Ranger | Unearthed Arcana | Player's Handbook Playtest 6 | D&D
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 июн 2023
- Visit dndbeyond.link/yt_ranger_play... and help shape the future of Dungeons & Dragons. New playtest material coming June 29th.
Jeremy Crawford and @ToddKenreck talk about the playtest material out April 26th for the 2024 Player's Handbook for Dungeons & Dragons.
This playtest document is part of a series of Unearthed Arcana articles that present material designed for the 2024 version of the Player’s Handbook. The material here uses the rules in the 2014 Player’s Handbook, except where noted. After we conclude the public playtest for the Player’s Handbook, Unearthed Arcana will explore material for the Dungeon Master’s Guide and Monster Manual.
#dnd #dungeonsanddragons 
Развлечения
Jeremy: The changes to the Ranger were super popular
Also Jeremy: Let's revert all the popular changes.
??????????
Let's hope this is one of those "we know that this is experimental but we're doing just to see the feedback*
The fact that Hunter’s Mark requires concentration again kills this version of the ranger for me. The class already is one of the most concentration heavy classes in the game. Weapon mastery is cool, but it doesn’t justify concentrating on a 1st level spell for 1d6 damage
Exactly, ranger is my go-to, but if i want to cast anything but cure wounds, i can't use hunters mark.
My dms let me run it without concentration, and it is so freeing, and it's not broken either
Each subclass includes ways to add more damage, though; Gloom Stalkers deal extra psychic damage with Dread Ambusher, Beast Masters' animals can attack, etc.
@@StriderZessei ranger subclasses already did that, and the class still struggled hard pre-Tasha’s. Concentration was always what was holding it back because literally all of rangers good combat spells required concentration
I don’t understand why they think making hunters mark concentration free is over powered. They gave bards the ability to pick from any spell list and wizards can break the game by changing spells, but a ranger able to deal 1d6 of damage while also concentrating on a utility spell is just too much
@@jacoboverstreet8553 That's corrected if they make it a Ranger-only spell... but I feel like that's a low-hanging fruit. The Ranger's expression of being an expert on monster could be much more than just a spell-derived damage bonus. Hunter's Mark could just as well be given the same treatment the Paladin's Smite was given and achieve much more. Especially if the whole party might benefit from it.
I mean, what do you picture a party bringing an expert survivalist and monster expert along for? Fiction portray Rangers as guides for good reason: they ought to be able to help an entire group better deal with danger. People go "Yay!" for a Bard's ability to support, for the Paladin's aura of protection... what would a party go "Yay!" to having a ranger around that would be distinct to the Ranger?
So far? Not much. There lies the failure of the current Ranger's design. It doesn't fulfill its class fantasy.
“We wanted to keep what people liked about the previous ranger UA,” *makes hunter’s mark require concentration again and doesn’t give the core class any clear identity*
Swing and a miss there guys
Let the Animal Companion be able to take an action alongside their Ranger. Isn't that the biggest weakness of the Ranger class, that either only their Animal Companion or the Ranger can take an action, not both?
@@Catalyst375 that was a problem of the beast master subclass. It’s solved using the Tasha’s options, and they ported them onto the new beast master
This new ranger feels like past. All Changes feels like the 2014 class... even with all "changes".
Yes, they keep going with refinements, but there's a more deep-rooted problem here, and they should focus on that, not on hunter's mark
@@eliascabbio7598 I like nerd immersion suggestion that base ranger should be the pet class then each subclass can focus on either the pet, the weapon attacks, or the casting aspect of the class
As a reminder we will be getting a survey! So keep that in mind and put your critcism in there so we don't have to be stuck with this version of Hunter’s mark!
It was too powerful as it was
This version of hunter’s mark is fine, I don‘t understand your point. Once per turn damage effects are just as good as once per hit damage effects used to be, and fore the most part, more balanced too.
@@n.k.2662 I'm just simply keeping the people informed about the avenues of putting their thoughts out there regarding the playtest!
@@Mark-ki7ic and how is that? It the main class feature . Compare them to the other 1/2 caster( Paladin) their damage is terrible . Compare them to the other expertise class options ( rogue and bard) and they have the lowest damage output. What is OP about a max 2d6 extra after level 5?
Let’s compare it to a 5th level rogue shall we ? They get 3D6 at level 5 and can now use it on their reaction again.
@@colmbright9822 imagine having a light weapon, it'd 2 hits at level 1 and 3 at level 5, plus you can put concentration spells on it, plus every subclass has a boost for damage.
It may gets easily overwhelming, imagine also multiclassing with a ranger and get this at level 2, it was a problem.
I would just make it a class feature, 1d6xhit, full stop, with cool stuff attached like see the vulnerabilities and resistences and maybe also know their language
But, Hunter's mark was the only spell that real synergized with dual wielding...
Bonus action economy with HM and duel wielding was/is not good though
@@minivergur but there are even more options for almost every other martial style. I think the throwing style might be even better at this point.
@@Ichiryu000 sure, I'm just saying HM and duel wielding wasn't that good to begin with
@@minivergur You can get the Nick weapon mastery to negate this.
@@minivergur But it was something. This exact argument is supportive of "why take it a way?"
The Ranger identity is all over the place here. Hunter's Mark does not provide an aspect of this identity in the same way that Eldritch Blast does for the Warlock (due to invocations). The Ranger as an "Expert" is diminished if they only get 2 expertise (at very distant levels) instead of 4 expertise skills. Moreover, while you gain advantage in certain terrains, the raging Barbarian is now better at survival and perception than the so-called expert Ranger due to the Barb's Primal Knowledge. While raging the Barb uses Strength (their primary stat) for perception and survival and the barb gains advantage on strength ability checks while raging. Meanwhile, the Ranger gets 1 expertise for a skill using a secondary ability score (Wisdom) and advantage on survival and Nature checks in some terrains. Sure, its only while raging and that is only twice at low levels BUT this is still bad design since it can potentially shatter the Ranger/expert narrative as the master tracker/spotter if the checks come up while the barb is raging (now lasts 10 minutes). And the capstone is lackluster. While the Bard gets 2 Power Word kills or PWHs at level 20 and the cleric and sorcerer get the Wish spell, the ranger has Wisdom bonus to hit and damage if Hunter's mark is on the target. At least give them 'no concentration' hunter's mark at level 20 in addition to foe slayer. The Ranger is not in a good place especially when you see what goodies the Rogue and others got in this playtest.
Here's an idea I had to fix this
Level 1: Deft Explorer should provide 2 expertise skills + the advantage in favored terrains.
Level 6: Roving + Deft Explorer Improvement (with 2 expertise skills)
Level 9: Conjure Barrage + Tireless
Level 10: Ability Score Improvement (so you can max your Dex with 3 feats rather than 1 feat and a +2 to Dex at level 8) Just a quality of life improvement
LEvel 13: Hunter's Mark Mastery - you can upcast your hunter's mark at the highest level of spells that you can cast without expending a spell slot but costing you 2 of your free Hunter's Mark casts per day (Wisdom modifier number of times per day).
Level 20: Foe Slayer. Your Hunter's Mark no longer requires your concentration. Moreover, when you miss with a target affected by your Hunter's Mark.... (thereafter the same as foe slayer)
The above makes you the Wilderness 'expert', encourages use of the hunter's mark throughout your class progression by offering scaling, and also encouraging the player to use ASI's at levels 12 and 16 to improve your Wisdom so you can upcast HM as well as get a good benefit from Foe Slayer (and improving your Wisdom also improves several expert skills).
EDIT: Forgot one thing... for the Druid and the Ranger and the Nature Cleric, Knowledge (Nature) should use the Wisdom ability score rather than Intelligence. It's counterproductive to running the game to have it as Intelligence.
Rangers have an identity though!!!
They are master archers as long as there are no fighters or bards around
They are healers as long as there are no clerics or druids around
They are master scouts and spys as long as there are no rogues or barbarians around
They are the master of the wilds as long as there are no druids around
They are the best half casters as long as there are no paladins or warlocks around
"They are [fill in blank] as long as no [fill in blank] around." Is there identity XD
I feel like Rangers lack a core class theme/ability. Reckless and Rage, Cunning Action and Sneak Attack, Bardic Inspiration and all three spell lists, Smites and Auras all have more uses and variety than just a flat 1d6 damage and very situational advantage on finding/tracking the creature. I can now just cast Faerie Fire and also give advantage to all my allies as well.
yes exactly, this guy just said it was one of the most improved classes, now the go and undo that? what the hell, they must be joking
Study bonus action with Survival, and then gaining the benefit from Hunter's Mark, would have been amazing.
@@walter081095 last playtest was basically tasha transcripted, it was just a technical, but broken, improvement, which didn't solve the main problem: ranger is going though an identity crisis, they have to purpose and they are not doing any funny things, that's the problem they should address, not concentration on hunter's mark.
People are obsessed with Hunter's mark because it's the only thing thematically related to rangers, and it's sad
4Th DnD Ranger was a good design. The game system was weird and doenst feels like DnD. But The Ranger class feature are cool. Move Hunter's Mark and Favored Enemy to Hunter's Quarry was a good choice.
For me they could go for this way. Make Hunter's Mark a Class Feature... make it at will at bonus action cost; Damage once per turn and advantage to Stealth, Insight, Perception and Survival Checks against the chosen target. And upgrade the damage at some levels to 2d6 and after 3d6.
This change will make rangers feels like a true hunter. After you choose your prey, it cant escape from you.
@@diegonunesnl I think that it's a super good idea
If you make hunter's mark a concentration spell then it must be cast as a free action when you hit a creature and not as a bonus action, otherwise you will not be able to use your Beastmaster pet everytime you lose concentration in order to to cast Hunter's mark again... The sinergy with the beastmaster is completely gone
Look at this: Make it a class feature, it scales up with levels, no concentration but once per turn. It can be activated like Favored Foe in Tasha, meaning when you hit an enemy you can mark it. No bonus action.
You have consistent controlled damage for the ranger that works with subclasses that use the bonus action.
Dear WOTC, please make Hunter's Mark into a cantrip. Thanks!
Make it a class feature more than a cantrip
@@eliascabbio7598people keep thinking that spells aren't class features. They are. The fact that spellcaster have infinitely more infinitely stronget features with more uses keeps being ignored because people keep pretending that they sre somehow different from martials
@@andreymontag yes but spells have different intersections with other game objects. Spells can be resisted, counterspelled, blocked, made unaccessible by class features (see Barbarian rage), suppressed by other magical effects... Being a class feature makes it less vulnerable, making it available more often
@@eliascabbio7598 Nah, featues have usually worse range and playing around counterspell is super easy even without subtle spell. Also, a ton of spells can be restcasted or precasted and you could just make a guy who does only that
@@andreymontag still, the limitations remain
What happened to the cantrips????!!!! The Arcane Trickster, a subclass, gets cantrips but Ranger (and Paladin), a full class, loses them????!!!! The Primal cantrips aren't that powerful, and a Ranger should be able to get Shillelagh without taking the Magic Initiate:Primal feat from a background.
Totally agree, that's a shame they took it back
They will probably add a fighting style to get a few cantrips
Since the capstone is based on hunter's mark which is concentration based that means by nature ranger's capstone is concentration based which is... kind of silly for a level 20 capstone to be rendered useless by failing a con roll.
Bring back Favored Enemy and give it a damage bonus against that enemy type (flat bonus i.e. Barbarian rage damage progression so it synergizes with dual wielding). Let the ranger change their Favored Enemy on Long Rest to symbolize the ranger preparing for the upcoming fight. This would incentivize scouting and tracking to identify what sort of enemy might lie ahead, which restores the class's identity. Then take the Hunter's Mark spell and throw it in the garbage; any spell that complicates balance so much the whole class has to be designed around it is a problem.
My biggest take on this current version of the ranger is that it still lacks a true identity. I feel the base class is being left behind when compared with to other base class mechanics. Hunters mark still is meh at best. The cap stone is laughable, looking at you bards…. I would argue that perhaps making the pet a baseline, and giving the beast master another make over similar to the circle of the moon Druid subclass from this UA. As a ranger I just see things like cunning strikes, wild shape, bardic inspiration, auras, smites, and so on as class identity. What makes the Ranger special compared to the others? Hunters mark, conjure barrage and conjure volly? I’ll give my feedback in the survey, but these are my initial thoughts. Enjoying the other classes and I like what I’m seeing, I just feel we’re bastardizing the ranger again.
Problem is that they keep focus on refinements, but ranger needs a total revision. The mid and high level features, except the capstone, are good, the problem is the basic features, very generalistic and boring.
They should focus on something fun to do with the ranger, something that feels like being a ranger
Honestly tho, the Bard’s capstone ability is useless for them. Can’t tell if you were saying the capstone was also laughable like the Bards, or not. But sending out a friendly reminder that the bard capstone is indeed trash and useless for them 🤣
@@brannenpfister2579 the new ua6 bard capstone? Words of creation, where you automatically learn power word heal and power word kill, and you can get a second target within 10 feet of either of those spells when you cast it as a level 20 bard? That seems a lot more powerful then it’s predecessor and a lot of other capstones atm imo. 🤷🏻♂️
@@roninhare9615 Yes, it’s useless. You will never. EVER. Cast those spells. By that time you will have Wish, mass heal, and truepolymorph. And that’s before level 20. If you are a 20th level Bard and cast either of those spells, even WITH the buff you are failing your party. Mass heal is power word heal casted like, 5-6 times depending on parry comp. And power word kill has the situational use of doing 12d12 psychic damage to two different things. But why would you ever use power word kill, when you could True polymorph into an Adult Gold Dragon (before level 20 mind you) and unleash a fire breath that does 12d10 on a RECHARGE to likely more than 2 creatures.
The capstone, effectively, does absolutely nothing for the bard. And this is even assuming you aren’t using your 9th level slot for Wish of all things.
Now, if people want to nerf their character for the sake of flavor (something a lot of people do), then sure. I think it’s flavorful. It makes sense. But that doesn’t mean it’s good. In order for this to feel like a real capstone, you would have to add “You can cast one of these spells, once per long rest, without expending a spell slot”. THEN, it would be a great capstone. Otherwise, it’s completely and utterly useless, unless you don’t mind poorly using your 9th level slot.
@@brannenpfister2579 I agree, your right. I would say to make this work better, that either you may cast one of these spells for free once per day or you may expend a 8th or maybe even a 7th level spell slot instead of a 9th to cast it. I’m just spit ballin, but for it to be a better use, it needs to be desirable, and your right, the other 9th level spells are just better.
Conjure barrage and hunter's mark are still a spells? Please just give them abilities!
yeah, expend a high level slot to do the same as a low level slot for any spellcaster
They are also terrible for flavor for a melee ranger. I absolutely hate the idea of it just a bunch of thrown blades coming out of nowhere.
To solve the problem with Hunter's mark, it should just be a class feature, like sneak attack, that scales with levels, like a cantrip.
Making it a spell or a cantrip is not a good idea for multiclassing btw, it should be the main class feature
This ☝️. And moving Hunter’s mark to a new target when your current target dies should be a free action. You’re already concentrating on it. This way it doesn’t conflict with bonus action attacks for dual wielders.
@@runefire8127 i agree, it should be just something different
100% love,the idea of turning it into a class feature. But that does go against the backwards compatibility they have been railing on about.
@@logancuster8035 sure you're right, but I don't care, they can find a way out, Ranger class is going through an identity crisis in d&d 5e, it lost all of its purpose, we need more thematically oriented features, more characteristic class features and fun things to do with it
People can say that dealing 2d6 or 3d6 per turn is too much for a 1st level spell, but it's definitely too little for a 3rd or 5th level spell...
I'm pretty crestfallen by the 2024 Ranger as presented. They are perpetuating the same pitfalls as the earlier playtest.
5E started with a flawed Ranger chassis. But all these refinements have done is streamlining anything that came out of Tasha as a "patch" and making it permanent with a lot less choice and identifiable distinct mechanics than there was; without identifying the core problem... which was that the 5e chassis for Ranger did not mechanically live up well to its class fantasy. Now that's its bloated up with the Tasha replacement, they stuck to the safe choices and didn't try to innovate like they should have had. I mean, _Conjure Barrage? Really?_
The ranger is just there to do some damage, have some skills and sling about some druid spells, without getting much that would have a party go "YES, WE HAVE A RANGER" and rejoice the same way they might with a Paladin or a Bard.
Think about it: when do people _in-character_ actually want and value a ranger's skills? It's when they want an expert at dealing with dangers out in the wilds. From dealing with dangerous monsters because the ranger had an eye for dealing with them, to ease of getting around in the wilderness, to dealing with dangerous hazards.
The ranger is supposed to be known as a master at dealing with all of that. More importantly, the fiction usually support that a party needs what the ranger knows.
Why?
Because the Ranger should have been designed as a *force-multiplier* .
I think the Ranger should have had a focus on showing his allies how to better hurt monsters, along with a specialize it to provide disadvantages on hit:
- Hunter's Mark becoming a class feature that helps your party in dealing more damage to the marked creature;
- Hunter's Mark being expanded to impose temporary conditions on hit (ex.: movement reduction, applying disadvantage to attacks, impeding reach/opportunity attacks, halving damage, negating healing, slowing movement.)
*In practice:*
_The use of Hindering Mark, a mark made so that allies hitting the target will deal extra damage and impose disadvantage on the target's next attack. A ranger could yell: "Friends, attack its hind legs!" - knowing striking the hind legs will make it harder for the dragon to attack with its forepaws. Then anyone striking at the marked creature would be the driver for extra damage and applying said condition._
And I believe the Ranger, as the ultimate survivalist guide, should be to pick from a variety of party-wide benefits against danger:
- Mechanical benefits in combat, such as being able to use a reaction to halve the damage from an element, or overturn a condition.
- Benefits while dealing with environment to help an entire party survive better, travel better, and discover things better.
*In practice:*
_A desert-oriented ranger may have picked Firewatcher, a Wilderness Lore feat that helps his party better deal with the extreme heat of a desert, a volcano, or the Fire Elemental plane. In addition, in combat, he could be able to use his reaction to yell - "Firebreath! Take cover!" - halving fire damage to his entire party when a Red Dragon breathes on them._
Rather than spell out a Ranger is a 'slayer of Ice Trolls', a ranger instead trained in _Enervating Mark_ (the Hunter's Mark that hinders healing) and _Snowscaper_ (the Cold equivalent of Firewatcher, cold resists as well as benefits to not slipping and maintaining balance/not being knocked prone) could end up calling himself a specialist at killing Ice Trolls... without being narrowed down to that single monster. His affinities against preventing healing and helping his party resist cold and being knocked prone could come in handy in any number of encounters much more commonly than just with trolls.
Just as a Battlemaster fighter starts with a few maneuvers and picks others later in his career; or Warlock earns extra invocations along the way... such a Ranger could build a repertoire which could benefit both himself and his group. Or, to be more flexible, follow the Paladin's Smite group and grant extra Hunter's Mark-themed spell choices unique to the Ranger. A bard improves the prowess of a group; while a ranger could improve the efficacity of a group against a marked target, against dangers and overall ease of dealing with hazards while traveling.
Also, the few people I've talked to so far whom commented on the idea seemed to find this idea nice, but too powerful in addition to what the Ranger in the UA has. In my eyes it would replace the features Tasha replaced _Favored Enemy_ and _Natural Explorer_ for, provide the substance both original iterations missed, and land the Ranger in the enviable position of giving party-wide 'resist element', something we've yet to have in 5E.
To expand on this idea, they can take a look at the "Skill" Actions (Influence, Search, Study), specifically the Study skill which specifies what skills can be used for pulling on research of creature types. Expertise/proficiency on those skills is similar to the idea of having a "Favored Field/Foe".
Maybe Hunter's Mark allows one to Study/Search/Influence with a fitting skill for free on cast or as a bonus action on following turns. With Study, based on the result gleamed from that, a Ranger can grant bonuses during their Hunter's Mark to others, more bonuses the higher it is. Similar to the Inquisitive Rogue's Insightful Fighting, which I feel like could be used as a chassis for Ranger.
One problem that I'd find is that you can only have expertise on skills in the Ranger skill list, thus you can only get the expertise benefit of Nature for Study. Without Arcana and Religion Expertise, you can't focus on Aberrations, Fiends, Elementals, etc... If the "Parleying with Monsters - Monster Research" section in Tasha's is used instead, they can give a wider use to the Nature and Survival skills.
That's a very darn good idea, hunter's mark was the only cool thing about rangers in previous versions, that's why people love it so much.
It should become a class feature, and that should be the direction
I feel that Hunters' Mark is balanced at lower levels, but at mid and higher levels it would only be a usable option if it were to lose concentration, either through a class feature or through upcasting.
That's because it's just a spell, it should be a class feature
@@eliascabbio7598 A class feature that requires your bonus action, concentration and a spell slot...
Multiclassing one level into rogue gets you HM basically all the time for free.
@@Nerd704 of course removing the concentration and the spell use, as you say it's almost the same damage of sneak attack
Thumbnail has Ranger with great axe, Rangers still can't use Great Weapon fighting style
Here is the thing, Rangers and Monks (arguably the Rogues and Sorcerers) where classes that fell behind the others, they literally lacked in fun and power to keep up with the others. You won't go far if you try the Give/Take method on them, they need a pure, not a rebalance, just a buff/give.
I understand that both where given and taken, Monks now lost Stunning Strike consistency and where given a higher dice for punchs- that's not enough. I saw the other quality of life changes, but they're not enough (mainly Dash+Disengage, that where worse than Rogue's). They need more. Try d10 for hit dice and see how people will react.
And now the Rangers got advantages on their terrain, so they took the Concentration from hunter's mark. They again felt lacking. Please, WotC and Jeremy, don't take, just give - so they can have the same amount as everybody.
The only time non-concentration Hunter’s Mark is problematic is when you stack Hex and make multiple attacks with action surge. This exploit can be removed by making Hunter’s Mark, Hex, and Action Surge class features that do not transfer from multiclassing. 1d6 extra damage per attack on one target is not OP.
I mean, part of this (action surge) is already fixed because they made the damage only work once per turn. So you just have to worry about hex and and hunter's mark stacking. This, as we compare it to other similar features (sneak attack, for example) isn't that overpowered.
This also really needs to be fixed because they are making it core to subclass identities too. Hunter uses hunter's mark not just for damage, but for one of it's key features...making it less of an option to choose the other good spells ranger has access to (many of which are concentration based). This will be slightly better with the way new spell lists work, but I think the balancing here has gone overboard when they could have just stuck with making the damage a one instance per turn thing.
Stacking with Hex isn't even that good because both eat your bonus actions and limiting them both to once per turn would be enough to reign them in. For example:
Turn one, cast one of them, attack.
Turn two, cast the other, attack, great, you killed something.
Turn three, move one of your spells, attack, the combat's over.
Congratulations, you squeezed one extra d6 out of that multiclass. You probably could get more of that Warlock dip on your Ranger by ignoring both of those spells and going Beast Master with Wisdom Pact Weapon, using every bonus action on commanding Beast, but now using the same ability for both your and Beast's attacks.
The Ranger sounds awful now.
About The Idea of a especific terrain feature for The Ranger, and things related, i would like to sugest for The playtest 8:
(I really would like to know your opinion, guys)
-Expertise: Separate from deft explorer, granting the benefit in two skills as occurs with rogue and bard. Later the Ranger receives expertise in two other skills, totaling 4 as with other classes focused on Skill.
-Reason: It would guarantee full efficiency as an expert, not falling behind classes supposed to be specialists in another area of activity.
-Deft Explorer: Completely redesigned. The Ranger receives this benefit on a number of lands he has come into contact with, like, up to the amount of half the level (rounded up) + wisdom bonus. In them, the character and allies who can see him up to 30 feet do not suffer from difficult terrain arising from natural areas, and the ranger can use stealth, study and surch actions related to the terrain and its creatures as a bonus action.
-Reason: When an action can be performed as a BA, this means it can be performed twice as many times per round, effectively doubling your chances of success and/or cutting the time to perform a task in half (perfect for representing someone familiar with with an environment).
-Favored Enemy: The ranger adds hunters mark to his list of spells known. If you already have it, choose another spell. Additionally, as part of the bonus action used to cast or designate a new Hunters Mark target, the Ranger performs a Study action with the appropriate Skill to identify details about the creature. You will receive an advantage if the creature is related to known terrain (Deft Explorer). For every 5 above the Skill CD to identify the creature, hunters mark will be cast 1 level higher.
-Reason: extra information about a prey's weaknesses and habits is flavorful, and the upcast represents that the Ranger has intuited more efficient ways of not losing his tracks and even causing more damage.
PS: It would be great if hunters mark became concentration free after a certain casting level, as happens with bestow curse.
-Deft Explorer Improvement: the Ranger adds his Wisdom Bonus in Study Actions related to known terrains and their creatures. When on familiar terrain, it adds a wisdom bonus to its initiative and cannot suffer the surprised condition.
-Reason: Walter is simply not surprised by anything in Texas, just like Aragorn in Middle Earth.
-Natures Veil: The ranger adds Invisibility to his list of spells known. When on known terrain, you can cast Invisibility on yourself as a bonus action and when the spell ends because of an attack or spellcasting, it will still last until the end of your next turn.
-Reason: increases versatility since invisibility is something quite versatile, as it creates a mechanism related to the environment to add flavor. At this point the Ranger would have, on average, 7 to 10 known terrains. Added to the number of spell slots, use as intended will be quite frequent.
I do gotta say that if feels like you guys are playing favourites when comparing the concentration requiring hunter's mark 1d6 per turn to paladins's concentrationless 1d8 dmg per atack... C'mon it sucks and noone Will spend a 4th level spell for 2d6!!!
Make it the concentrationless feature counterpart to paladins, make it start with a bonus 1d4 from level 3 and end at 1d10 at level 15 and dont be lazy, if paladins deserve a list of smites, rangers deserve a list of new and exclusive Archery focused spells... Call it smthng like "slayer spells" instead of smite spells
All of this ☝️
Totally agree, with HM not being a spell anymore
Hunters Mark is only once a round and now it’s force damage which means a creature can be immune to it.
Why make it a damage type . The extra damage never came from magic but knowing where a creature’s soft spot was .
There's like 1 or 2 creatures in total resistent or immune to force damage, is basically the same thing, but instead of being "magical damage" it's now "magical force damage".
That's not the biggest problem btw, it's about a total lack of identity for tge ranger
Kills me that in 2014, rangers were the worst designed of all the classes. The ranger has suffered as a class that was given nothing mechanically unique. It's just been a straight up attempt to be a "kinda-fighter" mixed with a "kinda-caster". Sadly, the 2 parts have never added up to a whole. Tasha's gave us a bunch of new options, helping to make the class more playable, but still no identity.
While the rest of the new UA classes are seeing fixes and additional features, the newest version of the ranger is still limping along trying to make it on par to the other 2014 PHB classes - and failing, let alone standing aside the other new updated classes.
Seriously, please stop trying to make Hunter's Mark the fulcrum of the entire class. Why would anyone want to play a ranger that has to rely on all these spells, as a half-caster? Why do you think making conjure barrage and conjure volly core to the base class makes this fun or exciting? Why would anyone want to play a ranger that demands you play EVERY combat with Hunter's Mark active just to deal "not nearly-equitable" damage compared to the other classes (while also dealing with concentration issues)?
And even it's lack of power and function in the party aside, it STILL lacks a distinct identity. Just give the base class an animal companion already! I have no clue why WotC is dancing around this. And STOP making everything the ranger can do be a spell! Give them abilities instead. Druids get "uses of Wild Shape" to do cool fun things other than turn into an animal, all without expending spell slots. But you make the half-caster burn spell slots, resources, concentration, and everything else just to get out of bed in the morning, then give them no choices and demand they use of hunters mark, and then... nothing... just nothing at all. PLEASE fix this... and it needs WAY more than just "no concentration on hunter's mark".
This ranger needs overhauled or it will be a repeat of 2014, but magnified.
Protect what is popular 🙄 . You made Rangers good and than took everything away. Took away cantrips, made Hunter’s Mark concentration and oh yah nerfed it so became getting 1d6 on 2 attacks just makes that waaaay to much damage. Especially when you compare it to say smites or sneak attack .
This is a huge fail. I guess everyone liking the UA they just released had to be a mistake so they “fixed” that
HM's as Rangers' signature spell/move interacts poorly with everything the ranger does... as a concentration spell, mantaining in cqb is troublesome if you are melee ranger. Competes with Lightning arrow, hail of thorns, esnaring strike and Swift Quiver (those spells should actually receive revision - when I DM swift quiver is also always changed to 4th level because it comes way too late for the ranger). At least, the previous ranger version made it possible to use those spells with HM as archer ranger, now it is completely inviable again.
Ranger is to Druid what Paladin is to Cleric... or should be. And the Ranger suffers badly in comparison to the features a Paladin gets.
Give Rangers a "Channel Nature" ability to rival Channel Divinity & Wildshape. It could be used to power "Primal Sense", an ability to rival Divine Sense that would allow Rangers to sense (or "track") where certain creatures are. These could be Nature-themed (like Beasts, Fey, Plants) or allow the Ranger to choose. Paladins' Divine Sense actually makes them better at finding (certain) creatures than a Ranger. And finding creatures- some might argue- is a class-defining feature of Rangers.
Channel Nature could also be used to power a summon animal companion feature (as in, a familiar) much like the Druid feature- since I've heard many would like the base Ranger to have an animal companion.
Channel Nature could then also be used to power subclass features. All of this would help give the Ranger a more defined identity as the semi-magical nature warrior.
Some more suggestions:
-Roving should be at level 5, to counter the Pally's Find Steed.
-Tireless should be moved to level 6 and made a Bonus Action to rival the Paladin's Aura of Protection.
-At lvl 9, give Rangers an "Entangle Foes" ability, fueled by Channel Nature, that would restrain enemies. This would rival the Paladin's Abjure Foes.
-At lvl 10, make Rangers immune to Poison, or at least resistant, w advantage on saves v Poison & Poisoned condition. They spend time in Nature. They should know about poisonous plants, etc.
-Conjure Barrage should get 1 free casting per long rest. If its a mid/high level class feature, it shouldn't tax class resources. This 1 free casting can then be shared with Conjure Barrage (player chooses).
-Capstone Foe Slayer: add Ranger level (which will be 20) to the damage.
-Hunter's Mark spell: if it's going to require concentration, then it needs to be a viable choice in comparison to other Ranger concentration spells- otherwise, why would anyone bother to use this (apparently) class-defining spell at higher levels? I'd suggest either: it scales as a d6 per spell level damage (keep it once per turn) as in 4th level spell slot is 4d6, 5th is 5d6, etc. OR, keep it exactly as is in the UA playtest 6, but also scale it with a to-hit bonus of +1 at tier 1, +2 at tier 2, and +3 at tier 3.
This will make it a class-defining spell, comparable to the Paladin's Smites, that players might actually wish to use at higher levels instead of Conjure Animals or Conjure Woodland Beings or most any other concentration Ranger spells.
The Ranger as written in the playtest 6 UA is comparatively (to most other classes in the UA) weak and lacks in distinctive flavor (beyond some tracking abilities & a couple of spells). Why would i want to play a Ranger instead of a Paladin? Paladins have SO many really good features, like Lay on Hands, Aura of Protection, Divine Sense, Divine Smite, etc, etc, while Rangers get free castings of the "meh" spell Hunters Mark? And Nature's Veil, which is nice, but not until high level. Ditto with the Conjure Barrage/Volley spells. No, the Paladin is MUCH more powerful than the Ranger and much more front-loaded, too. I don't think the Ranger should match the Paladin feature for feature necessarily. My suggestions were more to point out how much the Ranger lacks when compared to Paladin (since, i believe, they fill the half caster niches for Divines & Primals- and as Warlock or Artificer fill the Arcane half caster niche.)
Please consider doing something with the Ranger class, whether it's any of my suggestions or not. I think many players like the theme & idea of Rangers (Robin Hood, Legolas, etc...) but avoid playing them because they are mechanically weak and not very flavorful.
Thank you.
I'm 100% ok with it triggering once per turn, but 100% not ok with it being concentration.
it seems like there's a mistake in the design notes. They say that exceptional training lets the companion ignore damage resistances, but the actual text of exceptional training says that the animal companion can do force damage instead of regular, which isn't really the same thing.
What you guys think about a Primal Order like feature for the Ranger to choose between two Cantrips Or two Mastery Properties. In addition to being balanced, it sounds like a thematically appropriate opening to me.
As I go through this play test, I have thoughts, which I will absolutely mention in the survey.
The biggest issue is hunter mark. Even in the 2014 version of its, it lost alot a punch once you had better spells to concentrate on. So to sacrifice your concentration for a d6 of damage isn't really going to be worth casting over spells like entangle, spike growth, flame sphere or even polymorph. The once per turn isn't a problem, your trying to limit nova damage and that's good for the game, but you also have subclass and class feature tied to the spell. If a spell isn't being casted and a feature is tied to it, the the feature becomes non existence.
I see a missed opportunity to mirror it's holy cousin the paladin a bit. You have the cleric and druid mirror each other a bit with thier own flavor. Why don't you turn the rangers favorite enemy feature into its own "smite" add more ranger exclusive spells such as hail of thorns, ensnarling strike, lighting arrow, and maybe create one or 2 news ones to act similar to the smite spells but still have ranger flavor. I wouldn't except them to be at the power of divine smite due to the fact rangers are good a melee and range. But you can make them similar. And maybe even bring back some old favored enemy flavor.
For the rest of the ranger. Really good work. Thank you for properly boosting conjure barriage and conjure volley.
If you could dial in favorite enemy and fix certain spells to be more smite like. This ranger would be perfect.
Hunter’s Mark changes hurt, but my biggest gripes are with Conjure Barrage and Conjure Volley. The spells themselves are fine, and I will die on the hill of half-casters needing unique spells to outpace Fighter/Caster multiclasses, but to have them be just locked into preparation as entire class features feels cheap, like the class features are being phoned in. If the spell list system is something that’s going to stay, I think the unique spells should become fleshed-out features that either have a standalone resource cost, are one-use and can have those uses regained through slots (a la the Paladin’s transformations), or as should be the case with Hunter’s Mark, not have a barrier or cost to use at all.
Why Paladin and Druid have a Companion in the class feature and THE RANGER doesn't have a feature to give a simple Beast, like Summon Beast or the Beast Statblock of Beastmaster. And the Beastmaster buff this beast like Moon Druid buff the Wild Shape. THE RANGER DON'T HAVE IDENTITY.
And so, Hunter's Mark with Consentration? Why? That limit the others spells that can use with Consentration, like Zephyr Strike or the half list of the old Ranger Spells
If the class feels a bit lacking in flavor and too dependant on a specific spell, I really think the two issues could be solved by making the Study (bonus) action central to the class. The ranger is the monster specialist, so figuring out their weaknesses (and dealing more damage - there's your Hunter's Mark) would improve its flavor and make it play in a more unique way, on top of giving a supposedly skill-based class a way to use skills in combat.
But if you want Hunter's Mark to stay a spell, at the very least make it so concentration can't be broken by damage, please. Otherwise, melee is disincentivized and play takes longer.
Rangers are allready so chokeful of bonus actions, some subclasses like Beast Master moreso than the others, that neither BA Study nor Hunter's Mark are what they need. Current iteration of Hunter's Mark tries so hard to keep that spell alive while perfectly good Favored Foe ability from Tasha's that allready answers their concern about stacking with multiple attacks but at the same time doesn't require any action cost or spell slots and scales with Ranger level instead of spell slot progression just sits there, ready to be picked up but instead being left behind.
.. i dont think anyone has ever enjoyed terrain choice. BUT I did like this a lot and its a good answer to how terrain choices can screw rangers in other games. Now it can be changed and adds some nice flavor. A+. I dont know if it's better then just expertise, but I like it.
The conjure spells should get a free use a day. it looks good, but not that great. and getting a free use would help that a lot.
"Entirely new Beastmaster" ehhhh it does not look that different but ok....
Separate post for Hunter's Mark
Hunters mark needs to not be a "spell" that requires concentration. So many abilities key off of , very well. So a ranger now has the problem the druid has in that concentration spell(s) completely dominate their list. Once per turn is enough of a nerf, for me. And why does the beast master have their entire action economy dedicated to the beast. Bonus action, and one of their attacks. Why can't beast attack your HM target for free?
tbf you beast now benefits from your HM as well. Also it gets its own Extra Attack at lvl 11 now. so you trade one of your 2 personal attacks but still put out 3 attacks overall.
I Hate Conjure Volley and Conjure Barrage. Hunter's Mark is awesome and thematic. But conjure volley and conjure barrage seems like MMO RPG Spells. Looks weird to me.
I hate CV and CB... but I cant stand HM either, even if you gave it free from concentration. The ENTIRE class is based on the use of HM (as a spell) with CV and CB spells baked into the core of this class.... and the class is a HALF-caster. so it sucks at being on a level of any other full casters (even sucks compared to another half-caster like Paladin). And it doesnt get anywhere near the versatility of a fighter. It tries to be half druid and half fighter... but doesnt have any identity of it's own. So while the fighter gets full use of Weapon Properties and multiple attacks and second wind, and all the things that makes fighters good at being fighters.... and Druids get Wild shape, alternated uses for Wild shape, full spell progression, and full spell slots... Rangers get what? Hunters mark? That extra d6 that still means it hits for less than the other martial classes? It really does Rangers dirty to force a single spell as a class requirement. I can ACTUALLY play a warlock without doing Eldritch Blast and still make an interesting and powerful character. Lets see anyone try that with Ranger without casting HM at the start of every combat, and having to recast it over and over as you loose concentration. Barbarians have to rage at the start of every combat, but they can maintain it a LOT easier than a concentration spell. I feel like nobody at WotC (or anyone who took the earlier surveys) actually plays a Ranger and therefor has no idea what the class actually needs.
It does feel a little too Ranger as Hunter from wow or any other archer based class in a mmorpg. I kind of think that is the only reason why the pet wasn't made part of base class is to put a bit of distance between their class and the direction the original archetype has gone in other games.
@@branwolf8616 Drizzt Do'Urden is THE most famous and most popular Ranger in D&D, and was created way back in 1988. If the idea of an animal companion is resisted on the grounds of "its been done", then let's remember who did it first.
@@ShadGray I Agree with with you.
I Think that this ranger version is a step back and feels old. I was hapier with the other one that could cast Hunter's Mark without concentration. And yet I Think that the Hunter subclass must be build into the ranger class, not as a subclass. All Rangers are Hunters.
I'm not a fan of DND 4th, but for me, rangers are better identity on DnD4.
I hate it too it's so awful flavor wise for melee rangers too.
im sorry a valor bard is a better ranger than the ranger... makes hunter mark improv with the ranger lvls, gives no conc at higher lvl (11, 15)...there. is no reason to cast this spell beyond a lvl 2 or 3 character (and sure make less usable, base on your wis...but pls makes stronger than this basic no usable FEATURE)
You're aiming for low-hanging fruits. We should be more ambitious and aim for a ranger with a true class identity.
Ask yourself: _why would a group rejoice to have a ranger around?_ It's when they want an expert at dealing with dangers out in the unknown. That goes from having an eye for dealing with dangerous monsters, to ease in getting by wilderness, to dealing with dangerous hazards. The ranger fantasy goes beyond this expertise with monsters and survival, emphasizing the ranger for his guidance given to a larger group. Make no mistakes, the Ranger in application is supposed to be a force-multiplier.
@@zoberraz ngl after reading rogue...its makes this even more evident (there is no reason to go beyond lvl5 with ranger)
Wotc has shoved all the staff that did rangers well to the background. New ranger ranks well with fighters but not ranger "mains"
Drakewarden wasn’t included in the play test. Is it getting removed?
@@emperorxander666 ok good I love the subclass so much
@@gabegonzalez5553 Subclasses that aren't in the playtest haven't yet seen changes or maybe won't get changes. It will most likely stay the same since it came around the same time as Tasha's beast master and they are both more or less a very very similar subclass (with Drake warden being slightly better)
One of the issues with the Ranger is the wide gap between the best and the worst. The old Beast Master was junk while the Gloomstalker was a beast. Too much distance between them IMHO.
This ranger is bad, you shot it in the foot, you crippled it. You don't need that many terrains, switch it to the druids of the land terrain: Arrid, Polar, Temperate, Tropical. SIMPLE! And you have no true survivialist features. THIS IS BAD AS THE OG PHB BASE RANGER. WE ARE TRYING TO IMPROVE GUYS NOT GO BACK TO THE OLD WAYS!
The Circle of Land is actually a perfect reference for the Ranger's affinity for terrain. But rather than give intangible "advantage to checks related", the ranger needs meatier features he gets to provide for his party. Bonus spells granted by the terrain selection could be a start, but being a survivalist and guide could go much beyond that. Polar could just as well convey means to help your party avoid falling prone, better deal with pushing/shoving, an resist Cold damage.
Picture it: *a white dragon swoops by!* The Ranger, an expert with monsters of this region, sees it about to unleash its ice breath and, as a reaction, goes "Take cover!", granting his party resistance against cold damage.
The beauty of that, though, is that these abilities would extend beyond the environment and could be just as useful when dealing with a Grease spell, a wizard casting Cone of Cold, or when standing on a precarious ledge where you don't want to slip off. Not to mention there are no means for party-wise elemental resistance; a playing space the Ranger could totally fit in.
I can’t understand why they changed Gloomstalker the way they did. The burst potential was seriously limited, but the sustained damage wasn’t improved at all. Even if you felt it was OP, nerfing the 3rd and 11th level features in this way is just overkill
You already nerfed HM, just let rangers use it without concentration as before. Until lv 3, the ranger looks like a blank sheet with a couple of spells...
Totally true, they completely lack of a base identity.
I would keep concentration on HM though, it's super op right now, you can get spells and other effects on top of it
@@eliascabbio7598 1d6 per turn, and reliant on BA to retarget is super OP?
My main issue with HM being concentration is it's a deal breaker for melee. I have many more issues with 2014 ranger and these UAs, but the biggest takeaway is that the more time passes the more I appreciate the original natural explorer.
@@fnzer0 problem is that it's a level 1 spell, it shouldn't be a spell, than 1d6 per turn, maybe increasing to 1d8 or 1d10 later, it's more reasonable.
As a spell, without concentration you can add more stuff on it, just imagine hex or similar + dual wielding + HM, it's like a double 3d6+x per turn at level one, it's like 24-27 damage
@@eliascabbio7598 How are you getting Hex and HM at first level? Also, takes two BAs, so two turns, to target a single creature, and dual wielding also eats BA. Meaning that theoretical set up takes 3 rounds to get fully off, assuming you don't need to retarget.
With all that being said, what I would really like would be 1d4 per turn HM, keep concentration, but make it a cantrip. Basically something you concentrate on if you don't have anything better to cast, and that isn't punishing to drop and recast, whilst still keeping the ribbons of HM to help the Ranger feel like a ranger. Maybe 1d4 to hit for the party instead of damage as a cheaper, more limited parallel to Bless.
@@fnzer0 that's a nice idea, personally I would prefer HM as a class feature, or at least like paladin smites, having at least one without concentration. The 1d4 for the rest of the party is also a very cool idea, sounds very ranger-like.
You're right about HM mechanics, I was confusing the old and the new ranger UA
But dont worry yall - us rangers get 2 spells as class features! This obviously makes the ranger the best class now.
Who needs a Cone of Cold at 9th level? Not us rangers!! Not when we get a less damaging one that will only ever reach 7d8 damage!
And especially not us rangers who partake in a 17th level game where we get Conjure Volley. The most devastatingly world ending nuclear option of a spell there could ever be!
And don't get me started on the capstone!
Who wouldnt want a capstone where i get to add max of 6 to a hit and damage roll after i cast a 1st level hunters mark on a target, taking up my most precious concentration. But what else would i want to concentrate on? They removed Guardian of Nature - so why not concentrate on something that only works once per turn.
Regarding "Backwards Compatibility" (i dont know where to put this comment, so it might as well be here):
Everyone understands that WotC wants to keep selling Curse of Strahd or Tasha's books. But what if they changed their focus to "Forwards Compatibility"? Instead of focusing on making the new stuff more like the old, why not the other way around? Older subclasses could simply have a guide for moving their features to new levels.
Also, old feats & magic items might be way out of balance or even irrelevant in the updated system. Not to mention older versions of monsters.
We get that WotC wants to continue selling old books. But maybe they need to get us actually excited about buying the new books, too.
Hunter's Mark is back to being bad, but necessary instead of just good. The damage change I dont mind save but concentration ruins it and puts the ranger back to ignoring all of its good spells just to be sub par to the rogue at higher levels. At early levels i dont think its too bad but since favoered enemy doesnt grow... high level ranger is still pretty trash. And even more so now that sharp shooter doesnt include a damage boost. BTW in case you missed my commentary on it, sharp shooter is garbage. Give it its damage boost back the way you did GWM. Or let GWM apply to long bows.
Anyways Hunter's mark fixes
1.) Hunter's Mark "Casting at a higher level no longer requires concentration."
2.) "Favored Enemy: At level 9 you cast Hunter's Mark as a level 3 spell using this feature. At level 17 you cast it as a level 5 spell."
Both bring it to "good" and make it a decent competitor for the Paladin, which is in a lot of ways its sister class. Smite is still better, but Ranger would feel more competitive.
Hunter's Mark is the weakest damage add on in the game (Well save hex, but warlocks can actually ignore Hex if they like.). Everything but the barb is more damage dice, and none of it eats spell slots.
Paladins get a better feature that does NOT eat their concentration... on top of also getting SMITE.
Ranger absolutely deserves better access to hunter's mark and for it to drop the concentration element.
Right now we are all in the same page that the ranger needs a true identity that we all read and say: "Now this is a true Ranger"
Bard be OP asf now, Rogue have something cool and unique too, the other get good things... except the Druid xD but Ranger has a Hunters Mark that can be a little better, two spells that were remake and only rangers has it. And nothing more, give us something with the bow and arrow. The Hunter subclass is not that bad but I think is lame asf that the last 2 levels on it are a repeat... Rangers like Druids maybe a little less but needs fine-tuning yet.
bard got treatment with honey and massage and ranger got treatment of barbed wire
@@jirimaly6019 literally
Positive: Giving the new deft explorer feels a lot more ranger-y, making it a combination of tasha's deft explorer and regular natural explorer was a good idea, and the change to favorite terrain bein based on a long rest making it so that the ranger isn't an expert in a certain area but someone who adapts to any area feels a lot better. (end of positive feedback)
Negative: There is a lot so lets start
- Removing cantrips that they just got was dumb, them and paladin getting two cantrips was fun, I always picked druidic warrior since it came out as a fighting style for rangers because it gave me more utility.
- Making the class features that don't do much be tied to wisdom instead of proficiency is also kind of dumb, since yes its their spell casting stat but most rangers focus on their attack stat and then constitution first
- Hunter's Mark changes. First of all bringing it back to being concentration isn't a problem, but what was really is a BIG PROBLEM is tying features to it. It is stupid that later level features will require you to concentrate on hunter's mark a first level spell. You can't use the level 20 feature if you aren't using hunters mark, same with hunter's lore from hunter and bestial fury will only let your beast get extra damage from hunter's mark. The second problem is that Hunter's mark procs now only once per turn not on every attack so on later levels it will feel like a waste of a spell slot when you can get concentration spell that will do more damage. They should bring it back to not requiring concentration or make it proc on each attack again. (And yes I understand that I can upcast hunters mark, but wasting a 3rd level spell slot to make the 1d6 into a 2d6 seems like a very very very big waste when I could rather just use it to cast conjure barrage/volley again, or keep a spell slot handy to cast revivify in case someone needs it or any other spell that would be useful and would also require concentration)
- Gloom Stalkers are still the most powerful subclass. I love gloom stalkers but it feels like they got an improvement they didn't need making them leagues better than the other two in the play test, while the hunter got slightly fixed, and beast master well got one new thing but it is tied to hunter's mark. Also why don't Beast Master and Hunter get extra spells if Gloom Stalker still does ???
- Beast master is just tasha's beast master but doesn't address the issue it had as well. The 1 minute to bring back your beast is too long, because if your beast dies you basically don't have a subclass in that entire encounter, plus the fact you have to touch its body as well is bad because what if your beast died in a trap that squashed it or turned to dust it, it means that you will be without a subclass until you take a long rest. It should be like the drake-warden where after they expend a spell slot it just comes back that moment.
(Additionally, this is just a suggestion I will put in my feedback when the survey comes. After playing a beast master/totem warrior multiclass and having Beast Sense from Totem Warrior and my DM letting me use it on my beast despite the intelligence thing, it finally felt like the spell had a purpose, I implemented it in my own game later and a beast master with a free cast of Beast Sense feel really good.)
Totally agree on almost everything you said.
Deft explorer should be improved to have more cool stuff with it.
Cantrips are cool, no reason to take them back.
HM was too powerful, but making is scale is nonsense, just don't make it a spell, convert it into class feature and give it some more cool things it can do.
I agree that it's now too tied to the class features later on, basically limiting your choice to 1 spell.
I also agree that other subclasses should have expanded spell list
"some of the terrain choice that people enjoyed"...hold on...who are the people who enjoyed the terrain choice feature? im pretty sure the terrain choice thing was one of the worst features in the 2014 ranger, and thats why it was completely done away with in tashas? so really. who are the people that "enjoyed" terrain choice? xD
The retrograde move on Hunter's Mark sucks, and so does the Deft Explorer. Terrain-specific features are so situational as to essentially be ribbon features. Bring back Expertise.
Hunter's Mark and Hex should just be class features for the Ranger and Warlock, respectively, so they're sort of heading in the right direction. Quit tying them to Concentration. That aren't strong enough to compete with proper spells.
Playtest Deft Explorer gives you the terrain-specific bonuses AND expertise.
@@8bitadventures "Expertise" gave expertise with two skills. "Deft Explorer" gives expertise with one skill and the terrain ribbon.
@@elementzero3379 Ah, you're right. While we're at it then, they can come up with more distinct names for features.
(For the record, I'm not thrilled about the changes either).
@@8bitadventures Yeah. "Paladin's Smite" is particularly poorly named.
"Paladin's Smite" comprises X Smite, Y Smite, and Z Smite; but not G Smite or K Smite. No, not those smites. Those Smites aren't the Smites you're looking for."
Hi, I just wanted to say that y'all are doing a great job with the playtest materials. It's a monumental task to gauge so many outside opinions, while still maintaining artistic integrity. And y'all do it with clarity and charm. Thanks for all of your work.
I think that, apart from concentration hunter's mark, this ranger is good, I would just have added all the cool advantages and skills that you gained in your favorite environment, that would be awesome
Welp. There goes any hope for the Ranger
It doesn't have to be this way! There'll be a survey that you can put your remarks on ❤
@@basicstupidity5543 Though, they'll likely go for refinements rather than redesign... which is what this class actually needs to fulfill its class fantasy. It _is_ growing to late for any truly pivotal changes.
@zoberraz that's indeed very possible, but who knows! It's only summer right now, and the final product won't come out till next year! I'll definitely be putting in my 2 cents 😄
@@zoberraz you're 100% right, mechanically it can be refined and working, but the problem is at it's base
No word on the 4th subclass for Ranger?
Hunter, Gloomstalker, Beast master and Fey Wanderer
in the playtest packet, they just refer you to Tasha's to see the Fey Wanderer.
(and, honestly, as cool as I find the FW, it could have used some mechanical sprucing up)
Ranger class identity: ranged combat. Its right there in the name.
Make Rangers the strongest, most versatile ranged combatant in the game. There should not be a debate as to whether the best ranged combatant is Fighter or Rogue or Bard or some kind of multiclass.
If you want to be the best from far away- Ranger.
I dont care how this manifests: more attacks, attack bonuses, damage bonuses, increased crit range, status effects (like from "trick" arrows you'd see in Green Arrow or Hawkeye comics).
And if Arcane Archer continues as a subclass, it should be a Ranger subclass, not a fighter.
Barbarians have rage & close-quarters combat. Fighters are versatile- the pretty good at all combat styles, able to switch between melee & ranged, heavy or light armor, etc. Paladins get divine powers to fuel melee combat. Monks SHOULD get ENOUGH discipline to fuel their unarmed & unarmored combat techniques.
So give the Ranger some Nature-powered or Nature-themed ranged attacks. And not just some class spells. Some actual features, with their own resource pools.
why gloomstalker lvl 3 feature overlap with Fey wanderer, Undead Warlock, Berserk barb and Conquest paladin... like why nerf this subclass and buff the lvls 11 and 15 features, Frighten condition to everybody for no reason
Where's their 4th subclass?
HUNTER's Mark needs to lose concentration and gain more hours of tracking and utility thru Ranger lv progression
UPON A RANGER USING HUNTER MARK A MAGICAL HUNTERS SPIRIT BOW MANIFESTS OR A HUNTERS TATTOO MANIFESTS
(TATTOO CAN BE A THROWN WEAPON NOT TWO HANDED OR A BEAST COMPANION, IT SHARES your AC AND HEALTH AND DAMAGE EACH TAKE HALF DAMAGE)
YOU GAIN PB NUMBER OF YOUR BEASTS BETTER SENSES TRAITS OR HALF PB IN BETTER ABILITY SCORES
CR OF BEAST IS AWAKENED BUT 1/2CR BEAST it can be flying but you cant gain flight speed till lv 8
Lv 8 hunters tattoo grows and manifest spirit wings you choose there look tattoo can be bird of prey a Phoenix a griffin a pegasus or a flying fey creature. You gain flight speed equal to your tattoo beast companions speed, your hunters tattoo beast also gains wings if it had none they resemble to match appropriately to the beast.
I’m glad the exploration element of the ranger is there with this version of the class.
Coming next playtest, Battlemaster maneuvers are just spells that take a bonus action to use, because we know everyone liked them but we thought it was too powerful. Oh and fighters don't have any spell slots so you can't actually use them.
Also wizards can now cast all spells for free and have infinite hit points.
They nerfed Gloomstalker
@@emperorxander666they did both
Hot Take: Weapon Masteries shouldn't go to Experts(unless specific Combat-Heavy subclasses). This should only belong to Warrior Classes.
Yay! Sub Menu! -____-
While i agree, as anyone else in the comments, that hunter's mark needs to be a class feature (or at least not requiring concentration), i feel that most of the changes are actually pretty good. The hunter subclass, however, feels kinda "meh".
You clearly have no idea what's "optimal"
You completely ruined Gloom's damage
Hunter's mark was a trash spell and it is even now. It takes conc that could be Conjure animals or any other shutdown
Seriously, you turned around and immediately nerfed the most popular aspects of the last playtest.
Ok, I need to make this clear, if the ranger has to choose between his hunter's mark (and the core features attached to that) and his best spells, you are immediately hurting the ranger significantly. This is the same reason the trickster cleric's main feature was so seldom used. If the player has to choose between their best spells, and a feature, that while useful, isn't as important as those spells, then you are making them LOSE OUT ON THEIR CORE FEATURE most of the time.
That truly, completely sucks. I honestly don't care if it does less damage, or one damage per turn (actually, that change makes sense to me as long as it scales, it actually makes damage with hunter's mark more reliable, and less game-breaking in multiclass), but it should absolutely not require concentration, especially if you are tying other aspects of the ranger's features to it. This is so incredibly important that I can't understate it.
It is either this or make those extra features separate from hunter's mark. This would still suck, but at least I'm not losing out on my cool features just because I want to cast one of the better spells in the game (like web).
So you guys finally made rangers popular and beloved. And then reverted all of it back and made the same mistakes in 5e. Just remove the class and make it a rogue subclass or something
This version of the ranger was TERRIBLE. I know I'm late (I left feedback in the survey).
This version was at best a sidegrade from Tasha's Ranger, and probably worse. You missed the mark by a huge margin. Why even give us terrain options, and increase that amount at later levels, while we at the same time can change them after a long rest? Either, give me expertise in perception and/or survival, or give me advantage on those checks, either or is fine as it basically becomes the same thing after switching terrains.
And then there was Hunter's Mark, and sooooooooooooooooooooo much else...and we still haven't heard anything about this survey afaik (please point me to it if there has been any).
This version sucks in comparison to every other class... Y'all... You can build a more effective "Ranger" archetype with every other class...