I would be fascinated to see *you* interview Jeremy Crawford and ask him technical questions about how they made decisions about how these graphs should look and what the internal process is for calibrating damage output between classes. Its clear that they put a ton of work into balancing it but the ranger was a miss for some reason, and I'm interested to know why that is
That's an interesting proposition. The designers occasionally mention they have more technical tools available inside WotC, though they never show or explain those tools in any detail. Chris shows his work, and the results match what we generally experience during the game. So, it would be interesting if someone with access to the tools WotC uses internally to balance classes would discuss the existing issues in certain classes so we can determine if their process is truly worthwhile. I suspect Chris's evaluations will hold up well in comparison.
Ranger was absolutely missed and neglected. They just reused the Tasha's changes, added weapon masteries and nerfed Gloomstalker and called it a day. Absolute Cope out, absolutely neglected them.
I don't believe such thing would happen for a different reason: I do believe that, and this is my opinion and personal interpretation, that Chris represents a specific demography of players, like me and probably you guys, that care about optimization, theory crafting and efficiency. 5e came with a very "simplistic" approach to grab a newer audience that, to be fair, don't want to invest time into a hobby, but still want to play. 4e was their first attempt, 5e was the second and it worked. WotC doesn't care about optimization, because it doesn't matter if the Rangers damage is subpar, it matters that the Ranger player felt awesome tracking a pack of Orcs on a plain field and, for a lot of players, they don't care if their damage if subpar, or that the Monk is now stronger than you, because they can cast a suboptimal Volley to reach 2 targets instead of one. Perceived efficiency, instead of plain efficiency. They are trying to tune the game for a wide array of players and the optimization players are, in general, a smaller and older demography, not their target audience. I could be totally wrong, though, but the whole 5e mentality, the simplification of math, the agglutination of Advantages, the Concentration mechanic to reduce on-going effects and the lesser and lesser number that can be stacked show a market strategy that implies it.
Confirming what appeared obvious. Whiteboard builds don’t equal what happens in play a lot of the time, (or at least some of the time) but it gives us a good tool set to work with. Thank you Chris for all of these build videos, fantastic work.
I find a lot of builds focus on perfect situations and don't account for enemy AC or distance to target. Though I still might make hunters mark and hex function more like mage armor, so the rest of the spells get some play.
When you compare two classes, a white room is really the only effective way to do so, otherwise you could attribute a difference in damage or other output metric to differing circumstances. You always control your variables when testing something, it's basic science.
@SuperFizzah while you can't predict future events, it doesn't help to leave out variables. Lots of people don't account for AC and turns used for positioning. 100% hit and 5/5 turns able to attack will look a lot different than 70% hit and 4/5 or 3/5 turns able to attack. In the same situation a bow Ranger could be 80% hit to 5/5 or 4/5 turns able to attack. So the bow ranger pulls more evenly with a melee barbarian even if the potential damage for the barbarian is a lot higher.
I find it very intriguing that since hunters mark is the iconic feature, it seems rangers are supposed to be this class that hunts a single target. But most all their spells are area affect spells. So I guess they hunt their target with a lot of collateral damage!
A common reaction to seeing the mess of the 2024 Ranger was the surprise that at no point Hunters Mark became Concentration-free. It would be brilliant if we saw builds where the 13th Level ability Relentless Hunter became just this & HM could be used at the same time as other concentration spells! 🙂 13th level still would feel super late for that to happen but maybe that'd solve the Ranger's issues for the later tiers of play? 🤔
@limaTheNoob 1st level counts the same as full caster for multiclassing with other casters, weapon masteries, armor proficiency, and yes, free castings of hunter's mark. Second level gives a fighting style, fifth gives extra attack. I wouldn't multi further unless the 6th level subclass's feature is essential to the build. Rouges, Monks, and Druids are the most obvious candidates for multiclassing.
@limaTheNoob Second reply so as to not write books: Monks can use a 1 level dip to get weapon masteries in monk weapons. HM uses can make ki points go further and benefits on rounds 2+ from Monks making many attacks. Spells like jump and longstrider increase the monk's already formidable mobility. Weapon masteries and multi attack could benefit a druid using shilelegh tactics without too much spell slot loss. Rouges could benefit from spellcasting and (somewhat) from extra attack. HM would be useful if you already have advantage or don't need your cunning action. All three classes want to build either dex or wisdom or both anyway.
Alright, thanks for the confirmation. Effective immediately, hunter's mark may be applied as part of an attack and doesn't require concentration past level 10. It also does cool stuff™
Cool, I'm going to dip Ranger for my Paladin/Rogue/Fighter build for EVEN MORE DAMAGE!!! (This is why it is the way it is.) Ranger's need something like Sneak Attack, even if it only applies to marked targets.
That's almost exactly the change I'll be proposing to my DM, except I'll say the ranger can concentrate simultaneously on HM and one other spell starting at 10. That way, they get to "play with all the toys" but still have a chance of losing concentration. (I'll also be proposing a boost at level 20 since the capstone is so lackluster...)
Thanks for breaking down all these numbers. It seems pretty clear that, as it appears in the book, the ranger is going to need some help from either house ruling some stuff, magic items, or multiclassing. I'd say if I was going to play a ranged ranger today, I'd either do a 1-4 levels ranger to get the feel and flavor and then go fighter the rest of the way or take 5 levels in ranger for extra attack then go rouge the rest of the way to be able to add sneak attack and be good at several skills. On the positive side, the most people are playing in tier 2 where the difference is small enough that you probably wouldn't feel super left behind.
Between this Ranger video and the other one, it's quite clear that WOTC's claim that a no-concentration Hunter's Mark would have been overpowered was complete and utter bull. Most certainly so in late Tier 2 going on into Tier 3+.
@@Tausami Seriously, one big part of the solution is staring them right in the face in the form of the new Vengeance Paladin. Give Rangers the ability to cast or select targets with Hunter's Mark as part of their Attack action, like the new Vengeance Paladin can do with their Vow of Enmity. That'd be something good to give Rangers at, say, level 9, which is about the point their DPR starts to tail off. Massive action economy boost, plays nice with any bonus-action attacks they'd make or BA spells they'd cast (the latter would be possible if you use the slot-less castings of HM on the same turn), would translate to a solid DPR boost then. And then at level 13 just make Relentless Hunter remove concentration outright. It's not like they need to rewrite the whole class.
A part of me almost wonders if one of the reasons they didn't remove concentration from Hunter's Mark is because they didn't want to change the Vengeance Paladin's Oath spells, even though HM is pretty weak for them, too.
Maybe the way to play a ranger is as a small pc mounted on a beast companion with a lance. Lance gets full benefits from GWM and duelist fighting style while mounted. Mounted Combatant protects the mount who disengages or dashes for free at 7th level combined with the beasts own prone and your topple mastery for control and advantage. Then charger can get added in too because there's no reason you cant go full skirmish mode with that kind of mobility + topple.
@@pallen2645 I mean... you could also choose to not ride it if you want it to do damage. There were initiative issues with using it as an uncontrolled mount in 2014, especially as a melee character entering combat with a foe or switching targets. If your DM hand waved those problems because they'd slow down play then maybe just ask for homebrew.
Edit - see my reply below. Swift Quiver isn't as good as I thought because the GWM damage boost doesn't apply to bonus action attacks. It's perhaps a 60% boost to longbow damage. It's a really long wait to get to level 17 for damage that is still lackluster. Thank you for making this video! I've been ranting in comments for months about how rangers single target damage sucks. So I love how you've laid it out so clearly
Good news, Swift Quiver is still a trap! Because it's concentration you can't even run it the same time as Hunter's Mark, AND it still competes with HM for your bonus action! AND the GWM damage bonus doesn't even apply to Swift Quiver's attacks!
@tiradegrandmarshal Please ignore my initial reply. I see it now. Swift Quiver won't double your longbow damage more like a 60% increase. But you'd also be giving up your companion attacks in this build. So yeah, rangers are screwed. I hate Hunter's Mark. It competes for concentration and action economy and rangers don't really get enough attacks to make it worth it. Concentration on Hunter's Mark can't be broken at level 13? What a waste of a class feature
Hey Chris, consider using a Hand Crossbow and have a Nick weapon attack be replaced by Beast's Strike. +The dpr will be higher because you almost always have advantage from HCB's Vex and the beast's Help action. +Your bonus action is more free for HM & HoT +You only need Sharpshooter for the extra range then take ASI all the way It's like 2-in-1 TWF and ranged build. I can try to do the math if anyone asks for it.
I'd love to see you present a ranger build wherein we imagine that Hunter's Mark is not concentration, letting us concentrate on something else, just to see how such a hypothetical situation would stack up against the other classes. I suspect it would improve the Ranger's DPR,, but I'm not sure that would be enough.
It wouldn't really matter much as Ranger also doesn't really have much spells that adds damage. The key problem is that it adds so little damage that it's not really worth using a bonus action for unless you have nothing else to use it on. The main joke is how Paladins gets a D8 bonus damage for free while Hunters have to use a bonus action and concentration to get a D6.
The problem with saying that maybe the Ranger does better with AOE is that if I want play a Nuker, I’m looking at a Wizard Evoker or a Sorcerer. Not only will those classes do more damage but you’ll still have the option of dropping Control spells which is often a better choice than doing straight damage, anyway. It’s disappointing because thematically the Ranger is my favorite Martial Class. I also think it can be a trap for new players since there are so many popular Rangers in fiction.
Seems like 2024 Ranger would shine more in fights that have more than 1 target, since almost all of their spells that do direct damage also damage creatures around the target, such as Hail of Thorns, Lightning Arrow and Conjure Barrage.
Wich kinda goes against the theme of the explorer and slayer of monsters, usually hunters choose one target and fell that instead of handling an entire herd (HM being a way of expressing this theme in the class)
I think that's right, but then we would be comparing rangers to AoE casters. That would be an interesting analysis. I think rangers are likely to do better in multi-target fights than most martials but not as good as an AoE caster. Suppose they also do better against single targets than most AoE casters (I don't know that that's true). In that case, that might be an interesting (but potentially narrow) niche where rangers are your Swiss army knives, useful in most combat situations, but rarely the MVP.
@@PlayWatch_616 not sure how either of those themes/concepts for a Ranger makes them exclusively a single target specialist. Explorers are about geographic related knowledge and skills, where Monster Hunters can be anything from killing a single big creature (like a T Rex) or a hoard of smaller creatures (like a clan of goblins). For single target Ranger it might be better to go Hunter for Hunter Lore, Colossus Slayer and Multiattack Defence, so you have at least decent damage, useful knowledge on the targets defences/weaknesses and better survivability, all at no additional actions.
@@Vizardlorde same argument can be made with single target damage, where the Ranger is lower than classes like Fighter. It is just a question of if you want anything else out of a character besides damage. Even with the results in these videos, I’m still gonna play a Ranger for flavour and I like some of the Ranger specific spells. I’d love to play a Ranger themed around using their version of Smites
Oh how ye mighty have fallen. RIP 5.14e Gloomstalker SS/XBE. Not sure if there's a way for you to add names to each graph node in post when you're zooming in for dramatic tier-by-tier effect, but it would help a little with the clarity even though I know you're describing it aloud. Thanks for the breakdown TM!
Yeah, I basically predicted this during the unearthed arcana phase. Paladin gets improved divine smite at level 11. Ranger gets...a subclass feature, and the ONLY subclass feature that bumped damage by a reasonable amount was Beastmaster. So you have to pick Beastmaster just to keep up with a no-subclass Paladin. On the bright side, Rogue turned out way better than most of us expected!
I don’t think the Rogue will perform as well as shown in the calculations as Cunning Strikes was ignored for the damage calculations. Without Cunning Strikes there’s barely any differences between 2014 and 2024 to the base Rogue class (off the top of my head…weapon masteries, steady aim, epic boons, and the True Strike rework…that really shouldn’t be factored into a Rogue only comparison). The subclasses are better though.
I still say: Rogue is the second-most buffed class. I'm not sure it's enough. I played with Cunning Strikes on an 8th level Rogue among 2014 classes, and it still dropped off hard after 5th level. Unfortunately, the Cunning Strikes were not as useful as often as expected, and when the enemy saves, you feel like trash because you sacrificed damage for nothing. The big reason it didn't feel great, though, is just because you don't get Epic Moments. None of your abilities are resource-driven, and they are balanced accordingly. That is to say: weaker and less interesting.
@@jesseseva2219 I was talking about Rogues? Oh. I see what you're saying. Yes. This is a potential issue with Half-Casters: their resources can drop off hard compared to casters, and they don't always get exciting spells -- especially not for their level. Paladin Smites kind-of kept this from happening, because you could nuke the bad guy _hard._ Bless + Aura is a very potent combo that holds up well across many levels. I don't think they buffed Ranger's spell list enough to say that they will definitely get those moments. Spike Growth is an awesome spell that your Monk ally can definitely use to do more damage than these calculations, and it also restricts the battlefield. But if you have a Druid in the party, you are not going to feel epic about dropping a 3rd of the Spike Growths they can.
Seems Wizards doesn't feel that the Ranger needs to be a primary damage dealer because it's a utility class as well. Problem with that thinking is that the Ranger's utility becomes irrelevant in tiers 3 and 4 where it's damage starts to fall behind. Survival skills don't matter any more when you have long range teleportation and now that stealth triggers invisibility you can't even sneak past half the creatures because they have true sight.
@@b1ackm4gic yea the spell utility is pretty good but still thay should atleast do 90% of damage a fighter can as now fighters have the best armour and best saving throws they are a defensive monster
7:30 with how the new weapon equipping and loading rules are, you can get around the need for crossbow expert by using 2 heavy crossbows, unequiping 1 as part of your first attack and equipping the other as part of your second
I think it could be a kewl series of videos to try to play around with some fixes for the Ranger. What happens to the numbers of you do little things like Scaling Hunter's Mark by 1d6 every level above the 1st. Letting Rangers do multiple things with the same Bonus Action that they cast or move Hunter's Mark. Example > They can move Hunter's Mark to a new target AND command their Beast to attack as part of the same bonus action.
It would be really cool if their 14th level ability, Nature's Veil, allowed you to cast hunters mark on a target when you used it. Would really reduce their bonus action demands.
I'd word it as "At X level, the Ranger may cast or mark a new target with Hunter's Mark whenever they take a bonus action. The Ranger may only have one creature at a time marked by this spell." That said, my fix would be "At X level, creatures marked by Hunter's Mark are considered to be 2 creatures for the purposes of Ranger spells and abilities that are able to target multiple creatures". That way you could cleave from your HM target back into it, double up your Hail of Thorns damage on your HM target or force an enemy to save twice against AoE CC effects. It gives them a unique hybrid AoE + single-target playstyle.
I think I fall in the Pointy Hat camp. Ranger should be a pet class. It's the one archetype we really don't have and would make the Ranger more unique flavor in and out of combat. And that way, you build all of your abilities and synergies with the pet in mind. If the pet could hold your Hunter's Mark, what might that do for your damage and utility in combat?
The interesting part is that Ranger didnt get any worse, in fact, it is objectively better than it used to be. But it just didnt get a lot of the goodies other classes did.
@@AwesomeWookiee rangers did not need sharpshooter to be viable, and archery + new great weapon master is more than fine IN COMPARISON to Tasha/2014 ranger The bigger issue is that it didn't get the same scaling other classes did at tier 3
@@AwesomeWookiee all sharpshooters are worse. That doesn't specifically hurt the Ranger. The Fighter takes the biggest blow because they had more arrows per round in tier 3/4, while the Ranger has spells
For the warlock, lvl6 celestial feature also works on truestrike, so with agonising blast you would add your Charisma 3 times on a truestrike hit. If you get a magic bow somewhere (cleric in the party to cast magic weapon or multiclass 3 levels of war cleric for BA attacks) you can also make a bow your pact weapon for a ranged pact of the blade warlock
Yeah I’ve done a little math a while back and I think the celestial warlock played that way is a little better than the baseline until level 11 when it falls behind a bit. However that does give me an idea for a holy assassin build with 7 levels of celestial warlock and 13 levels of assassin rogue.
So this is saying that: A) Hunter's Mark does not need concentration or a bonus action; let the ranger cast it before making an attack. If I'm shooting you or stabbing you, I'm hunting you. B) Level 5, let the ranger cast Hunter's Mark on tracks. C) The ranger shouldn't need bonus actions to tell their pet to attack. It's an animal spirit, it's intelligent, it's trained, let it attack your enemies.
Maybe the ranger giving BA commands would give their beast advantage & expand their crit range? No commanded attacks would be normal? In essence you’re using your BA to tell your beast the perfect time & way to attack.
With the change to Beast Companions no longer being tamed animals, it doesn’t make sense that Rangers need to give up an attack or BA to command it when a summoned creature doesn’t. It’s like saying the one you actually have a bond with and spend your whole career training is worse than a random spirit you temporarily contract. Logical dumpster fire. Changing Hunter’s Mark’s functionality for Rangers only (at a level above 5 to prevent an exploitable multi class dip) to ignore concentration on the free castings, and increase damage so it has some scaling seems like the obvious choice.
There's not much point casting hunters mark on tracks if activates on attacks. It doesn't need precast anymore with those rules. All that feature would do is give advantage on finding... well more tracks I suppose.
@@dozencatfish1667 What? It would give advantage on finding more tracks...which then leads to advantage on finding the creature...i.e., it makes you better at tracking. That seems like having a point. Indeed, it is the main point of the spell other than damage.
Something else that I think should be considered or addressed is that you are not just looking at single target dpr, but at non-moving single target dpr. Melee builds are going to struggle in moving fights where ranged characters likely will not. Sometimes one or even multiple rounds of damage may be missed of a 5 round fight for example, and that is not an uncommon event. That doesn't even take into account grappling eating up turns where they can hit every round too! I don't think it's a deviation comparable to AoE damage, but I think its enough of an impact that it should be addressed when giving this info. It may be painting rangers or even ranged rogues and warlocks unfairly in this metric. Also want to say that I appreciate these breakdowns! Its good for the community to have people like you to look at this aspect of the game as well.
In the context of these videos, the ranger is actually quite puzzling. Because from all the previous charts, it seems that WotC managed to bring most martial classes up to par in regards to DPR, much to my surprise. At least they all appear in the same ballpark. Ranger is the strange outlier...
It’s funny how the community thought that the Hunter’s Mark buffs were too weak, Chris tried to tell us they were fine, but now that he’s actually looked at the math he has realized that the Hunter’s Mark buffs are in fact too weak just like everyone thought.
People in the comments absolutely roasted me for disagreeing with him when I tried to logic out why it was gonna fall behind. I'm glad they finally get to see those of us that were saying it was a problem were in fact correct.
@@TreantmonksTemple Hey two weapon fighting should be ok if you take the Magic initiate background to get True Strike then you have the light club with the shellielh cantrip and the scimitar nick property. So first round Bonus action Shellieh and then cast truestrike with club and then nick with scimitar. Second round cast hunters mark.
@@TreantmonksTempleit probably looked good versus Warlock baseline. Your videos are definitely showing us Warlock baseline is becoming obsolete quite fast
I mentioned this on another treantmonk video but my fix for HM is just add the sentence - “Additionally, Whenever you start casting the spell, you can modify it so that it doesn’t require Concentration. If you do so, the spell’s duration becomes 1 minute for that casting. The spell ends if you cast this spell again or if you become incapacitated” Now it treads the line between concentration free and eating all of your concentration and is in line with other design elements in 2024, plus adds an element of player choice - even if superficially. Do you conserve spell slots by hanging onto a long duration HM or use it in tandem with a different concentration spell for a single combat?
This is great. Would be more in line with other features if it was a part of Favoured Enemy instead of the spell itself but that's a very minor difference
doable, but less smooth in terms of streamlining that the 2024 D&D seems to lean on Since low tier dmg isn't the real issue here I'd rather have a simpler solution, like maybe giving Rangers Two Extra Attacks at level 11, or then reworking Favored Enemy entirely to a simpler feature that doesn't rely on bonus actions
@@_mosscat the issue here is that it doesn't disencourage a few level dips in Ranger, while not offering something that encourages a single class Ranger... so its a fix, but low on scope
@@Itomon This is getting less into quick fixes and more about a full homebrew class rework but it's interesting nontheless. I've always argued that the main issue around ranger is a confused class identity. There's like 100 different character fantasies all mashed into one. Legolas, the witcher, aragorn, the vague concept of hunters, "guy with a pet", and real life rangers protecting nature reserves. My solution would be giving rangers mini-subclasses similar to the 2014 (or even better, bg3) warlock pacts. Currently I got a legolas-style one that just generally boosts martial stuff, a witcher/hunter style one that does single targets, and a druidy one with some extra spellcasting. Each gets a boost to HM at level 2, a boost to extra attack at 6, and some things i havent figured out yet at 14 and 18. For now my ideas are: for the martial-type, heavy armour, and additional fighting style, and a HM that scales like the martial art die at 2, and at 6 after switching your HM you get a free attack against that creature. For the hunter-type, choose 2 creature types and gain similar benefits to 2014 and gain the benefits of HM for free against them at level 2, and at level 6 when you hit both attacks from extra attack against a marked creature the second one automatically crits. The druid-type gets more cantrips and spells and applies HM to spells, and gets a bladesinger extra attack at 6. I haven't done all the maths yet so this might need some balancing. This version also has the no cocentration one minute version of HM, but as a part of relentless hunter at level 13. It's a lot of extra features but I honestly think the ranger could use them
That's a bit of a problem at low levels due to dipping and for people like Oath of Vengeance Paladins. Any fixes to Hunter's Mark should be something a Ranger should get at, like, 7th to 10th level.
Just a comment on what was said at tge very end- I build a blade lock using agonising blast on green flame blade and was pleased with the numbers, especially with a few other blade evocations thrown on top (eldritch smites etc.)
Thanks for the breakdown. As you said, it's scope point is single target damage which the Ranger's spell kit isn't the best for bolstering. And that's fine in theory as AOE party damage is also important in many combat situations . . . but it does fly in the face of hunter's mark which is very deliberately single target. In thinking about HM, 1 of 2 options would have helped that (surprisingly neither being the concentration-less option):changing targets to a free action rather than bonus action, and scaling damage with Ranger level similar to monk's martial arts die or cantrips (not a huge bump, but every little bit helps).
I played a longbow ranger in 5e. I found I didn't do massive damage, but I dealt the most consistent damage in the party. Eventually I did a multiclass into rogue, not even for Sneak Attack, but for Aim. Aim+Elven Accuracy+Sharpshooter led to pretty consistent massive damage. It was a very good class to be buffed by feats, but obviously lacking in that big alpha strike on its own.
Maybe at lvl 11 allowing a ranger to get a 3rd attack against an enemy they’ve marked could be a way to boost their tier 3 output? Plus having hunters mark increase from a d6 to d8 at level 6, d8 to d10 at lvl 13, and d10 to d12 at lvl 20 could help.
Yeah… when Crawford was talking up the ranger a few months ago it was such strong evidence that he doesn’t know the second thing about this game. Don’t understand why a multibillion dollar company can’t get someone to do some basic math.
Fighter 1 Archfey bladelock 19: Elven Accuracy (18 CHA) GWM (14 STR) Heavy Armor Master (15 STR) Inspiring Leader (19 CHA) Boon of Fate (20 CHA) the point of the build above is to show that GWM can easily be paired with another marital feat to get +2 STR for an elegant transition to heavy armor on a gish, since you already would have 13 STR as a prerequisite. In this case heavy armor master works well with armor of agathys and archfey's damage reduction feature.
I wonder if the graphs for base class damage are getting screwed because of the fact that subclasses hold a bigger piece of the power budget in each class. Like, every ranger subclass has a straight up damage increase if i recall right, but rogue subclasses may not have one, so the rogue looks better than the ranger when class-less
@treantmonk's temple what about using lightning arrow as a smite crit? it would probably make the math on this harder, but this spell seems to be made to use when you crit anyway. on average the dpr probably won't look very different, but in practice when you're playing you're probably gonna feel the effects of it
I blame all the dnd RUclipsrs who were saying without concentration hunters mark was too strong. They should just locked it behind Ranger lvls like Paladin with divine favor or even warlock with hex since it’s also a class exclusive. And this would be the part where I plug my version of the Ranger but it’s a lot. Long story short changed hunters mark to: - no concentration - bonus action cast but auto seeks closet creature on kill at higher lvls - bonus to attack rolls instead of damage - comes online at 2nd lvl to avoid 1 lvl dip shenanigans - scales from a d4 to a d12 by 17th lvl with other benefits baked in Yes it messes with the maths of dnd but with GWM and SS damage being toned down doesn’t change much. At the end of it all, the dice gods still need to be on your side. Take care everyone.
I wonder ... if we consider rangers and paladins the same - being half casters. Would scalingthe damage of hunters mark be something we should do? And if so, should it be 1d8 per 2 levels? Meaning 1d8 at 1st lvl and 2d8 at 3rd lvl spell slot and 3d8 on a 5th lvl spell slot... meaning the free hunters mark is always a 1st lvl but it brings scaling to the damage of the rangers feature ability akin to paladins. Since hunters mark is PER ATTACK either rangers need to make more attacks (two weapon fighting) or HM needs to scale. Honestly, a two weapon fighting monk is better with hunters mark than the ranger... admittedly you'd have to multiclass into ranger... but 1 lvl costs almost nothing for this benefit AND rangers don't increase damage of their feature the more they level anyway...
Hey Treantmonk! These videos on the Ranger inspired me a bit so I'll be posting a build of my own for it coming this Sunday. I'm maybe a little bolder with some assumptions, which really just increases variance which we're not really marking on our graphs. I'll drop you a mention if you want to take the time to look at it after it drops.
It’ll be interesting to see if archery fighters have similar issues with single target damage. I imagine they’ll be a bit better due to their additional extra attack at level 11, but it will probably still be fairly low compared to melee builds.
Hey chris, thank you for all your work and contribution. You are GOAT. How do you would role the interaction between nick and cleave extra attacks and attack replacing features like pact of the chain, VB Extra attack, Beastmaster companion and etc? Do they work together? Conjure animals spell do damage twice per round? once when we move the spirits on our turn and again on the targets turn when he ends his turn in place or try to leave steping into the 10ft radius of the spirits.
I have posted this before, but I have a houserule for the 2024 Ranger. Level 5 feature: Quickened Mark: Whenever you start casting Hunter's Mark, you can modify it so that it doesn’t require Concentration. If you do so, the spell’s duration becomes 1 minute for that casting. Level 13 change: Relentless Hunter: Taking Damage can no longer break your Concentration on spells. (All spells, not just Hunter's Mark). Level 20 change: Foe Slayer: The damage of your Hunter's Mark is 2d6 rather than 1d6. Are these changes enough to cure everything on the Ranger? No. But, I really believe it will make them so much better. They don't really have a problem until Teir 2. So, level 5 giving them a way to cast Hunter's Mark without Concentration will allow them to use their other spells more. That change would make Relentless Hunter useless, so we make it apply to all Concentration spells. And give them a little damage boost at Level 20.
im glad everything is pretty consistently beating the warlock baseline especially melee builds. you SHOULD be trading the safety of fighting at a distance for damage and going from the simplest build to more complext builds should benefit you. i think it’s still a good baseline.
In practice how safe is fighting at distance really? It gets safer when you have people get in the face of an enemy since it suffers disadvantage or faces an opportunity attack, but that only eliminates some of the threat if you have multiple enemies. At every tier of play you have plenty of ranged enemies, such as goblins. If you don't have a battleground with real cover, you're open to getting shot. So it's safer with caveats, and it's certainly true in normal play that sometimes it isn't safer at all.
Now that dual wielding is viable, have you considered taking Shillelagh to bump your weapon damage from that pesky d6 to something higher. This even gives you access to the slow property
I'd love it if you did a short video about what happens when you scale the Hunters Mark die one up after every 6 levels or so, so it would end up being 1d12 instead of 1d6 at the end.
Early on the rules committee decided to classify rangers as an "expert" class. They gave they a skill expertise, but I think they forgot to make then experts at anything. If rangers were supposed to be experts at primal magic, then why didn't they give them the full druid spell list? It seems more likely that rangers were supposed to be experts at Hunter's Mark, so why didn't they make it scale? IMO rangers should be experts at dealing tremendous a single target damage and HM could have been a way to accomplish that. I personally hate Hunter's Mark. But if they had made it so rangers' damage could keep up with rogues, I would have grumbled and complained and use it all the way to level 20. If HM damage and features scaled could have helped make it fun to use instead of a chore. But I don't want to get too carried away.
I think some part of Ranger having lower damage makes sense. They have magic, so they're not necessarily meant to be a striker class like martials. Except... they don't have any unique non-spell features for exploration or role play. So they're just left with... combat, and their spell list. But is there even a single unique non-combat spell on their spell list? Where are the features that say "now THIS is why you play a Ranger"? The beastmaster having a fairly tanky companion is the only thing I've found yet that Ranger does that multiclassing other builds doesn't do better. Sure, their package of features is unique in getting all the things they have in one place, but... aside from some free casts of Hunter's Mark and a cool pet, it feels like they just don't have much going for them. :\ Which means... we're back to where we were before. They're a pretty good 1-5 chassis for getting Extra Attack, if you specially need an Expertise and want their level 3 subclass feature. It's a pretty big oof so far. Maybe someone will find some hidden gem that makes them click, but... should it really be this hard or need this many eyes on it for the design to make sense?
Would things be better if you focused on Ensnaring Strike instead of Hail of Thorns? If you take the chance of failing the dex save for HoT and apply it to ES for the save against being Restrained, maybe that potential for advantage bridges the gap.
It's insane how every other class got either slight or major buffs and quality of life improvements, while the ranger lost half the features it got from Tasha's and lost all the features that gave the class its flavor.
Chris, whats really gonna be scary is when you compare a melee/ranged valor bard to the ranger. I have a hunch that the valor bard is going to put out better melee damage (thanks font of moonlight) and even possibly better ranged damage (true strike/attack with crossbows)? Also, the bard will probably also totally excel in out of combat scenarios as well.
I watched many videos of youtubers reacting to the 2024 PHB classes. Ranger was almost universally a disappointment. At no point in anyone's reactions did their faces light up with delight upon seeing the Ranger. Certainly not like the reactions i saw for the Monk. Most of the other classes left reviewers smiling and excited as well. But not the Ranger. At best, people were saying things like "its alright," or "its not that bad," or "its at least better than it was," or (my favorite) "the Ranger excels at other facets of play- like exploration- that arent really well-represented in D&D." (If a class excels at things that aren't in the game then.... huh?) My litmus test is: does this class delight me and excite me and make me want to play it? And for the new Ranger, the answer is No. I might multiclass a Ranger with something. Or dip it for another class, like Monk. But, on its own, Ranger (and for the most part its subclasses, too) is just a disappointment. Its not horrible. Its not unplayable. And some aspects of it can still be fun and viable. But, compared to the glow-ups we saw for classes like the Monk, the Barbarian, the Fighter, and the Rogue (all of which got new and interesting class features that give players more choice as to how to play those classes)... the Ranger just got shafted. The design limits your options, rather than expands them. The base class features pigeon-hole you into either abandoning your spells (for the most part) or abanoning your class features (again, for the most part). If they made the Paladin's Aura require concentration as well as Smites- so that you had to choose one or the other- that would be close to how the new Ranger feels.
Seems like all they needed to do was make Hunters mark non concentration, and deal 2d6 past lvl 10 and Ranger would be fine. So thats just how ill homebrew HM at my table for my players.
I'm currently working on a build for a Beastmaster Ranger. DEX 14, WIS 17, Background Guide (Shillelagh), Dueling Fighting style. The whole point is that WIS buffs all parts of the beast from BM.
Just in time! TY! The beast is easily resurrectable as an action (1 spell slot). If it soaks up some monster actions to kill it off, I think that is good. Like the Druid of old, this is a lot of hit points that can be soaked up, which never need to be healed. The beast HP scale pretty well with level, like having a second Ranger standing around to take damage, so I feel like the damage-only analysis is missing something. Too bad there is no good way to use the beast in combination with another ability like sneak attack. Perhaps the beast of the land prone is useful, however, I suspect not for ranged builds.
Hey so, I know its somewhat unrelated to the findings on this video but, I think Steel Wind Strike now interacts with Hunter's Mark... HM before required a "weapon attack". Something that SWS isn't. But now HM works on any attack roll so that'd means up to 5 HM procs. Kinda cool
im kinda glad dnd 2024 isnt a whole 6th edition, no doubt in my mind they wouldve just given up on ranger and dropped it, thats probably why they just havent given it any love. what annoys me the most is how they constantly talked about how new the class was and how different it is and how its changed the most out of any class other than the fighter, and then revealed nothing new. Yeah it wasnt 2014 ranger but its mainly the same as tashas, especially after many different iterations in playtests
As long as we’re talking raw damage, Rangers need a better Hunter’s Mark with actual upgrades (their level 13 feature is a joke). - 1) Hunter’s Mark needs to increase damage based on spell slots, not number of attacks. I think the play test version was better, but based on these numbers a +1d6 per higher spell slot level applied on the first attack to land is probably needed here. - 2) Remove concentration sooner. Level 5 or 6 is a good place that requires a substantial investment in the class so it isn’t free, but soon enough that you can start using more spells. - 3) Upgrade Hunter’s Mark more. Have Hunter’s Mark impose disadvantage on saves against Ranger spells so you benefit regardless of if you attack or cast spells. You could even improve this feature by allowing the Ranger to impose disadvantage on a save against a spell cast by an ally as a reaction a number of times per day. Have it so you always know the location of a Hunter’s Marked target within 30-60ft of you and suffer no penalties if the creature is invisible/hidden from you. The class just has a startling lack of synergy in their features. This is just me spitballing here, but this is a vast improvement to the class that provides some much needed synergy between core features.
I like that they buffed lightning arrow and hail of thorns, but they really should have made it to where the original target doesn’t get a saving throw. They should have to just take the damage like a smite would do
I am definitely giving Rangers a feature that lets them use Hunter's Mark without Concentration at around levels 7 to 9, and bring the Ranger-capstone damage boost to Hunter's Mark at around levels 11-14
I do think a more interesting breakdown would be for the 4 combat encounters to be different types. One combat against a group of six creatures each at CR equal to the player minus two. Special rule of CR 1/4 at level 1, CR 1/2 at level 2. One combat against a group of three creatures each at CR equal to the player minus one. Special rule of CR 1/2 at level 1. One combat against a group of two creatures each at CR equal to the player plus one. One combat aganist a single creature a CR player plus two. Adjust the hit chance as appropriate. When appropriate, presume percentage chance to hit multiple enemies with aoe attacks as based on size of aoe and number of enemies.
What comes after the Warlock, the Bard? I'm really looking forward to your analysis of the new Valor Bard, even though I'm assuming a nerf for the CME, with scaling only at 1d8 for each spell slot level above 4.
I would be very curious to see what a beast master with two weapon fighting giving up an attack to command the beast to attack and using the ba to command the beast again would do in T3 play. Taking Shellelagh as well for a couple of nice club attacks could be interesting
Any thoughts on just giving the ranger the level 11 multi-attack from fighter? Would love to see the projection on that. The level 11 feature for ranger has always felt poor. We had one build where the hunter ranger gave up Conjuration spells at creation and got the 3rd, 11th level fighter attack in exchange. Roleplay-wise, we said the motivation to protect the material plane against the ‘wilds’ of outsiders was the motivation for training more with fighters than druid types, thus the 3rd (but not 4th) multi attack. Thanks.
What would the Ranger damage output look like if we gave them a second bonus action at level 11 and allowed them to use one of their BA's for an extra ranged attack and single offhand (i.e. don't allow two dual wielder BA's to attack. just one)? Essentially, they would get to use HM more freely, allow dual wield feat to add damage and bow builds to be relevant and beast masters could actually use their beasts. I would still think they could lose the concentration requirement for HM at level 6 as well but not overly necessary.
Hey Chris! Love your videos! Appreciate your work analyzing all of these new classes. As a big fan of the ranger, I hate to see it ranking lower compared to other martials. However, I do think there is one build you haven't analyzed yet, which I've believed from day one is the best damage build for rangers in 2024. You've already stumbled into part of it, but you haven't taken it to its natural conclusion yet. So.... Please do a build of a heavy weapon wielding archer beastmaster who uses summons, as often *and as early* as possible. Rangers should use Summon Beast. If you're going for max reliable damage, use flyby with both beastmaster beast and summoned beast. 4 attacks at lvl 5. More later as both beasts get additional attacks from the beastmaster feature and 4th lvl slots, for 6 total attacks. Summon Fey is also an option, but the beast with flyby will have better survivability. We know Hunter's Mark doesn't increase damage a ton, but you've already proved that summoning does. I believe you just didn't go far enough with it. I'm also interested to see WIS be maxed on a ranger that does this. With Archery +2, you could argue Rangers don't need a DEX above 16. Maxing WIS would improve both the beastmaster beast and summons, and you get more mileage as they get more attacks. You can still probably get to WIS 20, DEX 18 at 20th lvl.
What this tells me is that if they were going to force hunter's mark down every Ranger's throat they could have allowed it to scale naturally as you leveled up. Maybe not at a crazy rate but 2d6 as a 3rd level spell and 3d6 at 5th level, granting you the highest version with you free uses. That would have made at least some difference here.
17:00 Whoa whoa whoa... Beast of the Land makes a very good tank because it's so expendable! It soaks up (L+1)x5 HP, if it goes down your actions and bonus actions are free up, and it can get all its HP back for a single spell slot after combat. Apart from a character with damage resistance, I can't see that I'd rather have any PC taking the damage over my beast tanking it.
My thought on fixing ranger is dropping concentration at 6 and possibly making it a free action tonmove hunters mark, I don't think the breaks the class. I also think that in tier 3 the party will kill at least an enemy that they focus per turn which means first round cast HM and every subsequent round move it, which means never using your beast or a bonus action spell. Only if you are fighting something particularly hearty will you have your BA available. The kit for Ranger is broken. It is not even front-loaded to the point that you may want to play ranger for a few levels, then multiclass into something else, just needs to be avoided.
How about trying a Ranged Fighter build for comparison? I feel like the rogue being the only reference is not enough data... even though it's pretty clear that the ranger is in a bad spot.
I am curious how the Artificer compares to the 2024 half-casters in terms of power and versatility 🤔. Also the Ranger is the Jack of All Trades, ok single and multi target damage, has spells, fighting style and weapon mastery, has crowd control. Is good outside of combat with survival, tracking, foraging etc etc. So I think for what the Ranger is its alright that it doesn't keep up with the 5 specifically single target damage dealers in terms of DPR, they are not supposed to after all.
I miss calculation for ranged ranger using Spike Growth and Heavy crossbow and push weapon mastery. I wonder if the damage boost from Spike Growth outweighs the turn needed for the spell.
Beasts are *not* as vulnerable as you think. The new level 7 Exceptional Training lets your companion use its bonus action to DODGE EVERY TURN! It's a feature that makes them into really good tanks, much more survivable. And I think Chris has slept on it, probably just going off of the Tasha's companion, which was kind of wimpy. They didn't get an AC or HP bump, but this change Choosing Beast of the Land and keeping it up front while using Charge would be safe enough and boost the damage a decent amount.
Starting the video and really interested to hear the reasoning why to use Longbow over 2 heavy xbows with the new weapon draw/stow mechanics. Getting a magic weapon is the reason i quess.
To play a ranged "Ranger", it will probably be 1 level of Rogue, 5 levels of Gloom Stalker Ranger to get HM, Archery, Dread Ambusher on Round 1, and 2 attacks, then Rogue the rest of the way to scale Sneak Attack Dice.
The way I'd build a beastmaster ranger would be to go ranger 12/rogue 8 or ranger 16/rogue 4. This way you'd get 2x epic boon feats and have 22 dex by the time you're 20 (as the ranger capstone blows). I'd grab GWM for the longbow and use the rest on ASI's. The beast master's big powerspike is their level 11 feature - so no real need to continue after that. I'd probably go arcane trister to keep my spell slot progression up and allow the use of fun mage spells. You'd also have a TON of expertise on skills as well as all the low level spells for utility (both ranger and mage).
... yikes. You'd think that Ranger would be MUCH better at single target damage, considering that their most iconic spell increases the damage they deal when they focus fire on an enemy, but nope.
Doesn't scale. And only 2 attacks, unlike Fighter. As I've watched these videos, it seems to me that Rangers are multi-target damaging dealers. Most of their spells do AOE or multi-target damage. Hunter's mark would be great on a fighter or monk with all those extra attacks. (Although not at range for the monk.) Since the spell doesn't scale until level 20 and you don't get more than the two attacks you get at level 5, it's not a major damage dealing boost.
Thanks for this video. This is my favorite class and favorite archetype, so I’m really disappointed by this result. But it’s better to know. I’ll look to fighter and rogue instead for my next archer.
@@jacobjensen7704 It's worth examining how Beastmaster + Longbow + Summon Fey works. Summon Fey was a big improvement for damage from 13th level on...abandoning Hunter's Mark for it also frees up the bonus action, so it'd be even bigger here. And the Beastmaster build is closer to start with.
@jacobjensen7704 the question is, did you? That was melee and took an action to cast fey in combat. Use your concentration for an hour long fey and you can assume it's up before combat. Use truestrike and find familiar with heavy xbow beast of the sky and full wisdom build and you can match the ranged assassin damage. 25 dpr lvl 6 32 dpr level 9 42 dpr lvl 12 51 dpr lvl 15 It's not awesome but it's respectable for ranged
@@breathetyb8467 The problem with Summon Fey is the low HP/AC creature that must get into melee, has low fly speed, and doesn't have flyby. All while being subject to Concentration. The hour long duration is a trap - it'll last one round in most combats, two if lucky. By having vital statistics tied to spell slot it really shafted the Ranger vs the Druid due to the delayed spell slot progression.
It goes a bit against the theme, but I think a ranged ranger would actually be improved by throwing in throwing daggers. With nick weapon mastery, you can chuck two of them for one attack in an attack action, you get a more mileage out of Hunter's Mark damage. So, at level 5, you would be doing Long Bow Attack + Dagger (main) + Dagger (nick) for an attack action. Additionally, you can replace one of the daggers with your pet attack on any turns where you cannot use your bonus action for a pet attack (i.e. [re]applying Hunter's Mark).
It would been cool if the beast could apply hunter mark on hit. That way you don't have to worry about choosing between moving the hm or using your beast.
Full Druid might beat out ranger in single target damage, especially a stars Druid. True strike longbow, 2d8, then add the ba shot from starry form plus whatever you’re concentrating on.
Yeah, I think that sort of analysis is needed to balance the conversation because many people are taking this information and making bad assumptions that Rangers do poorly in combat overall
@@Chaosmancer7 people are not taking this information to make assumptions. This information only confirms what the majority (source: trust me bro lol) of the community already thinks about ranger. Like, we're all experienced enough at this game to develop a good intuition of what may or may not be good. Not a perfect process, but decently one. Intuition said it would be shit. Math is saying it would be shit. There's no "hidden actual play" aspect to change this. We KNOW how actual play goes, well enough to also know ranger is just inferior to the other options all around
I was thinking that a Sword and Board Battle Master Fighter is really good at baiting out missed opportunity attacks so they can get a Riposte attack. Sap gives Disadvantage on the enemies next attack. Plus you have heavy armor and a shield for good AC.
I just house ruled that Hunters Mark while still a bonus to cast, I allow the target to be switched once on your turn for free. Then starting at level 6, Ranger's add half their Ranger's level (rounded down) in damage to their first attack on their Hunter's Mark target.
The ranger is going to be a "splash only" class until further notice. I'm playing a shadow monk for a new game that will go into tier 3. Getting two levels of ranger is super useful for the fighting style feat, weapon mastery, and hunter's mark. These three when combined with a monk's skill set is absolutely bonkers.
I think 1 way to fix it: When you cast HM from class feature (column ranger) you should add 1 die for each tear 1 at liv5, 2 at liv 11 and 3 at liv 17 This way you should safe from strange multiclass op build, and keep the vibes of the main class
That maybe a bit too strong, especially with the fact that you add this with each attack so at tier 4, you would be dealing 4d6 with each attack, for a total of 8d6, which is similar to the rogue's sneak attack and if you use swift quiver or beast master, the total becomes 12d6, which is a lot of damage instead, make the die scale like the monk's martial arts die, rather than becoming a d10 at level 20
@@giuseppesiena955 yes, but those require spell slots hunter's mark & attacks are basically for free, so being able to dish out the damage of these spells on the regular is way too strong Almost everyone agrees that conjure minor elementals is broken, making the ranger stronger than that would make it even more broken
@@ryen0262 it could be at least done with 1 minute this way. So you have 3/4 limited nova damage day, very bursted and unique. Change only the dice dmg is not enough comparing other melee classes. And change the HM as not concentration spell from liv1 as many said, it's wrong it will be a 1/2 deep class like the old warlock
Maybe at some point have Hunter's Mark affect the species and not just and individual would be helpful? Minimizing Bonus action Clog Then be able to maintain concentration on it while being able to concentrate on other ranger spells? Aiding in the concentration issue without making it OP for multiclassing Bonus if more damage rolls and not just from attacks get to benefit from HM. Conjure Volley and Conjure Barrage should atleast benefit from HM.
Not sure if anyone will respond a month after this aired, but I don't understand the math for Nature's Veil. I understand getting the advantage amount and subtracting the regular damage, but then you divide by 16? Where does that come from? Also, on the TWF build, the result was multiplied by 5 first, which I assumed was due to having 5 uses per rest. But this build didn't include the 5. So I'm not sure where either number comes from.
Basically the take away is that there is no balance reason to require the bonus action to cast or transfer Hunter's Mark, and Hail of Thorns to have some extra damage to the target hit in addition to the burst. Or increase the base damage to 2d10. Or else have it scale better.
I think taking away the bonus action to transfer makes sense more from a "quality of life" perspective so you don't have to track it and worry so much about conflicts with your subclass features. And then I'm wondering if allowing simultaneous concentration on HM and one other spell at level 10 would give access to enough "fun toys" that it would give us the damage boost we need in Tier 3/4.
I think you should do a video where you ask the question, "What If Hunter's Mark didn't require Concentration?" and see how the damage would look. If it relatively keeps up with everyone then it proves it should have been that way all along. And if it exceeds everyone then it proves that it isn't the solution, allowing for there to be room for figuring out what the solution actually is.
Hey Treantmonk I know this is a bit late in the BM Ranger’s level but do you think if at level 15 when the BM gets “Share Spells” they could do better damage with Conjure Woodland Begins? The beast could move damage the target then ready their action to move again to damage them again.
Yes I'm glad someone beat me to it. Re do the calculations with Conjure Woodland Beings at 13+, and then Conjure Volley at 17. Don't forget conjure Barrage. How can TreantMonk forget these spells. Do a fair Ranger build with Beast Master and talk about all the spell combos and stacking you can do to emulate a ranger and optimize the damage. Longstrider+ Ashardolons for your 3rd lvls, or Summon Fey for your 3rds. Plus all the utility of share spells, still think it's one of the best abilities in the game. 5d8 radiant per emanation. Double at 15. Hunters Mark is for the 2-3 combats that aren't important. Big boy spells like Spike growth, Summon Fey, Ashardolons, Conjure Woodland Beings, Conjure Barrage, Conjure Volley are for the important fights, or if you want to extend your reach in combat. Pretty useful to have the Ranger bust out a 60ft cone or 40ft radius AOE when they normally slam one enemy. Then they proceed to slam one enemy
@@dominicl5862 It is a ranged focus build here. I’m thinking using Conjure Woodland Beings before level 15 wouldn’t work for the longbow archer but at 15 it would be helpful for your Beast of the Sky. Also we have to remember it’s single target focused without using content not in the 2024 PHB
@@Finalplayer14 I forgot to mention summon beast starting from 5. Maybe it's just me but Im pretty sure the designers factor in optimized spell casting when they balance. They probably like "Why is the Ranger bad? From lvl 5 onwards as a Beast Master you can have two Hawks with summon beast for important combats." Literally a scaling autonomous clone. Ya they may die, you may lose conc. so is the woes of DnD. At lvl 9 you can Summon Fey or Ashardolons. Lvl 13 Summon spells gain extra attack so between your beasts and you , it's 6 attacks. CWB would still be decent on a ranged character fighting in the midrange and wanting to keep melee enemies away. Plus if you can stack longstrider you can p easily duck into enemy range 10ft and duck away. 5d8 save for half is just underrated rn. Lvl 15 you get share spells with Beast and it's just candy from there. Unless I'm mistaken all those spells were ported over from Tasha's and other books into new PHB and some extra spells given to ranger and made non concentration.
The problem with factoring in CWB is that it takes up your entire action the first round to cast it. If there's only a single target involved (and TM's builds are focusing on single-target damage), that 5d8 damage save for half is going to be a lot less damage than your standard attack routine, and by the time you make it up, the combat is almost over. Not good for a 4th-level slot. You only cast CWB when there are multiple targets (at least 3) you can wade into and damage on round 1, in which case the damage done does become worth both the first-round action and the spell slot.
@@tiradegrandmarshalI was wondering if the 10d8 or 12d8 with a 5th level slot is better than the usual attack routine on the first round since you’d be triggering the damage twice on the same foe not just once
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
I would be fascinated to see *you* interview Jeremy Crawford and ask him technical questions about how they made decisions about how these graphs should look and what the internal process is for calibrating damage output between classes. Its clear that they put a ton of work into balancing it but the ranger was a miss for some reason, and I'm interested to know why that is
That's an interesting proposition. The designers occasionally mention they have more technical tools available inside WotC, though they never show or explain those tools in any detail. Chris shows his work, and the results match what we generally experience during the game. So, it would be interesting if someone with access to the tools WotC uses internally to balance classes would discuss the existing issues in certain classes so we can determine if their process is truly worthwhile. I suspect Chris's evaluations will hold up well in comparison.
My theory is they simply did not have enough time and just had to rush out what they had
Ranger was absolutely missed and neglected. They just reused the Tasha's changes, added weapon masteries and nerfed Gloomstalker and called it a day. Absolute Cope out, absolutely neglected them.
I'm guessing Ranger's AOE abilities count as damage multipliers.
I don't believe such thing would happen for a different reason:
I do believe that, and this is my opinion and personal interpretation, that Chris represents a specific demography of players, like me and probably you guys, that care about optimization, theory crafting and efficiency.
5e came with a very "simplistic" approach to grab a newer audience that, to be fair, don't want to invest time into a hobby, but still want to play. 4e was their first attempt, 5e was the second and it worked.
WotC doesn't care about optimization, because it doesn't matter if the Rangers damage is subpar, it matters that the Ranger player felt awesome tracking a pack of Orcs on a plain field and, for a lot of players, they don't care if their damage if subpar, or that the Monk is now stronger than you, because they can cast a suboptimal Volley to reach 2 targets instead of one. Perceived efficiency, instead of plain efficiency.
They are trying to tune the game for a wide array of players and the optimization players are, in general, a smaller and older demography, not their target audience.
I could be totally wrong, though, but the whole 5e mentality, the simplification of math, the agglutination of Advantages, the Concentration mechanic to reduce on-going effects and the lesser and lesser number that can be stacked show a market strategy that implies it.
Confirming what appeared obvious.
Whiteboard builds don’t equal what happens in play a lot of the time, (or at least some of the time) but it gives us a good tool set to work with.
Thank you Chris for all of these build videos, fantastic work.
I find a lot of builds focus on perfect situations and don't account for enemy AC or distance to target. Though I still might make hunters mark and hex function more like mage armor, so the rest of the spells get some play.
You can't optimise for perfection for future events.
So you have make consistent commonsense asumptions and go with the flow man. Chill 😊
When you compare two classes, a white room is really the only effective way to do so, otherwise you could attribute a difference in damage or other output metric to differing circumstances.
You always control your variables when testing something, it's basic science.
@SuperFizzah while you can't predict future events, it doesn't help to leave out variables. Lots of people don't account for AC and turns used for positioning. 100% hit and 5/5 turns able to attack will look a lot different than 70% hit and 4/5 or 3/5 turns able to attack.
In the same situation a bow Ranger could be 80% hit to 5/5 or 4/5 turns able to attack. So the bow ranger pulls more evenly with a melee barbarian even if the potential damage for the barbarian is a lot higher.
I find it very intriguing that since hunters mark is the iconic feature, it seems rangers are supposed to be this class that hunts a single target.
But most all their spells are area affect spells. So I guess they hunt their target with a lot of collateral damage!
I don’t think a Ranger taking on a horde of enemies is outside the fantasy of the ranger class.
A common reaction to seeing the mess of the 2024 Ranger was the surprise that at no point Hunters Mark became Concentration-free.
It would be brilliant if we saw builds where the 13th Level ability Relentless Hunter became just this & HM could be used at the same time as other concentration spells! 🙂
13th level still would feel super late for that to happen but maybe that'd solve the Ranger's issues for the later tiers of play? 🤔
I said essentially the same thing on his last ranger build. Also, without the change, Ranger does still look like a potentially strong multiclass dip.
@@grantstratton2239 why do you think so? what do the first few ranger levels provide? Hunter's mark?
@limaTheNoob 1st level counts the same as full caster for multiclassing with other casters, weapon masteries, armor proficiency, and yes, free castings of hunter's mark. Second level gives a fighting style, fifth gives extra attack. I wouldn't multi further unless the 6th level subclass's feature is essential to the build.
Rouges, Monks, and Druids are the most obvious candidates for multiclassing.
@limaTheNoob Second reply so as to not write books:
Monks can use a 1 level dip to get weapon masteries in monk weapons. HM uses can make ki points go further and benefits on rounds 2+ from Monks making many attacks. Spells like jump and longstrider increase the monk's already formidable mobility.
Weapon masteries and multi attack could benefit a druid using shilelegh tactics without too much spell slot loss.
Rouges could benefit from spellcasting and (somewhat) from extra attack. HM would be useful if you already have advantage or don't need your cunning action.
All three classes want to build either dex or wisdom or both anyway.
@@grantstratton2239 and war clerics too🙂
Alright, thanks for the confirmation. Effective immediately, hunter's mark may be applied as part of an attack and doesn't require concentration past level 10. It also does cool stuff™
Cool, I'm going to dip Ranger for my Paladin/Rogue/Fighter build for EVEN MORE DAMAGE!!! (This is why it is the way it is.)
Ranger's need something like Sneak Attack, even if it only applies to marked targets.
@@theodorehunter4765 You'll need 11 ranger levels though, so go for it. Not broken.
@@theodorehunter4765 small 10 level dip, no biggie
@@theodorehunter4765 Yeah, just dip 10 levels, that's all. Just smite/sneak attack the enemy lil bro
That's almost exactly the change I'll be proposing to my DM, except I'll say the ranger can concentrate simultaneously on HM and one other spell starting at 10. That way, they get to "play with all the toys" but still have a chance of losing concentration. (I'll also be proposing a boost at level 20 since the capstone is so lackluster...)
Thanks for breaking down all these numbers. It seems pretty clear that, as it appears in the book, the ranger is going to need some help from either house ruling some stuff, magic items, or multiclassing. I'd say if I was going to play a ranged ranger today, I'd either do a 1-4 levels ranger to get the feel and flavor and then go fighter the rest of the way or take 5 levels in ranger for extra attack then go rouge the rest of the way to be able to add sneak attack and be good at several skills.
On the positive side, the most people are playing in tier 2 where the difference is small enough that you probably wouldn't feel super left behind.
Between this Ranger video and the other one, it's quite clear that WOTC's claim that a no-concentration Hunter's Mark would have been overpowered was complete and utter bull. Most certainly so in late Tier 2 going on into Tier 3+.
The playtest with 1st dealing +1d6 per round, 3rd dealing +2d6 per round, and 5th dealing +3d6 per round, concentration free, was good.
It's strange, it seems like this would be so easy for them to find a solution to and I don't understand why they didn't. Did they run out of time?
@@Tausami Seriously, one big part of the solution is staring them right in the face in the form of the new Vengeance Paladin. Give Rangers the ability to cast or select targets with Hunter's Mark as part of their Attack action, like the new Vengeance Paladin can do with their Vow of Enmity. That'd be something good to give Rangers at, say, level 9, which is about the point their DPR starts to tail off. Massive action economy boost, plays nice with any bonus-action attacks they'd make or BA spells they'd cast (the latter would be possible if you use the slot-less castings of HM on the same turn), would translate to a solid DPR boost then. And then at level 13 just make Relentless Hunter remove concentration outright. It's not like they need to rewrite the whole class.
I mean, you can just say It is bull when you see that paladins get a +1d8 dmg at lvl 11 to all of their attacks. No concentration no nothing
A part of me almost wonders if one of the reasons they didn't remove concentration from Hunter's Mark is because they didn't want to change the Vengeance Paladin's Oath spells, even though HM is pretty weak for them, too.
Maybe the way to play a ranger is as a small pc mounted on a beast companion with a lance. Lance gets full benefits from GWM and duelist fighting style while mounted. Mounted Combatant protects the mount who disengages or dashes for free at 7th level combined with the beasts own prone and your topple mastery for control and advantage. Then charger can get added in too because there's no reason you cant go full skirmish mode with that kind of mobility + topple.
Just play an ancients paladin. You don’t even need to be small, or use your bonus action for your mount.
@@antiscam2468 Yeah but the Find Steed spell is locked in as a controlled mount in 2024, so it doesn't contribute to damage.
@@pallen2645 I mean... you could also choose to not ride it if you want it to do damage. There were initiative issues with using it as an uncontrolled mount in 2014, especially as a melee character entering combat with a foe or switching targets. If your DM hand waved those problems because they'd slow down play then maybe just ask for homebrew.
@@pallen2645 try reading it. It does contribute damage. And even has its own bonus action that it can do once per day.
@@antiscam2468 Not if you're mounted on it it doesn't. Read the rules for controlled mounts.
Edit - see my reply below. Swift Quiver isn't as good as I thought because the GWM damage boost doesn't apply to bonus action attacks. It's perhaps a 60% boost to longbow damage. It's a really long wait to get to level 17 for damage that is still lackluster.
Thank you for making this video! I've been ranting in comments for months about how rangers single target damage sucks. So I love how you've laid it out so clearly
Good news, Swift Quiver is still a trap! Because it's concentration you can't even run it the same time as Hunter's Mark, AND it still competes with HM for your bonus action! AND the GWM damage bonus doesn't even apply to Swift Quiver's attacks!
@tiradegrandmarshal Please ignore my initial reply. I see it now. Swift Quiver won't double your longbow damage more like a 60% increase. But you'd also be giving up your companion attacks in this build. So yeah, rangers are screwed.
I hate Hunter's Mark. It competes for concentration and action economy and rangers don't really get enough attacks to make it worth it. Concentration on Hunter's Mark can't be broken at level 13? What a waste of a class feature
Hey Chris, consider using a Hand Crossbow and have a Nick weapon attack be replaced by Beast's Strike.
+The dpr will be higher because you almost always have advantage from HCB's Vex and the beast's Help action.
+Your bonus action is more free for HM & HoT
+You only need Sharpshooter for the extra range then take ASI all the way
It's like 2-in-1 TWF and ranged build. I can try to do the math if anyone asks for it.
I'd love to see you present a ranger build wherein we imagine that Hunter's Mark is not concentration, letting us concentrate on something else, just to see how such a hypothetical situation would stack up against the other classes. I suspect it would improve the Ranger's DPR,, but I'm not sure that would be enough.
It wouldn't really matter much as Ranger also doesn't really have much spells that adds damage.
The key problem is that it adds so little damage that it's not really worth using a bonus action for unless you have nothing else to use it on.
The main joke is how Paladins gets a D8 bonus damage for free while Hunters have to use a bonus action and concentration to get a D6.
The problem with saying that maybe the Ranger does better with AOE is that if I want play a Nuker, I’m looking at a Wizard Evoker or a Sorcerer. Not only will those classes do more damage but you’ll still have the option of dropping Control spells which is often a better choice than doing straight damage, anyway.
It’s disappointing because thematically the Ranger is my favorite Martial Class. I also think it can be a trap for new players since there are so many popular Rangers in fiction.
Seems like 2024 Ranger would shine more in fights that have more than 1 target, since almost all of their spells that do direct damage also damage creatures around the target, such as Hail of Thorns, Lightning Arrow and Conjure Barrage.
Wich kinda goes against the theme of the explorer and slayer of monsters, usually hunters choose one target and fell that instead of handling an entire herd (HM being a way of expressing this theme in the class)
Why bother with a ranger for AOE when the wizard/ sorcerer/ warlock/ lore bard do Conjure barrage damage at level 5 and have a better DC?
I think that's right, but then we would be comparing rangers to AoE casters. That would be an interesting analysis. I think rangers are likely to do better in multi-target fights than most martials but not as good as an AoE caster. Suppose they also do better against single targets than most AoE casters (I don't know that that's true). In that case, that might be an interesting (but potentially narrow) niche where rangers are your Swiss army knives, useful in most combat situations, but rarely the MVP.
@@PlayWatch_616 not sure how either of those themes/concepts for a Ranger makes them exclusively a single target specialist. Explorers are about geographic related knowledge and skills, where Monster Hunters can be anything from killing a single big creature (like a T Rex) or a hoard of smaller creatures (like a clan of goblins).
For single target Ranger it might be better to go Hunter for Hunter Lore, Colossus Slayer and Multiattack Defence, so you have at least decent damage, useful knowledge on the targets defences/weaknesses and better survivability, all at no additional actions.
@@Vizardlorde same argument can be made with single target damage, where the Ranger is lower than classes like Fighter. It is just a question of if you want anything else out of a character besides damage. Even with the results in these videos, I’m still gonna play a Ranger for flavour and I like some of the Ranger specific spells. I’d love to play a Ranger themed around using their version of Smites
Oh how ye mighty have fallen. RIP 5.14e Gloomstalker SS/XBE.
Not sure if there's a way for you to add names to each graph node in post when you're zooming in for dramatic tier-by-tier effect, but it would help a little with the clarity even though I know you're describing it aloud.
Thanks for the breakdown TM!
Yeah, I basically predicted this during the unearthed arcana phase. Paladin gets improved divine smite at level 11. Ranger gets...a subclass feature, and the ONLY subclass feature that bumped damage by a reasonable amount was Beastmaster. So you have to pick Beastmaster just to keep up with a no-subclass Paladin.
On the bright side, Rogue turned out way better than most of us expected!
I don’t think the Rogue will perform as well as shown in the calculations as Cunning Strikes was ignored for the damage calculations. Without Cunning Strikes there’s barely any differences between 2014 and 2024 to the base Rogue class (off the top of my head…weapon masteries, steady aim, epic boons, and the True Strike rework…that really shouldn’t be factored into a Rogue only comparison). The subclasses are better though.
I still say: Rogue is the second-most buffed class. I'm not sure it's enough.
I played with Cunning Strikes on an 8th level Rogue among 2014 classes, and it still dropped off hard after 5th level. Unfortunately, the Cunning Strikes were not as useful as often as expected, and when the enemy saves, you feel like trash because you sacrificed damage for nothing. The big reason it didn't feel great, though, is just because you don't get Epic Moments. None of your abilities are resource-driven, and they are balanced accordingly. That is to say: weaker and less interesting.
@@redactedlemons6817 I agree. Having to take a cantrip from another class and do a fighter dip just to keep up with other classes is meh.
@@aodhfyn2429rangers spend resources and could still not have those epic moments too.
@@jesseseva2219 I was talking about Rogues? Oh. I see what you're saying. Yes. This is a potential issue with Half-Casters: their resources can drop off hard compared to casters, and they don't always get exciting spells -- especially not for their level. Paladin Smites kind-of kept this from happening, because you could nuke the bad guy _hard._ Bless + Aura is a very potent combo that holds up well across many levels. I don't think they buffed Ranger's spell list enough to say that they will definitely get those moments. Spike Growth is an awesome spell that your Monk ally can definitely use to do more damage than these calculations, and it also restricts the battlefield. But if you have a Druid in the party, you are not going to feel epic about dropping a 3rd of the Spike Growths they can.
Seems Wizards doesn't feel that the Ranger needs to be a primary damage dealer because it's a utility class as well. Problem with that thinking is that the Ranger's utility becomes irrelevant in tiers 3 and 4 where it's damage starts to fall behind. Survival skills don't matter any more when you have long range teleportation and now that stealth triggers invisibility you can't even sneak past half the creatures because they have true sight.
This isn't a ranger issue, though. Basically anything that's not a full caster falls behind in tiers 3 and 4.
@@juliamedina3322 yea but at least fighter has great saves and deals much better damage
@@juliamedina3322 I mean, its pretty obviously a ranger issue even moreso than other classes.
I think the utility being balanced is the spell list, not the skill side of things.
@@b1ackm4gic yea the spell utility is pretty good but still thay should atleast do 90% of damage a fighter can as now fighters have the best armour and best saving throws they are a defensive monster
7:30 with how the new weapon equipping and loading rules are, you can get around the need for crossbow expert by using 2 heavy crossbows, unequiping 1 as part of your first attack and equipping the other as part of your second
you still need to reload them in the second round
@@derekfrost7751 nah, you can load a loading weapon as part of an attack once per weapon per round (or, rather per action), that’s the work-around
I love the tier by tier zoom. Great way to show where and when you're looking at things.
I think it could be a kewl series of videos to try to play around with some fixes for the Ranger. What happens to the numbers of you do little things like Scaling Hunter's Mark by 1d6 every level above the 1st. Letting Rangers do multiple things with the same Bonus Action that they cast or move Hunter's Mark. Example > They can move Hunter's Mark to a new target AND command their Beast to attack as part of the same bonus action.
It would be really cool if their 14th level ability, Nature's Veil, allowed you to cast hunters mark on a target when you used it. Would really reduce their bonus action demands.
I'd word it as "At X level, the Ranger may cast or mark a new target with Hunter's Mark whenever they take a bonus action. The Ranger may only have one creature at a time marked by this spell."
That said, my fix would be "At X level, creatures marked by Hunter's Mark are considered to be 2 creatures for the purposes of Ranger spells and abilities that are able to target multiple creatures".
That way you could cleave from your HM target back into it, double up your Hail of Thorns damage on your HM target or force an enemy to save twice against AoE CC effects. It gives them a unique hybrid AoE + single-target playstyle.
I think I fall in the Pointy Hat camp. Ranger should be a pet class. It's the one archetype we really don't have and would make the Ranger more unique flavor in and out of combat. And that way, you build all of your abilities and synergies with the pet in mind. If the pet could hold your Hunter's Mark, what might that do for your damage and utility in combat?
The interesting part is that Ranger didnt get any worse, in fact, it is objectively better than it used to be. But it just didnt get a lot of the goodies other classes did.
Imagine how upset people would be if they got a nerf like Paladin Divine Smite
@@pheralanpathfinder4897 yeah- it'd be ... A lot.
Except the Sharpshooter need wasn't replaced with anything, do actually they ARE objectively worse.
@@AwesomeWookiee rangers did not need sharpshooter to be viable, and archery + new great weapon master is more than fine IN COMPARISON to Tasha/2014 ranger
The bigger issue is that it didn't get the same scaling other classes did at tier 3
@@AwesomeWookiee all sharpshooters are worse. That doesn't specifically hurt the Ranger. The Fighter takes the biggest blow because they had more arrows per round in tier 3/4, while the Ranger has spells
Thanks Treantmonk! ❤️
For the warlock, lvl6 celestial feature also works on truestrike, so with agonising blast you would add your Charisma 3 times on a truestrike hit.
If you get a magic bow somewhere (cleric in the party to cast magic weapon or multiclass 3 levels of war cleric for BA attacks) you can also make a bow your pact weapon for a ranged pact of the blade warlock
Yeah I’ve done a little math a while back and I think the celestial warlock played that way is a little better than the baseline until level 11 when it falls behind a bit.
However that does give me an idea for a holy assassin build with 7 levels of celestial warlock and 13 levels of assassin rogue.
25:05 Never thought I'd hear Treantmonk say "Big Chungus" before
So this is saying that:
A) Hunter's Mark does not need concentration or a bonus action; let the ranger cast it before making an attack. If I'm shooting you or stabbing you, I'm hunting you.
B) Level 5, let the ranger cast Hunter's Mark on tracks.
C) The ranger shouldn't need bonus actions to tell their pet to attack. It's an animal spirit, it's intelligent, it's trained, let it attack your enemies.
Maybe the ranger giving BA commands would give their beast advantage & expand their crit range? No commanded attacks would be normal?
In essence you’re using your BA to tell your beast the perfect time & way to attack.
They're definitely inferior to Police Dogs if you go by RAW, and inferior by a lot.
With the change to Beast Companions no longer being tamed animals, it doesn’t make sense that Rangers need to give up an attack or BA to command it when a summoned creature doesn’t. It’s like saying the one you actually have a bond with and spend your whole career training is worse than a random spirit you temporarily contract. Logical dumpster fire.
Changing Hunter’s Mark’s functionality for Rangers only (at a level above 5 to prevent an exploitable multi class dip) to ignore concentration on the free castings, and increase damage so it has some scaling seems like the obvious choice.
There's not much point casting hunters mark on tracks if activates on attacks. It doesn't need precast anymore with those rules. All that feature would do is give advantage on finding... well more tracks I suppose.
@@dozencatfish1667 What? It would give advantage on finding more tracks...which then leads to advantage on finding the creature...i.e., it makes you better at tracking. That seems like having a point. Indeed, it is the main point of the spell other than damage.
Something else that I think should be considered or addressed is that you are not just looking at single target dpr, but at non-moving single target dpr. Melee builds are going to struggle in moving fights where ranged characters likely will not. Sometimes one or even multiple rounds of damage may be missed of a 5 round fight for example, and that is not an uncommon event. That doesn't even take into account grappling eating up turns where they can hit every round too! I don't think it's a deviation comparable to AoE damage, but I think its enough of an impact that it should be addressed when giving this info. It may be painting rangers or even ranged rogues and warlocks unfairly in this metric.
Also want to say that I appreciate these breakdowns! Its good for the community to have people like you to look at this aspect of the game as well.
In the context of these videos, the ranger is actually quite puzzling. Because from all the previous charts, it seems that WotC managed to bring most martial classes up to par in regards to DPR, much to my surprise. At least they all appear in the same ballpark. Ranger is the strange outlier...
So I guess WotC corrected the problem of people thinking ranger was much worse than it actually was... by making it actually bad
It’s funny how the community thought that the Hunter’s Mark buffs were too weak, Chris tried to tell us they were fine, but now that he’s actually looked at the math he has realized that the Hunter’s Mark buffs are in fact too weak just like everyone thought.
People in the comments absolutely roasted me for disagreeing with him when I tried to logic out why it was gonna fall behind. I'm glad they finally get to see those of us that were saying it was a problem were in fact correct.
I was wrong on this one
@@TreantmonksTemple Better wrong and honest than wrong and stubborn! Maintains your credibility
@@TreantmonksTemple Hey two weapon fighting should be ok if you take the Magic initiate background to get True Strike then you have the light club with the shellielh cantrip and the scimitar nick property. So first round Bonus action Shellieh and then cast truestrike with club and then nick with scimitar. Second round cast hunters mark.
@@TreantmonksTempleit probably looked good versus Warlock baseline. Your videos are definitely showing us Warlock baseline is becoming obsolete quite fast
I mentioned this on another treantmonk video but my fix for HM is just add the sentence - “Additionally, Whenever you start casting the spell, you can modify it so that it doesn’t require Concentration. If you do so, the spell’s duration becomes 1 minute for that casting. The spell ends if you cast this spell again or if you become incapacitated”
Now it treads the line between concentration free and eating all of your concentration and is in line with other design elements in 2024, plus adds an element of player choice - even if superficially. Do you conserve spell slots by hanging onto a long duration HM or use it in tandem with a different concentration spell for a single combat?
This is great. Would be more in line with other features if it was a part of Favoured Enemy instead of the spell itself but that's a very minor difference
doable, but less smooth in terms of streamlining that the 2024 D&D seems to lean on
Since low tier dmg isn't the real issue here I'd rather have a simpler solution, like maybe giving Rangers Two Extra Attacks at level 11, or then reworking Favored Enemy entirely to a simpler feature that doesn't rely on bonus actions
@@_mosscat the issue here is that it doesn't disencourage a few level dips in Ranger, while not offering something that encourages a single class Ranger... so its a fix, but low on scope
@@Itomon This is getting less into quick fixes and more about a full homebrew class rework but it's interesting nontheless.
I've always argued that the main issue around ranger is a confused class identity. There's like 100 different character fantasies all mashed into one. Legolas, the witcher, aragorn, the vague concept of hunters, "guy with a pet", and real life rangers protecting nature reserves. My solution would be giving rangers mini-subclasses similar to the 2014 (or even better, bg3) warlock pacts.
Currently I got a legolas-style one that just generally boosts martial stuff, a witcher/hunter style one that does single targets, and a druidy one with some extra spellcasting. Each gets a boost to HM at level 2, a boost to extra attack at 6, and some things i havent figured out yet at 14 and 18.
For now my ideas are: for the martial-type, heavy armour, and additional fighting style, and a HM that scales like the martial art die at 2, and at 6 after switching your HM you get a free attack against that creature. For the hunter-type, choose 2 creature types and gain similar benefits to 2014 and gain the benefits of HM for free against them at level 2, and at level 6 when you hit both attacks from extra attack against a marked creature the second one automatically crits. The druid-type gets more cantrips and spells and applies HM to spells, and gets a bladesinger extra attack at 6.
I haven't done all the maths yet so this might need some balancing. This version also has the no cocentration one minute version of HM, but as a part of relentless hunter at level 13.
It's a lot of extra features but I honestly think the ranger could use them
That's a bit of a problem at low levels due to dipping and for people like Oath of Vengeance Paladins.
Any fixes to Hunter's Mark should be something a Ranger should get at, like, 7th to 10th level.
Just a comment on what was said at tge very end- I build a blade lock using agonising blast on green flame blade and was pleased with the numbers, especially with a few other blade evocations thrown on top (eldritch smites etc.)
Thanks for the breakdown. As you said, it's scope point is single target damage which the Ranger's spell kit isn't the best for bolstering. And that's fine in theory as AOE party damage is also important in many combat situations . . . but it does fly in the face of hunter's mark which is very deliberately single target. In thinking about HM, 1 of 2 options would have helped that (surprisingly neither being the concentration-less option):changing targets to a free action rather than bonus action, and scaling damage with Ranger level similar to monk's martial arts die or cantrips (not a huge bump, but every little bit helps).
Go with eldritch knight with a bow or heavy crossbow. Take Fay Touched, get hunters mark. Boom better ranger and you even get good aoe damage.
I played a longbow ranger in 5e. I found I didn't do massive damage, but I dealt the most consistent damage in the party. Eventually I did a multiclass into rogue, not even for Sneak Attack, but for Aim. Aim+Elven Accuracy+Sharpshooter led to pretty consistent massive damage. It was a very good class to be buffed by feats, but obviously lacking in that big alpha strike on its own.
Maybe at lvl 11 allowing a ranger to get a 3rd attack against an enemy they’ve marked could be a way to boost their tier 3 output? Plus having hunters mark increase from a d6 to d8 at level 6, d8 to d10 at lvl 13, and d10 to d12 at lvl 20 could help.
Yeah… when Crawford was talking up the ranger a few months ago it was such strong evidence that he doesn’t know the second thing about this game. Don’t understand why a multibillion dollar company can’t get someone to do some basic math.
Thanks for this analysis. Can you do a video with ideas of house rules to apply to those problematic classes?
Fighter 1 Archfey bladelock 19:
Elven Accuracy (18 CHA)
GWM (14 STR)
Heavy Armor Master (15 STR)
Inspiring Leader (19 CHA)
Boon of Fate (20 CHA)
the point of the build above is to show that GWM can easily be paired with another marital feat to get +2 STR for an elegant transition to heavy armor on a gish, since you already would have 13 STR as a prerequisite. In this case heavy armor master works well with armor of agathys and archfey's damage reduction feature.
I wonder if the graphs for base class damage are getting screwed because of the fact that subclasses hold a bigger piece of the power budget in each class. Like, every ranger subclass has a straight up damage increase if i recall right, but rogue subclasses may not have one, so the rogue looks better than the ranger when class-less
@treantmonk's temple what about using lightning arrow as a smite crit? it would probably make the math on this harder, but this spell seems to be made to use when you crit anyway.
on average the dpr probably won't look very different, but in practice when you're playing you're probably gonna feel the effects of it
I blame all the dnd RUclipsrs who were saying without concentration hunters mark was too strong. They should just locked it behind Ranger lvls like Paladin with divine favor or even warlock with hex since it’s also a class exclusive. And this would be the part where I plug my version of the Ranger but it’s a lot. Long story short changed hunters mark to:
- no concentration
- bonus action cast but auto seeks closet creature on kill at higher lvls
- bonus to attack rolls instead of damage
- comes online at 2nd lvl to avoid 1 lvl dip shenanigans
- scales from a d4 to a d12 by 17th lvl with other benefits baked in
Yes it messes with the maths of dnd but with GWM and SS damage being toned down doesn’t change much. At the end of it all, the dice gods still need to be on your side.
Take care everyone.
I wonder ... if we consider rangers and paladins the same - being half casters. Would scalingthe damage of hunters mark be something we should do? And if so, should it be 1d8 per 2 levels? Meaning 1d8 at 1st lvl and 2d8 at 3rd lvl spell slot and 3d8 on a 5th lvl spell slot... meaning the free hunters mark is always a 1st lvl but it brings scaling to the damage of the rangers feature ability akin to paladins. Since hunters mark is PER ATTACK either rangers need to make more attacks (two weapon fighting) or HM needs to scale. Honestly, a two weapon fighting monk is better with hunters mark than the ranger... admittedly you'd have to multiclass into ranger... but 1 lvl costs almost nothing for this benefit AND rangers don't increase damage of their feature the more they level anyway...
Hey Treantmonk! These videos on the Ranger inspired me a bit so I'll be posting a build of my own for it coming this Sunday. I'm maybe a little bolder with some assumptions, which really just increases variance which we're not really marking on our graphs. I'll drop you a mention if you want to take the time to look at it after it drops.
Every time I see you closer to 100k... u can do it!!!!
It’ll be interesting to see if archery fighters have similar issues with single target damage. I imagine they’ll be a bit better due to their additional extra attack at level 11, but it will probably still be fairly low compared to melee builds.
Hey chris, thank you for all your work and contribution. You are GOAT.
How do you would role the interaction between nick and cleave extra attacks and attack replacing features like pact of the chain, VB Extra attack, Beastmaster companion and etc? Do they work together?
Conjure animals spell do damage twice per round? once when we move the spirits on our turn and again on the targets turn when he ends his turn in place or try to leave steping into the 10ft radius of the spirits.
I have posted this before, but I have a houserule for the 2024 Ranger.
Level 5 feature: Quickened Mark: Whenever you start casting Hunter's Mark, you can modify it so that it doesn’t require Concentration. If you do so, the spell’s duration becomes 1 minute for that casting.
Level 13 change: Relentless Hunter: Taking Damage can no longer break your Concentration on spells. (All spells, not just Hunter's Mark).
Level 20 change: Foe Slayer: The damage of your Hunter's Mark is 2d6 rather than 1d6.
Are these changes enough to cure everything on the Ranger? No. But, I really believe it will make them so much better. They don't really have a problem until Teir 2. So, level 5 giving them a way to cast Hunter's Mark without Concentration will allow them to use their other spells more. That change would make Relentless Hunter useless, so we make it apply to all Concentration spells. And give them a little damage boost at Level 20.
im glad everything is pretty consistently beating the warlock baseline especially melee builds. you SHOULD be trading the safety of fighting at a distance for damage and going from the simplest build to more complext builds should benefit you. i think it’s still a good baseline.
In practice how safe is fighting at distance really? It gets safer when you have people get in the face of an enemy since it suffers disadvantage or faces an opportunity attack, but that only eliminates some of the threat if you have multiple enemies. At every tier of play you have plenty of ranged enemies, such as goblins. If you don't have a battleground with real cover, you're open to getting shot. So it's safer with caveats, and it's certainly true in normal play that sometimes it isn't safer at all.
Now that dual wielding is viable, have you considered taking Shillelagh to bump your weapon damage from that pesky d6 to something higher. This even gives you access to the slow property
I'd love it if you did a short video about what happens when you scale the Hunters Mark die one up after every 6 levels or so, so it would end up being 1d12 instead of 1d6 at the end.
Early on the rules committee decided to classify rangers as an "expert" class. They gave they a skill expertise, but I think they forgot to make then experts at anything.
If rangers were supposed to be experts at primal magic, then why didn't they give them the full druid spell list?
It seems more likely that rangers were supposed to be experts at Hunter's Mark, so why didn't they make it scale? IMO rangers should be experts at dealing tremendous a single target damage and HM could have been a way to accomplish that.
I personally hate Hunter's Mark. But if they had made it so rangers' damage could keep up with rogues, I would have grumbled and complained and use it all the way to level 20. If HM damage and features scaled could have helped make it fun to use instead of a chore. But I don't want to get too carried away.
I think some part of Ranger having lower damage makes sense. They have magic, so they're not necessarily meant to be a striker class like martials. Except... they don't have any unique non-spell features for exploration or role play. So they're just left with... combat, and their spell list. But is there even a single unique non-combat spell on their spell list? Where are the features that say "now THIS is why you play a Ranger"? The beastmaster having a fairly tanky companion is the only thing I've found yet that Ranger does that multiclassing other builds doesn't do better. Sure, their package of features is unique in getting all the things they have in one place, but... aside from some free casts of Hunter's Mark and a cool pet, it feels like they just don't have much going for them. :\ Which means... we're back to where we were before. They're a pretty good 1-5 chassis for getting Extra Attack, if you specially need an Expertise and want their level 3 subclass feature. It's a pretty big oof so far. Maybe someone will find some hidden gem that makes them click, but... should it really be this hard or need this many eyes on it for the design to make sense?
Oh ive been waiting for this. LETS GOO
Would things be better if you focused on Ensnaring Strike instead of Hail of Thorns? If you take the chance of failing the dex save for HoT and apply it to ES for the save against being Restrained, maybe that potential for advantage bridges the gap.
It's insane how every other class got either slight or major buffs and quality of life improvements, while the ranger lost half the features it got from Tasha's and lost all the features that gave the class its flavor.
Chris, whats really gonna be scary is when you compare a melee/ranged valor bard to the ranger. I have a hunch that the valor bard is going to put out better melee damage (thanks font of moonlight) and even possibly better ranged damage (true strike/attack with crossbows)? Also, the bard will probably also totally excel in out of combat scenarios as well.
Chris suddenly saying Big Chungus during the patreon names REALLY caught me off guard
I watched many videos of youtubers reacting to the 2024 PHB classes.
Ranger was almost universally a disappointment. At no point in anyone's reactions did their faces light up with delight upon seeing the Ranger. Certainly not like the reactions i saw for the Monk. Most of the other classes left reviewers smiling and excited as well.
But not the Ranger. At best, people were saying things like "its alright," or "its not that bad," or "its at least better than it was," or (my favorite) "the Ranger excels at other facets of play- like exploration- that arent really well-represented in D&D." (If a class excels at things that aren't in the game then.... huh?)
My litmus test is: does this class delight me and excite me and make me want to play it? And for the new Ranger, the answer is No. I might multiclass a Ranger with something. Or dip it for another class, like Monk. But, on its own, Ranger (and for the most part its subclasses, too) is just a disappointment. Its not horrible. Its not unplayable. And some aspects of it can still be fun and viable. But, compared to the glow-ups we saw for classes like the Monk, the Barbarian, the Fighter, and the Rogue (all of which got new and interesting class features that give players more choice as to how to play those classes)... the Ranger just got shafted. The design limits your options, rather than expands them. The base class features pigeon-hole you into either abandoning your spells (for the most part) or abanoning your class features (again, for the most part).
If they made the Paladin's Aura require concentration as well as Smites- so that you had to choose one or the other- that would be close to how the new Ranger feels.
Seems like all they needed to do was make Hunters mark non concentration, and deal 2d6 past lvl 10 and Ranger would be fine.
So thats just how ill homebrew HM at my table for my players.
That would do the trick
I'm currently working on a build for a Beastmaster Ranger. DEX 14, WIS 17, Background Guide (Shillelagh), Dueling Fighting style.
The whole point is that WIS buffs all parts of the beast from BM.
Just in time! TY!
The beast is easily resurrectable as an action (1 spell slot). If it soaks up some monster actions to kill it off, I think that is good. Like the Druid of old, this is a lot of hit points that can be soaked up, which never need to be healed. The beast HP scale pretty well with level, like having a second Ranger standing around to take damage, so I feel like the damage-only analysis is missing something. Too bad there is no good way to use the beast in combination with another ability like sneak attack. Perhaps the beast of the land prone is useful, however, I suspect not for ranged builds.
Hey so, I know its somewhat unrelated to the findings on this video but, I think Steel Wind Strike now interacts with Hunter's Mark...
HM before required a "weapon attack". Something that SWS isn't. But now HM works on any attack roll so that'd means up to 5 HM procs. Kinda cool
im kinda glad dnd 2024 isnt a whole 6th edition, no doubt in my mind they wouldve just given up on ranger and dropped it, thats probably why they just havent given it any love. what annoys me the most is how they constantly talked about how new the class was and how different it is and how its changed the most out of any class other than the fighter, and then revealed nothing new. Yeah it wasnt 2014 ranger but its mainly the same as tashas, especially after many different iterations in playtests
As long as we’re talking raw damage, Rangers need a better Hunter’s Mark with actual upgrades (their level 13 feature is a joke).
- 1) Hunter’s Mark needs to increase damage based on spell slots, not number of attacks. I think the play test version was better, but based on these numbers a +1d6 per higher spell slot level applied on the first attack to land is probably needed here.
- 2) Remove concentration sooner. Level 5 or 6 is a good place that requires a substantial investment in the class so it isn’t free, but soon enough that you can start using more spells.
- 3) Upgrade Hunter’s Mark more. Have Hunter’s Mark impose disadvantage on saves against Ranger spells so you benefit regardless of if you attack or cast spells. You could even improve this feature by allowing the Ranger to impose disadvantage on a save against a spell cast by an ally as a reaction a number of times per day. Have it so you always know the location of a Hunter’s Marked target within 30-60ft of you and suffer no penalties if the creature is invisible/hidden from you.
The class just has a startling lack of synergy in their features. This is just me spitballing here, but this is a vast improvement to the class that provides some much needed synergy between core features.
98.3k guys come one. This dude works so hard let's get him to 100k
I like that they buffed lightning arrow and hail of thorns, but they really should have made it to where the original target doesn’t get a saving throw. They should have to just take the damage like a smite would do
I am definitely giving Rangers a feature that lets them use Hunter's Mark without Concentration at around levels 7 to 9, and bring the Ranger-capstone damage boost to Hunter's Mark at around levels 11-14
I do think a more interesting breakdown would be for the 4 combat encounters to be different types.
One combat against a group of six creatures each at CR equal to the player minus two. Special rule of CR 1/4 at level 1, CR 1/2 at level 2.
One combat against a group of three creatures each at CR equal to the player minus one. Special rule of CR 1/2 at level 1.
One combat against a group of two creatures each at CR equal to the player plus one.
One combat aganist a single creature a CR player plus two.
Adjust the hit chance as appropriate.
When appropriate, presume percentage chance to hit multiple enemies with aoe attacks as based on size of aoe and number of enemies.
What comes after the Warlock, the Bard? I'm really looking forward to your analysis of the new Valor Bard, even though I'm assuming a nerf for the CME, with scaling only at 1d8 for each spell slot level above 4.
I would be very curious to see what a beast master with two weapon fighting giving up an attack to command the beast to attack and using the ba to command the beast again would do in T3 play. Taking Shellelagh as well for a couple of nice club attacks could be interesting
Any thoughts on just giving the ranger the level 11 multi-attack from fighter? Would love to see the projection on that. The level 11 feature for ranger has always felt poor. We had one build where the hunter ranger gave up Conjuration spells at creation and got the 3rd, 11th level fighter attack in exchange. Roleplay-wise, we said the motivation to protect the material plane against the ‘wilds’ of outsiders was the motivation for training more with fighters than druid types, thus the 3rd (but not 4th) multi attack. Thanks.
What would the Ranger damage output look like if we gave them a second bonus action at level 11 and allowed them to use one of their BA's for an extra ranged attack and single offhand (i.e. don't allow two dual wielder BA's to attack. just one)? Essentially, they would get to use HM more freely, allow dual wield feat to add damage and bow builds to be relevant and beast masters could actually use their beasts. I would still think they could lose the concentration requirement for HM at level 6 as well but not overly necessary.
Hey Chris! Love your videos! Appreciate your work analyzing all of these new classes.
As a big fan of the ranger, I hate to see it ranking lower compared to other martials. However, I do think there is one build you haven't analyzed yet, which I've believed from day one is the best damage build for rangers in 2024. You've already stumbled into part of it, but you haven't taken it to its natural conclusion yet. So....
Please do a build of a heavy weapon wielding archer beastmaster who uses summons, as often *and as early* as possible. Rangers should use Summon Beast. If you're going for max reliable damage, use flyby with both beastmaster beast and summoned beast. 4 attacks at lvl 5. More later as both beasts get additional attacks from the beastmaster feature and 4th lvl slots, for 6 total attacks. Summon Fey is also an option, but the beast with flyby will have better survivability. We know Hunter's Mark doesn't increase damage a ton, but you've already proved that summoning does. I believe you just didn't go far enough with it.
I'm also interested to see WIS be maxed on a ranger that does this. With Archery +2, you could argue Rangers don't need a DEX above 16. Maxing WIS would improve both the beastmaster beast and summons, and you get more mileage as they get more attacks. You can still probably get to WIS 20, DEX 18 at 20th lvl.
What this tells me is that if they were going to force hunter's mark down every Ranger's throat they could have allowed it to scale naturally as you leveled up. Maybe not at a crazy rate but 2d6 as a 3rd level spell and 3d6 at 5th level, granting you the highest version with you free uses. That would have made at least some difference here.
17:00 Whoa whoa whoa... Beast of the Land makes a very good tank because it's so expendable! It soaks up (L+1)x5 HP, if it goes down your actions and bonus actions are free up, and it can get all its HP back for a single spell slot after combat.
Apart from a character with damage resistance, I can't see that I'd rather have any PC taking the damage over my beast tanking it.
My thought on fixing ranger is dropping concentration at 6 and possibly making it a free action tonmove hunters mark, I don't think the breaks the class. I also think that in tier 3 the party will kill at least an enemy that they focus per turn which means first round cast HM and every subsequent round move it, which means never using your beast or a bonus action spell. Only if you are fighting something particularly hearty will you have your BA available. The kit for Ranger is broken. It is not even front-loaded to the point that you may want to play ranger for a few levels, then multiclass into something else, just needs to be avoided.
How about trying a Ranged Fighter build for comparison? I feel like the rogue being the only reference is not enough data... even though it's pretty clear that the ranger is in a bad spot.
I am curious how the Artificer compares to the 2024 half-casters in terms of power and versatility 🤔.
Also the Ranger is the Jack of All Trades, ok single and multi target damage, has spells, fighting style and weapon mastery, has crowd control. Is good outside of combat with survival, tracking, foraging etc etc. So I think for what the Ranger is its alright that it doesn't keep up with the 5 specifically single target damage dealers in terms of DPR, they are not supposed to after all.
without homebrew, no one will touch this class. What is the utility? What is the niche? That is so tragic!
I miss calculation for ranged ranger using Spike Growth and Heavy crossbow and push weapon mastery. I wonder if the damage boost from Spike Growth outweighs the turn needed for the spell.
Beasts are *not* as vulnerable as you think. The new level 7 Exceptional Training lets your companion use its bonus action to DODGE EVERY TURN! It's a feature that makes them into really good tanks, much more survivable. And I think Chris has slept on it, probably just going off of the Tasha's companion, which was kind of wimpy. They didn't get an AC or HP bump, but this change
Choosing Beast of the Land and keeping it up front while using Charge would be safe enough and boost the damage a decent amount.
Starting the video and really interested to hear the reasoning why to use Longbow over 2 heavy xbows with the new weapon draw/stow mechanics.
Getting a magic weapon is the reason i quess.
To play a ranged "Ranger", it will probably be 1 level of Rogue, 5 levels of Gloom Stalker Ranger to get HM, Archery, Dread Ambusher on Round 1, and 2 attacks, then Rogue the rest of the way to scale Sneak Attack Dice.
The way I'd build a beastmaster ranger would be to go ranger 12/rogue 8 or ranger 16/rogue 4. This way you'd get 2x epic boon feats and have 22 dex by the time you're 20 (as the ranger capstone blows). I'd grab GWM for the longbow and use the rest on ASI's. The beast master's big powerspike is their level 11 feature - so no real need to continue after that. I'd probably go arcane trister to keep my spell slot progression up and allow the use of fun mage spells. You'd also have a TON of expertise on skills as well as all the low level spells for utility (both ranger and mage).
... yikes. You'd think that Ranger would be MUCH better at single target damage, considering that their most iconic spell increases the damage they deal when they focus fire on an enemy, but nope.
Doesn't scale. And only 2 attacks, unlike Fighter. As I've watched these videos, it seems to me that Rangers are multi-target damaging dealers. Most of their spells do AOE or multi-target damage. Hunter's mark would be great on a fighter or monk with all those extra attacks. (Although not at range for the monk.) Since the spell doesn't scale until level 20 and you don't get more than the two attacks you get at level 5, it's not a major damage dealing boost.
Thanks for this video. This is my favorite class and favorite archetype, so I’m really disappointed by this result. But it’s better to know. I’ll look to fighter and rogue instead for my next archer.
Could you do a hypothetical build if hunter’s mark didn’t take concentration? I’m curious if that would actually fix tier 3 and 4 damage.
The problem is hunters mark. Swap that out for summon beast/fey and you have a competitive build.
Did you watch the previous video?
@@jacobjensen7704 The previous video where we didn't take Dual Wielder or use CWB?
@@jacobjensen7704 It's worth examining how Beastmaster + Longbow + Summon Fey works. Summon Fey was a big improvement for damage from 13th level on...abandoning Hunter's Mark for it also frees up the bonus action, so it'd be even bigger here. And the Beastmaster build is closer to start with.
@jacobjensen7704 the question is, did you? That was melee and took an action to cast fey in combat. Use your concentration for an hour long fey and you can assume it's up before combat. Use truestrike and find familiar with heavy xbow beast of the sky and full wisdom build and you can match the ranged assassin damage.
25 dpr lvl 6
32 dpr level 9
42 dpr lvl 12
51 dpr lvl 15
It's not awesome but it's respectable for ranged
@@breathetyb8467 The problem with Summon Fey is the low HP/AC creature that must get into melee, has low fly speed, and doesn't have flyby. All while being subject to Concentration. The hour long duration is a trap - it'll last one round in most combats, two if lucky.
By having vital statistics tied to spell slot it really shafted the Ranger vs the Druid due to the delayed spell slot progression.
It goes a bit against the theme, but I think a ranged ranger would actually be improved by throwing in throwing daggers. With nick weapon mastery, you can chuck two of them for one attack in an attack action, you get a more mileage out of Hunter's Mark damage. So, at level 5, you would be doing Long Bow Attack + Dagger (main) + Dagger (nick) for an attack action.
Additionally, you can replace one of the daggers with your pet attack on any turns where you cannot use your bonus action for a pet attack (i.e. [re]applying Hunter's Mark).
It would been cool if the beast could apply hunter mark on hit. That way you don't have to worry about choosing between moving the hm or using your beast.
I wana see a Hunter Ranger, with GWM, Great Axe Cleave, and Horde Breaker (using Hunter's Mark).
Looking forward to a future comparison between Ranger and other half casters in terms of AoE damage.
Base paladin only has one AoE and it comes at level 17.
Full Druid might beat out ranger in single target damage, especially a stars Druid.
True strike longbow, 2d8, then add the ba shot from starry form plus whatever you’re concentrating on.
Yeah, I think that sort of analysis is needed to balance the conversation because many people are taking this information and making bad assumptions that Rangers do poorly in combat overall
@@Chaosmancer7 people are not taking this information to make assumptions. This information only confirms what the majority (source: trust me bro lol) of the community already thinks about ranger.
Like, we're all experienced enough at this game to develop a good intuition of what may or may not be good. Not a perfect process, but decently one. Intuition said it would be shit. Math is saying it would be shit. There's no "hidden actual play" aspect to change this. We KNOW how actual play goes, well enough to also know ranger is just inferior to the other options all around
@@guardiantree8879 moon druid 100% does more single target and AOE damage and we dont even have the 2024 MM yet
I was thinking that a Sword and Board Battle Master Fighter is really good at baiting out missed opportunity attacks so they can get a Riposte attack. Sap gives Disadvantage on the enemies next attack. Plus you have heavy armor and a shield for good AC.
Wonder if Gloomstalker with Battlemaster dip would do the trick, especially for those at tables with 1 or 2 combats per long rest
I just house ruled that Hunters Mark while still a bonus to cast, I allow the target to be switched once on your turn for free.
Then starting at level 6, Ranger's add half their Ranger's level (rounded down) in damage to their first attack on their Hunter's Mark target.
The ranger is going to be a "splash only" class until further notice. I'm playing a shadow monk for a new game that will go into tier 3. Getting two levels of ranger is super useful for the fighting style feat, weapon mastery, and hunter's mark. These three when combined with a monk's skill set is absolutely bonkers.
I think 1 way to fix it:
When you cast HM from class feature (column ranger) you should add 1 die for each tear
1 at liv5, 2 at liv 11 and 3 at liv 17
This way you should safe from strange multiclass op build, and keep the vibes of the main class
That maybe a bit too strong, especially with the fact that you add this with each attack
so at tier 4, you would be dealing 4d6 with each attack, for a total of 8d6, which is similar to the rogue's sneak attack
and if you use swift quiver or beast master, the total becomes 12d6, which is a lot of damage
instead, make the die scale like the monk's martial arts die, rather than becoming a d10 at level 20
@@ryen0262 not more then spells like font of moonlight or conjure minor elm.
@@giuseppesiena955 yes, but those require spell slots
hunter's mark & attacks are basically for free, so being able to dish out the damage of these spells on the regular is way too strong
Almost everyone agrees that conjure minor elementals is broken, making the ranger stronger than that would make it even more broken
@@ryen0262 it could be at least done with 1 minute this way. So you have 3/4 limited nova damage day, very bursted and unique. Change only the dice dmg is not enough comparing other melee classes. And change the HM as not concentration spell from liv1 as many said, it's wrong it will be a 1/2 deep class like the old warlock
@@giuseppesiena955 I read that like 5 times and I couldnt understand at all XD could you please explain?
Maybe at some point have Hunter's Mark affect the species and not just and individual would be helpful? Minimizing Bonus action Clog
Then be able to maintain concentration on it while being able to concentrate on other ranger spells? Aiding in the concentration issue without making it OP for multiclassing
Bonus if more damage rolls and not just from attacks get to benefit from HM. Conjure Volley and Conjure Barrage should atleast benefit from HM.
Not sure if anyone will respond a month after this aired, but I don't understand the math for Nature's Veil. I understand getting the advantage amount and subtracting the regular damage, but then you divide by 16? Where does that come from? Also, on the TWF build, the result was multiplied by 5 first, which I assumed was due to having 5 uses per rest. But this build didn't include the 5. So I'm not sure where either number comes from.
Basically the take away is that there is no balance reason to require the bonus action to cast or transfer Hunter's Mark, and Hail of Thorns to have some extra damage to the target hit in addition to the burst. Or increase the base damage to 2d10. Or else have it scale better.
I think taking away the bonus action to transfer makes sense more from a "quality of life" perspective so you don't have to track it and worry so much about conflicts with your subclass features. And then I'm wondering if allowing simultaneous concentration on HM and one other spell at level 10 would give access to enough "fun toys" that it would give us the damage boost we need in Tier 3/4.
I don't know if just fixing Hunter's Mark is enough. It would certainly help though.
@@bigdream_dreambigAgreed, but make it concentration on one additional RANGER spell to avoid multiclass shenqnigans.
I think you should do a video where you ask the question, "What If Hunter's Mark didn't require Concentration?" and see how the damage would look. If it relatively keeps up with everyone then it proves it should have been that way all along. And if it exceeds everyone then it proves that it isn't the solution, allowing for there to be room for figuring out what the solution actually is.
Hey Treantmonk I know this is a bit late in the BM Ranger’s level but do you think if at level 15 when the BM gets “Share Spells” they could do better damage with Conjure Woodland Begins? The beast could move damage the target then ready their action to move again to damage them again.
Yes I'm glad someone beat me to it. Re do the calculations with Conjure Woodland Beings at 13+, and then Conjure Volley at 17. Don't forget conjure Barrage. How can TreantMonk forget these spells. Do a fair Ranger build with Beast Master and talk about all the spell combos and stacking you can do to emulate a ranger and optimize the damage. Longstrider+ Ashardolons for your 3rd lvls, or Summon Fey for your 3rds. Plus all the utility of share spells, still think it's one of the best abilities in the game. 5d8 radiant per emanation. Double at 15. Hunters Mark is for the 2-3 combats that aren't important. Big boy spells like Spike growth, Summon Fey, Ashardolons, Conjure Woodland Beings, Conjure Barrage, Conjure Volley are for the important fights, or if you want to extend your reach in combat. Pretty useful to have the Ranger bust out a 60ft cone or 40ft radius AOE when they normally slam one enemy. Then they proceed to slam one enemy
@@dominicl5862 It is a ranged focus build here. I’m thinking using Conjure Woodland Beings before level 15 wouldn’t work for the longbow archer but at 15 it would be helpful for your Beast of the Sky. Also we have to remember it’s single target focused without using content not in the 2024 PHB
@@Finalplayer14 I forgot to mention summon beast starting from 5. Maybe it's just me but Im pretty sure the designers factor in optimized spell casting when they balance. They probably like "Why is the Ranger bad? From lvl 5 onwards as a Beast Master you can have two Hawks with summon beast for important combats." Literally a scaling autonomous clone. Ya they may die, you may lose conc. so is the woes of DnD. At lvl 9 you can Summon Fey or Ashardolons. Lvl 13 Summon spells gain extra attack so between your beasts and you , it's 6 attacks. CWB would still be decent on a ranged character fighting in the midrange and wanting to keep melee enemies away. Plus if you can stack longstrider you can p easily duck into enemy range 10ft and duck away. 5d8 save for half is just underrated rn. Lvl 15 you get share spells with Beast and it's just candy from there. Unless I'm mistaken all those spells were ported over from Tasha's and other books into new PHB and some extra spells given to ranger and made non concentration.
The problem with factoring in CWB is that it takes up your entire action the first round to cast it. If there's only a single target involved (and TM's builds are focusing on single-target damage), that 5d8 damage save for half is going to be a lot less damage than your standard attack routine, and by the time you make it up, the combat is almost over. Not good for a 4th-level slot. You only cast CWB when there are multiple targets (at least 3) you can wade into and damage on round 1, in which case the damage done does become worth both the first-round action and the spell slot.
@@tiradegrandmarshalI was wondering if the 10d8 or 12d8 with a 5th level slot is better than the usual attack routine on the first round since you’d be triggering the damage twice on the same foe not just once