seem not to have added Archery fighting Style on the level 5 builds. You wrote out the +10% on both of them, but the totals of 30% and 35% don’t include it.
I noticed this too. I did not check the math to see if he used the right math and showed the wrong math? I haven't been home for awhile!
True. However, it shouldn't change the overall conclusion as the mistake was made for both builds. The impact of increasing chance to hit is roughly comparable when both builds are using Sharpshooter at that point.
@@SortKaffeIt could have a major impact, as xbe is more small attacks while lb is less heavier attacks
@@coleserfass3101 quickly calculated and it looks like lvl 5 CBE should be 31,54 average and Longbow is 32,7, so both higher but the difference is smaller.
With advantage I get the average for CBE to 49,77 and longbow to 51.66, so roughly the same results. IDK however if these are really correct because I used the same bonuses as the video for favored foe and dreadful ambusher, so the damage numbers might be off if these were calculated with the wrong percentage.
I noticed this as well. I can't be bothered to do the math at the moment.
My players use HM for damage. But if an enemy tries to escape, even with teleports, fly or dimension travel, my rangers are always "hey, I had a HM on him, I'll track him!". And why not, they are given all information they need, as this use is quite narrow!
I play a ranger in icewind dale with Gritty realism resting rules, so we are always really short on time and resources. For me, it has been evident that going the CBE route has been correct only because it conservs my spellslots for Absorb elements and entangle, which have both really saved the day on many occasions.
Agreed, it always depends upon your table and their specific circumstances.
I play primarily Rogue, but took a dip in Ranger, and Zephyr Strike is amazing.
I have actually used the secondary effect of hunter's mark. Not to hunt down an enemy, but to keep track of an ally.
I used it for tracking enemies, while my party was catching up with me. The advantage was very useful.
I got a laugh out of Treantmonk dismissing the advantage on tracking the target.
Mostly because in my last session it did come up, Twice! I was so thankful for that as it was mission critical that we could find the monster that was causing trouble for my Characters family (some kids got abducted).
It was also my first encounter in a long while with an enemy that decided to be slippery and sneaking with illusion magic instead of trying to fight the party head-on. A fresh change to be honest.
Locate Object target whoever you’re tracking’s clothes/weapons.
No check required, you just know which direction they are relative to you, and with some trigonometry, you know exactly where they are.
The issue I have with rangers is their entire spell list is clogged with concentration and Bonus Action spell. If your using hunter's mark or Favored Foe, most of your spell list is now out of bounds. Also, the need for a high dex on this build means that you can't boost wisdom as much, so the other spells just aren't effective enough to compete with either HM or FF. 90% of the ranger spell list is just never going to be used, and that sucks.
I’d say the biggest problem with Hunter’s Mark is that you only have one bonus action, so once you have extra attack, you might at the start of your turn move your Hunter’s Mark onto one creature, kill it with your first attack, and then, when you go to attack a second creature, you can’t move your Hunter’s Mark on the next guy.
Hunter’s Mark is also an anti-combo with Sharpshooter: taking a penalty to-hit gets worse when the attack’s base damage is higher. It’s not dramatic in this circumstance, but it becomes especially noticeable in, say, Rogues.
The additional attack from XBE can also cut down on overkill damage, putting it to use against another target. The spell slots and Concentration can't be ignored either (and the FF Concentration does indeed compete, but only minorly due to limited uses that be used before you even start Concentrating on a spell). Thats a Goodberry spell which is very highly likely to be more impactful than the slight damage differences of the two builds. Could also be a Longstrider spell, getting the Barbarian into range a turn earlier, or allowing the Ranger to kite more easily. Also Entangle/Snare if set before combat at a chokepoint. Of course, once you get 2nd Level Spells at Ranger 5 you have Pass without Trace and/or Summon Beast to contend that Concentration with.
Other considerations is that the since XBE is more reliant on SS for the damage (no HM, additional attack), this makes accuracy more important for XBE. Chris is well-known for using the least favourable hit chance for these builds, due to not using magic weapons and always putting it up against the higher AC mobs of the CR being faced. This is especially true when you move away from a single enemy encounters, since the lower CR of each enemy (and therefore AC) can rocket up the hit chance.
Additional consideration that missed the list is Damage Break Points. The value of Sharp Shooter at low levels really sky rockets if the +10 to damage is going to cause you to more often take out an opponent on round one, even though it may not be the better average damage. Traversely, if a single hit without Sharpshooter is enough to land a kill, Crossbow Expert shoots up in value.
Like with the other Additional Considerations, this is very much "depending on how things are run at your table, and what niche you are trying to fill, either can be good". I think it's something we don't talk about enough in white room math, so I really appreciate seeing the list of additional considerations here.
Another thing to note is hunters mark may often use your bonus action, but won't always use it. Could be useful for a variety of things, like homebrew bonus action potions rules, multiclass options or other feat options.
Also a crossbow expert ranger can also use hunters mark for fights vs tanky enemies you likely won't need to transfer on.
While feats aren't free, you should also note that for higher level play having a +2 ability score a level sooner means you have less effective feats later for straight damage. That means you might take crossbow expert later anyway, or might get more utility instead.
This is also all different with a different subclass. My friend is playing a beastmaster ranger and as such is using her bonus action for beast of the land attacks if she isnt using hunters mark. There is no reason to take crossbow expert for her so a longbow is better, but for other subclasses like swarmkeeper or hunter the extra damage is more likely to apply from another attack, so crossbow expert might edge hunters mark out.
Something you also don't discuss is magic items. Magic items can affect your chance to hit, benefitting hunters mark more, and or could increase damage per attack, benefitting crossbow expert more. And what of consumables? An arrow of dragon slaying might be pivotal but the attack it is made with is the one that matters, so a spell like ensnaring strike to grant you advantage to hit the one arrow could be more valuable than either of these options.
Overall just know your options and what they're good for.
Magic bows, as well as bracers of archery, can also give longbow users an edge over hand crossbow users. Even with a DM who enjoys creating homebrew magic items, I figure magic bows are still more common than magic hand crossbows.
It would take a ridiculously powerful magic longbow to beat an entire extra sharpshooter attack. e
@@Shadescape12 Or the common sense to say that the longest reloading time ranged weapons in history should never be able to fire faster than a bow because of a Feat. 😛
Just ban the "ignore loading property" ability of crossbow expert and gunner. Change Sharpshooter to remove the -5/+10, rename that ability "power shot" or something, and give it to all Martials as something they can do once per round. Add +1 Dexterity or Wisdom to compensate the Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert feats; maybe even give them +1 attack bonus on "power shots". Make double crossbows common and magazine fed crossbows Uncommon to better explain multiple shots per round from a crossbow user. This also gives crossbow users something to spend money on.
This same concept would apply to Great Weapon Master. Take away the -5/+10 and give that ability to all Martials, once per round, and call it "power attack". Make GWM "Cleave", granting +1 Str or Con, and the extra attack occurs as part of the attack action, limit the user to a number of Cleave attacks equal to their proficiency bonus per round. If it still needs more buffing, give the Cleave feat +1 attack bonus on power attacks.
This would open the door on some other modifications which could help weaker classes and subclasses. For example, allow Barbarians to make two power attacks at a certain level, leaning into their ferocity. Allow Arcane Archers to make up to two power shots per round, making them the deadliest ranged attackers.
I so look forward to Mondays and Fridays. You’ve got me trained like pavlov’s dog.
Something that isn't mentioned here:
Even if you do need to spend your Bonus Action on round 1 and occasionally on later rounds to reapply Hunter's Mark, you do have more opportunities to use your Bonus Action for something else than with the Crossbow Expert build (assuming you want to keep the damage output). For instance for Cunning Action if you dip into Rogue, but there could also be many other use cases (e.g. many DM's allow drinking healing potions with a Bonus Action, or maybe interacting with an element of the encounter).
Of course it's not a huge thing because if you really wanna use your Bonus Action for something else as a Crossbow Expert, you do have that option, but overall it's still an advantage of the longbow build.
Or Zepher Strike.
Honestly, I think the real moral of this story is that +2 DEX is underrated.
Running a few numbers through a spreadsheet, the Crossbow Expert character could also take +2 DEX at level 4, and they would deal about the same damage on round 1 as Crossbow Expert + Sharpshooter, thanks to a higher chance to land dread ambusher. Slightly less DPR on subsequent turns, but...barely less (only 0.9 less).
The longbow build using hunter's mark could be a Custom Lineage to get 18 DEX at level 1, getting 20 DEX at level 4, and they would deal slightly MORE damage than the longbow build with Sharpshooter presented in this video. (No, I'm serious: 8.85 damage per attack instead of 8.1, and slightly more damage from the dread ambusher die too). Provided that the other bonuses of sharpshooter don't come up, and provided they don't run out of Hunter's Mark.
Granted, you still probably want Sharpshooter just in case you get advantage (you ARE a gloomstalker after all, advantage will just happen sometimes).
But uh, yeah, raising your primary stat is good.
At early levels the hit chance is often quite a bit lower than at higher levels when you've had the chance to increase your primary stat. The thing is that Rangers also have access to the Archery Fighting Style, that +2 to hit is essentially a +4 dex in terms of hit chance (of course the damage is not added), which is quite insane at low levels. This really helps out the sharpshooter feat as well.
So as always it's a combination of things that make this work, in this case I think archery giving +2 to hit makes it so +2 dex isn't as missed as it would be when you don't have that +2 to hit. I'm sure someone can do the math on this.
As someone currently playing a horizonwalker, I've never once felt the need to use this spell. It's always felt like a bad pick because I want to use the ranger's spell list for information gathering and other more impactful applications than damage. Death is the best CC, but turns out CC is also good at CC too. At 1st level I want to cast entangle and fog cloud to support my team, providing more advantage and effective healing than a measly goodberry in the process. I think my next character I want to try making a druid with a few fighter levels just to see if it feels better than going straight ranger.
Would love to see a follow up video on good ways for higher level rangers to use their concentration!
Glad to see that the numbers are as close as I assumed they would be. It basically boils down to “you do you, it doesn’t matter much.”
As you mentioned you could be spending your first level slots on goodberries and what was not mentioned was spells like entangle and fog cloud can provide far more value than single target damage. Additionally, you didn't mention that it's unrealistic to even have the slots available for hunters mark every fight as a half caster because you only have 2-3 slots per long rest in a game that suggests 6-8 encounters per long rest.
Dont forget, its also SUPER unrealistic you even going to fight enemies with Legendary resistance
Duration is an hour. At 6-8 encounters per day, it isn't unreasonable to assume one casting of Hunters Mark could last through 2 or occasionally 3 of those encounters.
@@blshouseThen why would the enemy even escape in the first place?
When you could have Entangle or Spike Growth them
At low levels 6 encounters == TPK.
Obligatory correction that 3/4ths cover adds +5 to the target's AC rather than the +4 stated.
I think Hunter's Mark is still entirely relevant to the conversation once we reach 2nd and 3rd level spells, because those slots get used up. Eventually you're down to just 1st level casts. Concentrating for an up to an hour can be quite difficult on Rangers. No Con save proficiency, and when does anyone consider War Caster or Resilient Con on a Ranger? Maybe at super high levels? XBE can't be down and out as easily.
The biggest factor is overkill though. The thing hardly ever factored into DPR. Especially at early levels, 10 extra damage rarely competes with an extra chance of dealing damage. We consider the fact that Hunter's Mark has to be moved. We don't consider that the DPR has to be divided up into many different combinations of health pools. This issue crops up more often on a Tier 1 Gloom Stalker where the overkill potential is high.
At 9:35, you mention that Favored Foe does 1d6 at level 5, however it doesn’t scale to 1d6 at 6th level.
You mentioned that "adv on perception and survival checks" never coming up. There are SO many things that the 2014 designers created that they thought would be happening all the time. Might make for a good video, things in 5e rules that never get used...and for good reason.
I'm glad you made a video about this. What's always bothered me is that Favored Foe isn't as good as the hunter's mark spell, yet the designers have said straight up that hunter's mark is necessary to take. In 2015, a UA was released discussing how you can modify the PHB classes, as people wanted a spell-less ranger. While possible, it's not recommended. Why? Quote: "Much of the ranger’s extra potency in combat comes from spells such as *hunter’s mark* and from the class features granted by the ranger archetypes." and "Rangers gain a lot of their combat potency from spells, especially *hunter’s mark*." See, when it's spelled out like this, it makes me wonder then why wasn't this a core feature of the class like the monk's unarmed strike? Makes me grateful to Dungeon Coach for releasing a free ranger fix that has a scaling hunter's mark.
Regarding the UA, I did find it funny that if you did go spell-less, that the battle master fighter archetype should be added to the ranger class, so that it has a chance.
Great video Chris. If we're on the theme of iconoclasting, simple hunters mark longbow w.o sharpshooter deals VERY similar damage to the SS version, and has added advantages like more feat and race flexibility
Ranger use known spells, which they can replace 1 at each level.(Tasha probably has some variant on this).
This means you can use Hunter's Mark in the early levels where its still useful to concentrate on, and replace it at higher levels when its not as useful.
It has been a while since I played a ranger, but the fact that "bracers of archery" exist, always nuged me towards the longbow.
Sure specific magic items are rarely a given, but if you can get your hands on a pair, the two damage per hit feel really signifcant.
Though I also played the hand crossbow ranger, and it just feels really cool.
tl;dr: both styles cater to different fantasies, there is no right choice.
dear god that was so in depth, I played a ranger up to level 14 with crossbow expert and i think you missed a little thing, that being Zephyr Strike. It feels so good to use that spell, its a bonus action dash and disengage, only painful thing being you need to loose concentration on whatever you had before, but honestly when I get hit with that signature max damage roll critical strike my DM loves to roll, there's no chance even with proficiency in con saves and paladin aura that I'm passing a DC 35 concentration check. Later on I got Misty Step from Fey Touched, but Zephyr Strike came in clutch a lot of times.
Lovely video as always, and I couldn't have asked for a better conclusion than "actually both are viable"
The big thing for me is that Crossbow Expert future-proofs your build. Once you hit level 5 and Hunter's Mark has zero value anymore, you really want your bonus action squared away. Also, using your spell slots on Entangle or Goodberry instead of Hunter's Mark is likely to be more impactful, even if it doesn't necessarily show in dpr calculations. Especially for the kind of table that likes to start at level 3-4 (as is very popular in my experience), using a longbow for a single level just feels bad.
Also, longbows are Heavy weapons, and there are a lot of reasons to want to be a Small race as a Ranger. Again, it doesn't show up in the dpr calculations, but being able to afford and ride a mule at level 1 is pretty significant, and the ability to stay mounted in Medium spaces remains useful even at high levels.
The really important thing is that One D&D trying to entice players with cheap Hunter's Marks and Hexes as higher level class features is very definitely a trap that encourages clearly suboptimal concentration use. If a perhaps oversimplistic appraisal of Hunter's Mark as a trap keeps that dark future from coming to pass by energizing the playerbase against it, then I'll take that as a win.
We should also consider survivability as well. CBE ranger can cast Zephyr Strike instead to keep skirmishing away. On the flip side, longbow sharpshooter has 600' range so in theory many rounds of "free" attacks before the enemy closes into striking distance. As a handcrossbow archer, the 30' effective range before getting sharpshooter is extremely limiting since it often places you in danger.
A few things to always remember when it comes to Hunters Mark that isn't taken into account when just looking at damage comparisons:
1) It eats up your concentration so you can't use it on other spells the ranger would want to have access to.
2) Since it's concentration it can drop early due to either status effects or failing a con save which Rangers aren't proficient in.
3) It means keeping your spell slots saved up for HM use, something that half casters have fewer of and also greatly effects the Ranger who makes more use of support and utility spells.
4) It's a learned spell so it does have the opportunity cost of not instead grabbing something better in the spell list such as Good Berry or Absorb Elements.
So basically while using Hunters Mark you're Ranger effectively turns into a full martial, and if you try to use support spells your ranger will likely end up losing it's DPS. Hunters Mark just basically makes you play as an even more boring Fighter which I feel is the biggest trap of the spell.
Well considered video. I do admit my eyes started to glaze over at the numbers in the second stanza.
I want to say this now that i have the opportunity, every time WotC tries to push hunter's mark for rangers, it makes me want to scream "make it class feature with no concentration" it's just a d6 on a single target that does not scale well at all, upcasting hunter's mark just let's you concentrate it for longer, that becomes irrelevant the second you get spike growth, you get way more milage for your limited number of spells slots.
They don’t want to make it a class feature because there are a lot of people that DON’T play rangers and think it would be Hunters mark then cast hex to add a lot of damage at lower levels.
I use Fey Touched on a lot of martial characters to add Hunter’s Mark as a bonus action. Swords Bard, Hexblade, Cleric, Paladin. They can all benefit from this addition.
One additional point to consider is that without Gloomstalker, the Longbow doesn't get its round 1 advantage over the Hand Crossbow. That means that Hand Crossbows are likely just better in that case.
Hi Treantmonk, thanks for this great comparison! Only thing i was missing is the fact that many rangers, especially gloomstalkers multiclass after lvl 5, often to rogue. Having a bonus attack is a tremendous help to trigger sneak attack, if the other attacks miss. But for pure ranger, i would choose longbow+HM anytime.
(before watching video)
I think it's neither, I think it's just a pretty good spell that accomplishes the fantasy it sets out to, you are focusing on one target as your prey and now deal more damage when you hit it, and if it escapes you get advantage to track it, a solid pick.
One important detail in favour of CBE is target switching, particularly if you kill something on your turn. There's also consistency because its damage is spread across multiple attacks.
Usually hand crossbows provide plenty range, but the extra longbows circumstantially provide shouldn't be underestimated. Killing off fleeing enemies so they won't bring in reinforcements, holding a better position, forcing enemies to approach from further away, etc. Crossbow users should still consider having a longbow (or heavy crossbow) in their back pocket just for the utility it provides. It doesn't matter how high your DPR number is, it matters how much higher your number is in comparison to the enemy's number - and sometimes range makes that difference.
Hunter's Mark can be used on a dangerous target among many innocents. The ranger can walk away from the immediate vicinity. Until, the target moves into another location to then be confronted. Rangers can also track from a significant following distance. The target may lead the party right where there is a need to go.
I prefer Zephyr Strike to Hunter’s Mark - especially if you are playing a Gloomstalker.
Zephyr Strike is a solid spell for mobility
I played a GS to lvl 12. My DM allowed me to prepare spells and I found myself preparing ZS almost exclusively at lower levels. In addition to no AoO, I liked the advantage and extra damage on my dread Ambusher turn. At higher levels, I prepared both ZS and HM but they were back-ups to Conjure Animals.
@@TreantmonksTemple Not only mobility, but also burst dmg. Zephyr Strike with my GWM attacks (would work with Sharpshooter as well) mean so much dmg not only thanks to that 1d8 bonus, but mainly that advantage is huge with -5/+10.
And you can easily combine this with Favourite Foe on the same turn for:
BA for ZS casting. Then attack with -5/+10, 1d8 bonus dmg AND advantage AND bonus 30 ft of movement AND you can immediately activate Favourite Foe on the same hit for another 1dX bonus dmg. All this easily excedes bonus dmg from Smite and gives mobility obnus on top. Underrated combo IMO.
Simplified Math: GS GWM - normal attack is 0.6x(10+2.5)=7.5 dmg, 7.98 with crits, GWM ZS attack is 0,5775x(20+2.5+4.5)=15.59, 16.99 with crits.
Appreciate the nuanced take as always!
I think ultimately the issue with hunters mark is that it's just not att all fun to use. No one likes something that they have to do to be ok that everyone else does almost passively and is stronger in the hands of other classes
Great vid!
It's good to see how close they actually are! thank you for doing this.
I noticed around 9:00 the math seems off, you have 55+10-25= 30 when it should be 40... the same mistake is on the hunter's mark slide at 10:15. This just means the bonus from the Archery fighting style wasn't included in the calculations, and it isn't a super huge deal for the overall comparisons (adding 10% to hit more on each one just increases the damage by about 1 point per line so it balances out). :)
I think Game style is also a factor. If you regularly face hordes of minions, HM is lackluster due to the cost of switching targets. If you often face Big Sacks of HPs (tm) with a few minions for your team mates to clean up, HM + Moar Attackz pays dividends, and using it *with* Crossbow Expert (if you're out of FF uses) or TWF can be worth considering.
I don’t understand why the conversation about Hunter’s Mark often boils down to, “a better use of your bonus action”. Once you use that first round to cast it, you’re free to use your subsequent bonus actions however you want. And the extra damage still applies. Hunter’s Mark+Crossbow Expert is a good combo.
Man, good work! I love just skipping to the conclusion
Had a Gloom Stalker 5 /Samauri 4, When I switched from using Hunters Mark to Zepher Strike, the play got much more fun.
Thanks for the analysis.
Even a LVL 20 can be doing the right thing with using Hunters mark - you don't know what the rest of the adventuring day will bring at the best of times, and often you know this is just the starter. The bigger spell slots want to be saved for when you actually need them, but consuming a single first level for hopefully a whole hour of hunters mark as you mow through the trivial minion horde of your BBEG is clearly good resource management. And that is one of the biggest traps this sort of DPR calculation falls into - just because you can do big numbers in one combat or even only for the opening rounds of a combat doesn't mean it is actually as universally good as those numbers suggest - there will be days with long long single combats of many rounds and ones with heaps of baby skirmish and everything inbetween.
Also worth considering the min and max damage that can be dealt and not just a mean average - your bigger weapon die and hunters mark can swing across a wider range of damage with a higher peak potential - and that can really be a bigger swing in the combat than it seems if it leads to you taking an opponent down. When you do remove an opponent you shift the action economy in your teams favour which is arguably the most important thing to winning - its not the amount of damage you can do, but can you do it to the right targets so your team take less hits back.
The way I see it, if your one and only goal is damage, which honestly it shouldnt be, but IF IT IS, then Hunters mark is a reasonably competitive option at levels 2, 3, and 4. From levels 5 to 9 you have Pass Without Trace for those sweet sweet surprise round ambushes, or summon beast when you cant arrange for that.
When you get third level spells, well theres really no competing with conjure animals, though if your table disapproves of CA theres still decent mileage to get out of summon fey.
After trying ranger for the first time in Baldur's Gate 3, I would be very interested in using my concentration on ensnaring strike at times to give myself and others advantage or just hold someone in place.
Ensnaring Strike is also bad
Just use Fog Cloud, Spike Growth, and Pass Without Trace
@@RenoKyrie it has felt great in game. Why is it bad in tt (ik it can fail)? I definitely have moved to spike growth since getting it, though. One of my favorite spells in the game.
(Add in the caveat that in my tt playthroughs, we have a new DM right now and it would be rude to go hardcore optimized while he's trying to learn to balance combats and stuff lol.)
@@zebrastripe665 The AI is not very intelligent and it makes spells like cloud of daggers, ensnaring strike, and disarm (from the Command spell) sooooooo much more powerful than they seem. lol. I'm sure if Larian helps the enemies become stronger in the later update, these spells will be about as useful in TT as they will eventually be in the video game. lol
Favored Foe from Tasha’s really drops the usefulness of Hunter’s Mark for me, spell slots are precious on ranger.
In my mind, the fact that the numbers went close is a mark that this is good design example
In my games, Hunters Mark is a feature that gets something like Eldritch invocations as they level up to upgrade hunters mark
being able to equip a shield is very valuable if you are also trying to be sneaky and tanky
Crossbow expert requires a free hand. So no shield.
Heavy Crossbow + Hunter’s Mark is the most powerful option and it requires CBE. Everyone gets happy!
What I also like about CBE is the possibility to play out with other spells that are often ignored, like Ensnaring Strike and Hail of Thorns.
I'd still be interested in seeing these spells/abilities that seem to be thought of as core things for a class (such as Hunter's Mark, Eldritch Blast, Smites, etc) to scale with class level, and you could do this in several ways.
Hunter's Mark for example, if we disregard the crossbow expert option, the problem with HM seems to be that it requires concentration at higher levels. So you could add something like, if you reach 6th level in Ranger, HM no longer requires your concentration. If you dip into Ranger for HM (for whatever reason) you won't be able to do this, but a more dedicated Ranger would.
I'd personally like to see this go even further and have it become a more specialized option. For example what if it becomes "Ranger's Mark" initially it's a 1st level spell, concentration adds a d6 in damage - NONE of the other stuff. But depending on subclass it adds something else. Perhaps a Beast Master allows for the Beast Master's mark to also work when your beast companion attacks the target. Perhaps for a Hunter the Hunter's Mark tracking could be emphasized giving the persuasion advantages and allow for the hunter to entangle a marked prey so it's less likely to get away. Perhaps for Gloomstalker the Stalker's Mark damage is doubled whenever you attack from hiding.
Of course these are just examples from the top of my head and there'll always be a 'best' option this way, but as the video also mentions, as long as they're relatively close to each other in terms of performance/utility, it doesn't matter and it simply adds flavour to the entire class/subclass.
For the lv 5 maths with the longbow at 10:24, shouldn't the chance to hit be 45%? 60%(base)+10%(archery)=70%, -25%(sharpshooter) should be 45% as 70-25 is 45. That would mean the damage per hit would be 9.9 for the longbow rather than 7.7, and then the total damage would be (not including the slight increase to dread ambusher damage from higher accuracy) 32.9 damage on round one and 20.6 on further rounds, which becomes a lot higher than the crossbow expert.
Also, watching it back, I just noticed that the crossbow calculations in the same section also seems wrong. 55+10-25 should be 40 not 30. So in this case it would be 6.6 not 4.95, so an additional 1.64 per hit, meaning 31.5 on the first round, and 20.35 on following rounds (in both cases without favoured foe).
The numbers are still very close, if higher, but the gap does seem to have shrunk a bit.
I think it depends on a couple things at higher levels. The big one is encounters and rests. After level 5, while there are better spells to concentrate on the ranger's number of spells in those slots is limited. It is just cheaper to use a first level slot when the day has gone on long, but that is entirely table dependent and, from what I know, very few tables have enough encounters to push the ranger enough for hunter's mark to be good compared to other concentration spells at those higher levels
I've cast hunters mark as a paladin (vengeance) for utility (we were trying to find an entrance to the enemy's base)... But despite playing multiple rangers over the years I don't think I've ever cast hunter's mark in combat, since I usually weaponize my bonus action giving up an attack for a +1d6 to damage isn't usually in my favor.... There have definitely been times it would have been in my favor, because it applies to each attack, but not enough that I actually feel the need to prepare the spell.
Having said that I don't consider it a mistake unless you are over 5th level because after level 5 you have better spells to concentrate on (same reason I say warlocks should dump hex at level 3), so I don't really have a strong opinion going in.
Someone who understand why HM and Hex should be dropped at higher level
Good video.
One thing I kinda disagree with is that it saves you a feat. This is not tested here with that math, as on first level you did spend your feat on sharpshooter to keep up and at 4th you did spend it on dex to keep up damage wise. So it would be more fair to say that at 4th level you get the benefits of having 1 more dex modifier rather, than having a feat you can do something with.
I've seen at least one other comment here start to address this issue, but overkilling can definitely be a concern, especially at lower levels. I'd put more weight on 'hitting' a creature, over reducing that chance for extra damage (sharpshooter/GWM). Calculations don't typically take this into account. I'm also a big proponent of what feels good at the table. Hitting more often feels better than missing more often, but doing spikes of damage. Maybe that's just me.
Same line of thinking about spending a smite when attacking as a Paladin when a creature is probably already dead or injured. You probably just shouldn't always have Sharpshooter/GWM 'online', but use it selectively when it makes sense. Granted, this was just to compare the two ranger specs, so it could be a wash, but something worth considering in an overall build. I'd rather have an extra attack, not because I get another sharpshooter attack, but because maybe my second attack killed a target and the third one would be a prime candidate for sharpshooter, or maybe my second attack just left the target on death's door and a non-sharpshooter attack against them with hand crossbow would be just enough.
For people that dont want to optimize to an absurd degree and/or dont want crossbow expert and having to rely on solely handcrossbows to dish damage...
Then yes. Hunter's mark isnt bad. You wanna make a heavy crossbow sniper fantasy or live on the bowman aesthetic? Then yes, Hunter's mark is pretty great for those builds.
I feel like it needs to be said, just for new people wandering in and wanting regular ranger advice.
Crossbow expert has the advantage of being able to spread out the damage against multiple enemies if necessary with their more attacks. Plus at level 5, summon beast does good damage and can be pre-cast before combat.
As someone playing a low-level ranger in one of my campaigns, I think this dramatically overestimates Favored Foe. Unless you're fighting a single legendary creature, the damage output of a XBE ranger is high enough that most enemies will just die after one or two rounds. You mentioned at the beginning that one of the downsides of Hunter's Mark is that you have to spend many turns reapplying it after your first target goes down - well, Favored Foe can't be reapplied at all. Once your initial target is dead, it's gone. Longer combats against multiple foes are therefore more likely to favor Hunter's Mark, unless you want to blow all of your Favored Foe uses in a single combat.
Well a factor would also be ammunition, when looking over multiple rounds... The crossbow Expert uses 4 the first round, and then 3, while the longbow is 1 less each round... So can be a factor too...
For me, the voice will always depend on the image I want of my ranger,but nice to see that the numbers are close
Assuming you wouldn't take CBE anyway just to ignore the disadvantage without disengaging, it's 1 ASI vs 1 spell known for roughly the same thing. ASI are incredibly precious and generally irrevocable, while spells know can be swapped out at every level. You do have to spend the first-level spell slot on Hunters Mark to use it, and it only lasts for an hour, but that's still not a big deal unless you're also expected to cast Cure Wounds & Alarm for the party.
It's a fine "baseline" option to utilize your Concentration and Bonus Actions until you get something more valuable to do with them.
Those two spells are generally the least likely to be the alternatives in my experience; more likely to be Goodberry, Longstrider, even Entangle/Snare if precast at a chokepoint. Any of these can be far more valuable to the party than the Hunter's Mark ends up being.
The ASI cost is less impactful than you consider - the likelihood is that you'll be taking it eventually anyway as HM rapidly falls off even if you ignore the Spell Slots/Concentration issue, and then you need the alternative. Feats are generally very powerful for the reason XBE exists - if you don't use them for that then they aren't that powerful; consider taking Actor or something instead and see how powerful that is. Yes, the Dex increase is powerful if not taking a Feat, but you can only do that twice (and thus taking the Feat doesn't subtract from this).
I love this. Thank you!
Some thoughts:
Most rangers, on average, can't afford two hand crossbows at level 1 so that's not really a thing. In the 6 or 7 published adventures I have played in, I wouldn't be able to acquire a second hand crossbow until level 3... maybe.
I liked that you are mentioning range, but I'd like to see that actually added to the damage chart. A long bow user, if enemies are double moving at 60 feet, will be able to set up situations with two full round of combat at short range before melee enemies are in range. So that's a massive damage increase.
If you are big game hunting, you don't need to use your bonus action for hunter's mark every round. That bumps the value of hunter's mark with two hand crossbows.
A character is MUCH more likely to find a magic long bow. Even if you don't consider the rarity of hand crossbows, the need for a second magic weapon, especially one as specific and rare as hand crossbow, is unlikely unless the DM goes out of there way to set you up.
All that said, I really like the option to cast hunter's mark without concentration for the ranger - just not at first level where ranger splashes could abuse it.
You don't use 2 Hand Crossbows with CBE, just one.
yeah that, also even if things were otherwise rangers literally have "any two martial weapons" as one of their starting equipment options@@adambielen8996
I'd love to see this comparison for the Tasha's Beastmaster, since it uses the BA for the beast's attacks.
It’s the same logic as crossbow master, only your damage and to hit are different.
You forgo the use of your bonus action HM to do do an extra attack, just check the beasts average damage and substite for the crossbow
I’ve regularly played a Swarmkeeper Ranger who uses a Whip for melee combat.
Even then, if in a normal combat encounter, I rarely have to use Hunter’s Mark, and instead tend to save my SS for Entangle and Cure Wounds. Only time I ever pull out HM is for a boss-esque encounter, and that’s a maybe.
It’s situational depending on circumstance and your party.
I must be missing something, I think the hour long hunters mark is great. If we get into a couple of quick scuffles, it can be the world of difference. I can stay right outside of sight of regular darkvision enemies, getting advantage, moving hunters mark around, while crushing some great damage.
Thanks Treantmonk! Great video, as always 🥷 🌲
I feel like we kinda needed to see with the final version of HM that is used in OneDnd. For 5e my ranger/rogue just used zephyr strike all the time and its freakin amazing.
I prefer Favored Foe because it scales better and you can choose other spells if you want to try something different.
You should have gone Custom Lineage taking the Piercer feat at level 4 instead of ASI. this would still give you 18 dex but now you get 2 added small damage benefits.
Everyone in the comments mentioning if you’re fighting 5hp goblins then you have to switch hunters mark continuously to get the damage
If you’re fighting 5hp goblins, then at level 4 with the longbow build you’re guaranteed to knock out the goblin without hunters mark so there’s no point even mentioning it
I never understood what the debate here was. Hunter's Mark, in practice, is near identical to Hex, and Hex is seen as a must have spell for early game Warlocks. The argument that you'll have better concentration options later on is a given for both Hunter's Mark and Hex.
People only get Hex because its the only good 1st level Warlock Spell
When you have 2nd level you remove it for better spells
@@RenoKyrieArmor of Agathys?
@@MatthewDragonHammerIt's melee specific, which is less optimal than range, mainly useful if your class or multiclass gives you extra protection for melee.
@@wassentme1891This
Also would you REALLY spend your low amount of Warlock slot for Hex and Agathys when you can cast idk
Spike Growth for Shutdown
Fireball for AOE Damage
Honestly a lot of the Subclass 1st level list are better than the actual Warlock 1st level list
With 90ft range, You can safely cast Hunter's Mark before combat starts (unless your DM is like "cast spell = combat begins"), and with a 120ft crossbow's range, it's really difficult to be caught in melee, if You didn't fall into some kind of trap. So probably the best option is Crossbow Expert with Hunter's Mark.
Well, a surprise round is completely reasonable.
I look forward the the playtest Crossbow Expert feat forever fixing hand crossbows. At that point, there is no need for a comparison because they arent competing, but doing very different things.
(Heavy Crossbow+ Crossbow expert) to ignore loading property is king for D10 that can be paired with favoured foe or hunters mark.
Mind I say a ranged weapon Fighter or warlock is superior to a ranger though full caster outright outdo any other class options.
I know this is mainly looking at the numbers form using the spells, but I personally feel using spells like Entangle to get targets stuck and out of the way, following Web given with Swarmkeeper.
If hunters mark let you move it around for free without bonus action, it would definitely feel better. But I was pretty shocked to see how close this actually was. I guess it comes down to how it actually feels when playing. Also, hunters mark kind of asks you not to ever switch targets for optimal damage whereas crossbow expert doesn't care. If you realize that the boss you hunters marked isn't as big of a threat as the orc that just crit the wizard, it can feel bad to switch and help the person who is probably going down next turn since you lose damage. Crossbow expert can kinda just switch on the fly.
I'm pretty sure the Favored foe die doesn't increase to 1d6 until lvl 6. So at lvl 5 it will still be 1d4..
Hunter Marks' target switching mechanic could work like Vow of Emity, without using an action at the start of the turn. Furthermore, if a favorite enemy allowed you to cast hunters mark more times at the highest possible level, it would be cool if it became concentration free from level 3 onwards (more or less like bestow curse).
Ranger is my favorite class and if I’m playing them as an archer I always choose longbow over hand crossbows.
The main reason is the terrible short-range of the hand crossbows. I absolutely never ever want to be within 30 feet of the enemies unless the constraints of the map give me no other choice.
If I’m doing a sniper AC and HP are probably not a priority, so being far away IS my defense.
Your damage per round is 0 if you’re dead. Also if you’re getting hit, whatever you’re concentrating on will probably be go down and be useless since rangers are not proficient in constitution saves.
I’ll move to 90 and cast hunters mark then use my movement every turn to get further and further away from the enemies until the map stops me, or I get to 600 ft.
They just need to give Rangers a feature around level 6 or so that removes the concentration requirement for Hunter's Mark.
I wish hunters mark replaced favored enemy. Make it "focused target" where you are paying special attention to where that creature is and when it is vulnerable. You would still need to start with a bonus action, but swapping would be a reaction to the current targets' death or a bonus action again if they were not dead, and it would be an ability instead of a waste of a spell slot. It fits the semi-feral woodsman a lot more, in my opinion.
Favoured foe is useful for the longbow ranger when saving spell slots ... it's not one or the other but mix and match as needed
I actually wish everything boiled down to this, because then you'd be free to choose whichever options sound more fun to you without worrying about having to make sacrifices with your choice.
nice review with the numbers! maybe you already reviewed in another video about the new 2024 game rules with the different versions of the feats? the new versions = better chance to hit but less damage, although different kinds of options are available for adding damage
Thank you for your information video
It's a good spell to keep around for a level 1 spell slot, even at higher level gameplay. Extra damage is extra damage, and that boss might make you lose concentration on your higher level spells.
I'd love to add a couple things about ha nter's mark: there will be rounds when you don't have to use you bonus action to switch target so you can you use it for some other things (if you cna disengage/hide as a rogue, or if you can drink a potion like a common houserule or something else)
What happens if you add elven accuracy or bigbear to the comparison? Does it move balance between ss and crossbiw expert?