Thank you for this video. I have been pushing back on the ranger hate for what feels like months now. I really look forward to playing a ranger and finding that sweet spot. Some people get hung up in the mechanics and can't see the role play potential. This is an RPG. Why are we not role-playing anymore? Also, I love that you acknowledged another content creator. I have been watching the GM Philosopher for months now. I enjoy his content as well.
MY biggest problem is that they took animals away from the Beastmaster in favor of the three spirit animals aimed at making power gamers happy. No way I use casper the friendly animal companion. That said, the rest of the Ranger is OK. I will have to see since I almost never use hunr';s mark and hear that that's the cornerstone of the new class.
@johnevans5782 I believe that the concept of having a beast companion already has mechanics. A series of animal handling and nature checks as you train the beast you have chosen can give you a series of commands, and you build a bond with the beast as you go through the checks. Any time the beast companion decides to act out (DM choice) you make more checks. The more frequently you succeed, the easier the DC becomes until you have "tamed" the beast. Then you have a real companion.
Hey, thank you so much for the shout out!!! Big appreciation!!! Thank you for the positive vibes! And... thanks for covering the CRUCIAL topic of how the ranger is often done VERY WRONG in D&D!!! but they do have so much thematic coolness! lol. Our rangers deserve to be played with awesomeness!!!!
Solid agree, ranger players deserve to live out the story they're looking for! :) My absolute pleasure, I've been enjoying your vids since @TwinSteel pointed me in your direction. :)
In my opinion, there are 3 reasons people are still frustrated with ranger when the numbers show it's not a bad class. (One small reason for me is fey touched still allows you to pick hunter's mark and vengeance still gets it.) The first is how condescending it felt being told we got all these new features that were originally in Tasha's. The people watching that video have been playing for at least a few years and know about Tasha's. The second reason is 3 of its late game features are dedicated to a first level spell. And only 1 of them is a decent improvement that comes online the same time you get 5th level spells like swift quiver which still uses concentration. And finally, the less talked about reason, they didn't lean into the fantasy they claimed in their video. They stated the main fantasy of rangers is in their name, the ability to range (travel). They should have received other abilities to allow them to move unimpeded like ignoring difficult terrain, advantage against area of effect spells, and a way to help escape grapple or stun.
Get out of your feelings and stop playing a victim. They weren’t condescending when they brought the Tasha’s changes into the 5.5 Core. Not for this class or any of the many others.
@@hawkname1234 How was I playing the victim, I was explaining why even though the numbers say it's a good class people keep saying it's bad. Also, you didn't mention the other 2 reasons, so I assume you agree with them. Too much frustration is bad for your health my friend.
Honestly it does seem like "mass opinion", and a surface one at at that. I do have some critiques about ranger's high-lvl potential like I did in previous edition, there are a couple of design choices that are rather bad but happen on levels so high they become irrelevant, yet people whine and exaggerate things so much It seems to me they just want to be angry. I know my English is not good but every time I try to argue people refuse to listen at all. And a lot of them haven't even read the book! No, they didn't replace good features with hunter's mark buffs, there were literally no features before where they're at! This is genuinely ridiculous.
@@sharmelfattakhov5041 You have totally valid points that the 2014 ranger had worse late game features that most campaigns would/will never see. I would say when it comes to comparison of the late game features, most people are not comparing them to the 2014 version, It's against the other 2024 classes. It gives people that sense of "come on you could do it for others." I was trying to point out what the people mad at the class are actually saying when they call it weak or bad. I also wanted to start a conversation about my first point, my third point, and the small issue of a main class spell being available without multiclassing. The last two here being the one's I find more important. Also, your English was very good. Frustrated people sometimes just want to be heard instead of hearing logical arguments.
I like the ranger. I do think the baby was thrown out with the bath water regarding some of their flavorful abilities, though expertise can help if so desired. I always viewed them as a half caster not just a martial with some spells
I agree on the bathwater comment 100%. I still quite like the ranger, I don't get the chance to play very often as a player, but I'd be tempted to do so and see how cool I could make one.
I noticed the spells discussed above had concentration removed, but I also noticed that 27 out of 61 spells for the Ranger remained concentration including a whopping 6 spells out of 7 at 4th level. It's like they weren't even paying attention. Hopefully this will sort itself out later as more spells come into the revised rules.
From what I see the problem is that players can't agree on what the identity of the ranger should be. They just know that it isn't Hunters Mark. I've heard some players say the ranger shouldn't be a spell caster. I've heard some players say that ALL rangers not just the Beastmaster should have pets, I've heard some players say that the ranger should have way more survival features and so on... No matter how they build the Ranger some people will not have their vision of the Ranger fulfilled. Personally I think that Hunters Mark itself being a concentration spell that eats up your bonus action is admittedly a problem. I think they should have made it so that starting at level 5 transferring the mark should no longer require your bonus action. At a higher level (around level 9 or so) either Hunters Mark shouldn't require concentration or Rangers can now concentrate on 2 spells at a time as long as one of those spells is hunters mark.
A homebrewer called Heavyarms has their own Ranger that is fully modular. Like Warlock invocations but no subclasses. I personally wouldn't dump subclasses, but I think a modular Ranger kit would alleviate the feeling of a lack of identity.
This seems like something that could be solved with archetypes. I agree that hunter's mark doesn't fit with the ranger. I feel like they should have abilities that behave similar to the spells.
Hunter's Mark not requiring concentration would be insanely broken, then, for example, you would have all those valor bards upcasting conjure minor elementals and making 5 attacks also adding hunters mark on all of those. And even single class rangers could break it, beast masters are already able to do five attacks per round with four of them benefitting from hunter's mark starting from level 11 (which is easily over 50 damage even without counting in any possible damage boosts from magic items or feats, and they are making most of those attacks with advantage), if they would also be able to stack another damage boosting concentration spell on top of that it would get totally stupid.
@@Klaital1 That's why I suggested that it happen at Ranger level 9 not level 1 like the first Ranger playtest. You would then need 7 levels or either Druid or Wizard (or 10 levels of Bard) to get CME. CME also needs a nerf. It should be an extra d8 per 2 spell levels like Spirit Shroud not 2d8 per spell level! Remember that at level 11 Paladin's get an extra d8 radiant damage to EVERY attack which is basically a better HM without concentration and they can do this and Divine Favor (another d4) and a concentration spell (which might be HM depending on their subclass).
If anyone wants a polished homebrew Ranger with flavorful and mechanically useful terrain bonuses, the ability to have a pet in the core class, better traps, and a feature that makes them good hunters/trackers without it being HM, let me know and I'll link it. It's free, and I'm pretty proud of it
The 2024 ranger is better than the 2014 version. Part of the problem is the "reliance" on spells. If you look at the literary versions of rangers most players are familiar with: Aragorn, Faramir, Hawkeye (last of the mohicans, not Marvel) and Drizzt, they are not spell casters. You could argue that Aragorn can cast healing spells as magic is not overly used in Tolkien's work. Since survival is a key skill for ranger's, why not give that to them at level one with expertise? Right away that would make them better at it than other 1st level characters. Rework hunters mark into an ability where they choose a foe as a bonus action and get a damage bonus against that foe. No concentration required and can reuse it. Start the damage bonus at a d4 and scale it up as the ranger levels. The nerf to sharpshooter means more rangers will go melee and take advantage of dual wielding using the weapon properties to maximize the d6 damage bonus from hunters mark. Its almost better to make a human fighter and give him the skilled feat so he can make sure he gets both survival and stealth at level one. You can easily make a classic hunter/guide who can navigate the outdoors and dish out the damage when needed.
Rangers were always casters in DnD. This is DnD, not LOTR. Drizzt could innately cast spells and his animal companion is essentially a planar ghost. Flavor is free. Your huntersmark is a spell, but you don't have to imagine casting it like a mage would. You point and wag a finger at your target while saying some gibberish and then start cutting them down. Drizzt was using Huntersmark, Salvatore just wasn't describing it. Maybe that's what happened. Rangers were always the weird hermit dude that could get the forest animals to attack you or have vines grapple your ankles while they take pot shots at you from a tree. That's as ranger as you can get. Flavor is free, I remind you all.
Multiclassing a fighter, or feating it up, is a great way to play out the non-magical ranger fantasy, or as 007ohboy pointed out, reflavoring your spells as being mundane tricks of the trade (rather than some gibberish, your hunters mark could be a specific shooting ritual that you have practiced in order to win archery competitions, kind of like a basketball players little foot-step and bounce pattern to prep for a free throw).
@DM-Timothy Yep, as long as it follows the rules of spell casting with VS, you're fine. That's only needed if a spellcaster wanted to counterspell your Hunter Mark for some odd reason...or a silence spell. I'm assuming Hunters Mark uses VS, I'd have to look. If you want Eldritch Blast beams to come from your eyes instead of your hands, that's free flavor, do it. We just need the components to be represented in some way, anyway you like within the parameters of the spell. So ritual marks/verbal uttering work when doing HM. DnD leaves a ton of room for flavor and so many fail to use it. There is mechanics and then there's making that sound cool/bad@ss/heroic narritively.
@DM-Timothy Also, the Weapon Mastery Synergies are outrageous for Rangers. At 5th level without any feats and a Nick weapon, they can literally make 3 attacks and put up Huntersmark on round 1 at 5th level. Actually, they could make 4 attacks on the first round and get Hunters Mark up if they use a Cleave Weapon on side by side enemies and then strike with a Vex short sword followed up by an Advantage Nick after having used a Bonus Action to put up a Hunters Mark on an enemy. You add Duel Wielder and TWF feat on top of this and it gets insane. Rangers will be DPR output machines while expending 0% resources (free castings of an Hour long spell is insane...insanely good!)
The problem is that it isn't unique to rangers. Only the hunters mark is unique and it falls behind very fast. It has no scaling and takes concentration. In games we've played the ranger feels bad to play compared to all other classes in combat. RP is still fantastic, but the game is a partial combat game and ranger is just missing out.
I think it's clear that different teams worked on different classes, which is why the Paladin Divine Favor dropped the concentration requirement but HM didn't. I think they didn't have clear guidelines on what was okay to "break" when remaking each class, and honestly, almost nothing in this new book feels new. PF2e new player core had huge changes that felt like whole new classes. The alchemist is WILDLY better for instance. I'm just not as enthused about R5e
Sorry you feel that way. I've LOVED the new changes by and large, though I think they went too far on some things and not far enough on others. I'll never be truly happy with everything a book has, though, that's just life. :)
@@DM-Timothy it is what it is! When I sit down and make characters, there are build ideas I wanted to try that didn't feel possible in the old book. So it has that going for it.
@@JamCliche that’s definitely a solid plus. I feel like weapon related builds have become a far more level playing field than they have in the last decade. I’m excited for that.
Could you do a video covering the fact that scribed spell scrolls now use the crafter's casting stats for DCs and attack bonuses, instead of being based on the scroll's level like it was previously (Page 233 in the new PHB). In combination with everyone getting ritual casting, this is huge for Warlocks in particular, since they can make use of their full selection of low level/utility spells without having to exhaust their precious high level spell slots and still benefit from their high level casting stats, and I don't really see anyone talking about it.
I will add it to the list! It's definitely an interesting point. Would be fun to muse upon. I'll put it in the next poll for the Tank Class supporters if I can, but they decide which musings make it into the world as one of their perks of membership! :)
Here's an easy solution to fix this problem. Keep everything they have just add these. Hunter's Mark damage scales like the monk strike damage. At level 6 ,11, 17 Add to Level 9 - Augment mark - Spend half your free uses of Hunter's mark rounded down to not concentrate on the spell. The spell duration only last one minute. Replace with this - At level 13 you have advantage on Con save for mataning concentration on spells. Replace - Level 20 Supreme foe slayer You critical in a 19 or 20. You can add your wisdom modifier to attack and damage to creatures affected by your Hunter's mark spell. Affected creatures all take an extra die of damage every turn they are not healed while Affected by Hunter's mark. Hunter subclass - level 11Primary evil awareness Spend all your free uses of Hunter's mark to mark a number of creatures equal to you wisdom modifier. The spell duration last for one minute. Natural augmentation - After using Hunter's Lore. You can change the damage type of your hunter's mark damage. Acid, cold, fire, lightning, thunder, radiant, nocratic, psychic. As long as that creature is marked by your hunter's mark.
I don't think the concept of a ranger is that hard to nail down. They're explorers, hunters, survivalists, and guides. They can navigate the wilds, track creatures, stay fed and healthy with resources found in the wild, they can help parties navigate through the wild. With a ranger in the party, you're never lost, you never run out of food, you always have medicine/potions, and difficult terrain is easier to deal with.
That's definitely a classic example of ranger. But others think that rangers are characterized by animal companions, for instance. There are a lot of archtypes, and ultimately, all of them could be accomplished with multiclassing, which I think is the biggest difficulty the ranger faces in finding his true identity.
@@DM-Timothy Well, animal companions are more of a specialization for a ranger (i.e. subclass). There's no reason they can't have access to find familiar.
I can't see the 'thumbs up' icon to press it for this video. Also the word you were looking for was 'cowboy'. Rangers are the cowboys of the fantasy world. Once you understand that, you understand the class. Be it a ranch hand that keeps an eye on the cattle or patrolling the barbed wire fences to repair it when needed and keep an eye out for rustlers or coyotes, they don't stride the line between nature and civilization, they are the line.
Absolutely agree mate. Besides, the people that hate on the ranger probably never even played one (i too thought it was bad until i gave it a go), or are doing that just out of habit at this point. 5.5 seems to be quite balanced in power and utility as far as martials are concerned. Sorcerers bards and wizards are still the kings of the game though, no douts about that. For super high damage go fighter or assassin rogue.
You don't have to. Lots of attacks are good with Hunter's Mark which makes TWF tempting, but you could go other routes if you want. There's a Dueling + Shillelagh (via Magic Initiate) + Polearm Mastery + Staff and Shield build, for instance. One less attack but notably better AC, higher damage per attack, and the ability to be Wisdom primary making your spells better. And that's just one example off the top of my head.
@@MrMuddyWheels I think you get two weapon masteries, so you could pick a bow mastery and nick. You're fighting style will probably be two weapon fighting, but if you than pick a bunch of "ranged smite" spells you can really combine the two. Once you have extra attack you could even get the dual wielder feat to make switching out weapons easier and make three attacks with your action one of which is with a bow. I think if you want to have a ranger that combines archery with two weapon fighting you can make a perfectly viable option.
@@MrMuddyWheels You can pick an additional fighting style for your ASI. You'll just miss out on a +1. Sacrifices must be made if you want multiple options.
@@MrMuddyWheels You can really easily do both by just putting one weapon mastery each into, like, Longbow and Scimitar. You could get both Fighting Styles with an ASI if you really want, but also you don't need Archery as a fighting style to be a good archer.
They had an opportunity to do all the Hunter’s Mark focus on… the Hunter subclass. Then let the other three subclasses have their own abilities without making Hunter’s Mark compete for action economy and concentration.
Yeah, the hyper-focus on hunter's mark is an irritant to be sure. Removing concentration in a few key places has been pretty key, though. Ultimately, I just wish they didn't spend so many feature "slots" on hunters mark, but I don't mind it being a major staple like Hex is for Warlocks.
Ranger is a really good dip for a fighter build. The first 3 levels of ranger are good. For a character that doesn’t otherwise get multi-attack the first 5 levels are good. But the ranger fails to scale into tier 2 play and beyond. I plan to build a dual wielding dex fighter and take a ranger dip for my next character. But ranger is still a bad straight class.
I have never understood why so many people seem to not understand Rangers. It's like they have never read Robin Hood, Tarzan, heard of the Brave Woodsman from Grimm's Fairy Tales. Rangers are simply put Woodsmen who stand at the border between nature and man, protecting both, and preserving the fragile peace between them. The act as guides, hunters and Guardians. Want to get through that dark forest without getting lost? The Ranger. Need when confronted by an angry wolfpack or a rampaging Ogre? The Ranger. Does your village need enough meat to last the winter? The Ranger. Is there a Werewolf haunting the woods and terrorizing little red cloaked girls and their grandmas? The Ranger. Whether alone or with a trusted animal companion, the Ranger patrols their native forests and looks for those in trouble,whether they be man or beast. If they had really wanted to 'save' the Range, they would have designed the new class primarily around the 2014 Rogue Scout subclass. It would have retained the Ranger flavor,but with better wilderness capabilities, and a really useful capstone ability.
Fair enough. I think the hardest part for rangers is they’re totally accomplishable in flavor with a multiclassed character. Finding a way to make them unique from there is potentially challenging. Your approach sounds as good as many I’ve heard proposed. That said, I think this ranger is still pretty good at hitting those tropes.
@@DM-Timothy I never really understood people complaining about the flavor, flavor of your character is whatever you make it with your backstory and how you roleplay them, it's not something that should be enforced by mechanics.
The problem with the Ranger is, and always has been, glaringly obvious - the ranger IS a subclass. Period. Every system has tried to force the ranger into a role it refuses to fit. It doesn't want to be its own class because it can't be. The ranger debate has become exhausting. There is only one solution. Let it be a fighter subclass. Because that's all it can be. Common sense can't be argued with. Great channel, by the way.
Thanks so much, for the compliment and for your offered opinion. I can see how ranger would make a solid subclass, though the sub-genres of ranger that people love would require additional subclasses... It could get out of hand :D
Actually, if you go alllll the way back to the AD&D PHB, the Ranger WAS a subclass of the Fighter. Page 24 of the AD&D PHB says, "Rangers are a sub-class of fighter who are adept at woodcraft, tracking, scouting, and infiltration and spying". They didn't get spells until 8th level (one Druid spell).
Ranger isn't weak and a lot of the changes were great. It is just super annoying that some features again are badly designed and take away from this. The stuff focussed on hunters mark just have an anti synergy with a ton of ranger stuff like spells and subclass features that activate on a bonus action, like beast master. They also take up design spots that could've been interesting things instead of something concentrating on one of the most mindnumbingly boring spells. Hunters mark is basically just a you do a little more damage on attack spells. And since some of these features are pretty good power wise you are now sometimes posed with the conundrum of having to decide between using the more fun and interesting spells or being a more powerful character. So tldr, the hunters mark features are bad cause of mainly two reasons: - They have anti synergy with other ranger stuff which feels bad. - They incentivise a more boring playstyle.
Guys I'm sick of it. Ranger is better than everything except paladin in the melee department. The nonsense that people keep saying that they are bad is just silly.
That assumes you want to play a melee Ranger. I personally don't because it doesn't fit my vision of what a Ranger (primarily an archery based with melee backup woodsman..basically a Daniel Boone type) is. If I wanted to play a melee class I'd go to a dual wielding Fighter of some sort. Not a Ranger.
Big problem with the 2024 ranger is a bunch of know it all influencers with little understanding who are jumping on the bandwagon to make YT cash by trashing it.
I can't speak to people's motivations, but it's true that we get stuck into following the crowd with our opinions at times. Always best to make a reasoned decision for yourself.
ASI feels kinda lacking these days. Not taking a Feat feels bad to me. I think it could be interesting if ASI gave 3 points instead of 2 that can't all go to the same stat
@@DM-Timothy it would definitely require a lot of testing. The extra point to put in a second ability score, or being able to spread three points around. This point it feels like feets are the obviously correct option a vast majority of the time
All the ranger hate is overblown and they frankly sound like cry babies. Imagine getting 5 different cakes but you complain about the chocolate one and tbus, the whole thing is ruined. Dont like HM? Dont use it. Are you whinning because now you feel sad because you didnt use Hunter Mark? Then use it. You also get like 6 free castings of it eventually.....good lord. 😂😂😂 "I hate all this free stuff because if I use it I feel sad, but if I dont use it I feel sad...." 😂 Ive never seen more bipolar reactions from any other class besides Ranger mains. Someone should do a Sociological study on what tyoes of personalities gravitate toward the Ranger class. We need some long term field studies on that. 😂
Thank you for this video. I have been pushing back on the ranger hate for what feels like months now. I really look forward to playing a ranger and finding that sweet spot. Some people get hung up in the mechanics and can't see the role play potential. This is an RPG. Why are we not role-playing anymore? Also, I love that you acknowledged another content creator. I have been watching the GM Philosopher for months now. I enjoy his content as well.
MY biggest problem is that they took animals away from the Beastmaster in favor of the three spirit animals aimed at making power gamers happy. No way I use casper the friendly animal companion. That said, the rest of the Ranger is OK. I will have to see since I almost never use hunr';s mark and hear that that's the cornerstone of the new class.
@johnevans5782 I believe that the concept of having a beast companion already has mechanics. A series of animal handling and nature checks as you train the beast you have chosen can give you a series of commands, and you build a bond with the beast as you go through the checks. Any time the beast companion decides to act out (DM choice) you make more checks. The more frequently you succeed, the easier the DC becomes until you have "tamed" the beast. Then you have a real companion.
@@duanebradway1627 I have no idea what this system is. It sounds like a harder system than he one for the Falconer in 2e
My absolute pleasure! I've been enjoying Josh's content, too, since TwinSteel set me onto him!
Hey, thank you so much for the shout out!!! Big appreciation!!! Thank you for the positive vibes! And... thanks for covering the CRUCIAL topic of how the ranger is often done VERY WRONG in D&D!!! but they do have so much thematic coolness! lol. Our rangers deserve to be played with awesomeness!!!!
Solid agree, ranger players deserve to live out the story they're looking for! :) My absolute pleasure, I've been enjoying your vids since @TwinSteel pointed me in your direction. :)
In my opinion, there are 3 reasons people are still frustrated with ranger when the numbers show it's not a bad class. (One small reason for me is fey touched still allows you to pick hunter's mark and vengeance still gets it.)
The first is how condescending it felt being told we got all these new features that were originally in Tasha's. The people watching that video have been playing for at least a few years and know about Tasha's.
The second reason is 3 of its late game features are dedicated to a first level spell. And only 1 of them is a decent improvement that comes online the same time you get 5th level spells like swift quiver which still uses concentration.
And finally, the less talked about reason, they didn't lean into the fantasy they claimed in their video. They stated the main fantasy of rangers is in their name, the ability to range (travel). They should have received other abilities to allow them to move unimpeded like ignoring difficult terrain, advantage against area of effect spells, and a way to help escape grapple or stun.
Get out of your feelings and stop playing a victim. They weren’t condescending when they brought the Tasha’s changes into the 5.5 Core. Not for this class or any of the many others.
@@hawkname1234 How was I playing the victim, I was explaining why even though the numbers say it's a good class people keep saying it's bad. Also, you didn't mention the other 2 reasons, so I assume you agree with them. Too much frustration is bad for your health my friend.
@@hawkname1234Huhhh???
Honestly it does seem like "mass opinion", and a surface one at at that. I do have some critiques about ranger's high-lvl potential like I did in previous edition, there are a couple of design choices that are rather bad but happen on levels so high they become irrelevant, yet people whine and exaggerate things so much It seems to me they just want to be angry.
I know my English is not good but every time I try to argue people refuse to listen at all. And a lot of them haven't even read the book! No, they didn't replace good features with hunter's mark buffs, there were literally no features before where they're at! This is genuinely ridiculous.
@@sharmelfattakhov5041 You have totally valid points that the 2014 ranger had worse late game features that most campaigns would/will never see. I would say when it comes to comparison of the late game features, most people are not comparing them to the 2014 version, It's against the other 2024 classes. It gives people that sense of "come on you could do it for others."
I was trying to point out what the people mad at the class are actually saying when they call it weak or bad. I also wanted to start a conversation about my first point, my third point, and the small issue of a main class spell being available without multiclassing. The last two here being the one's I find more important. Also, your English was very good. Frustrated people sometimes just want to be heard instead of hearing logical arguments.
I like the ranger. I do think the baby was thrown out with the bath water regarding some of their flavorful abilities, though expertise can help if so desired. I always viewed them as a half caster not just a martial with some spells
I agree on the bathwater comment 100%. I still quite like the ranger, I don't get the chance to play very often as a player, but I'd be tempted to do so and see how cool I could make one.
I noticed the spells discussed above had concentration removed, but I also noticed that 27 out of 61 spells for the Ranger remained concentration including a whopping 6 spells out of 7 at 4th level. It's like they weren't even paying attention. Hopefully this will sort itself out later as more spells come into the revised rules.
Fair enough. I’d posit that concentration spells don’t have to be not the norm for the ranger to have excellent options, but ymmv for sure! :)
From what I see the problem is that players can't agree on what the identity of the ranger should be. They just know that it isn't Hunters Mark. I've heard some players say the ranger shouldn't be a spell caster. I've heard some players say that ALL rangers not just the Beastmaster should have pets, I've heard some players say that the ranger should have way more survival features and so on... No matter how they build the Ranger some people will not have their vision of the Ranger fulfilled.
Personally I think that Hunters Mark itself being a concentration spell that eats up your bonus action is admittedly a problem. I think they should have made it so that starting at level 5 transferring the mark should no longer require your bonus action. At a higher level (around level 9 or so) either Hunters Mark shouldn't require concentration or Rangers can now concentrate on 2 spells at a time as long as one of those spells is hunters mark.
A homebrewer called Heavyarms has their own Ranger that is fully modular. Like Warlock invocations but no subclasses. I personally wouldn't dump subclasses, but I think a modular Ranger kit would alleviate the feeling of a lack of identity.
This seems like something that could be solved with archetypes.
I agree that hunter's mark doesn't fit with the ranger. I feel like they should have abilities that behave similar to the spells.
Hunter's Mark not requiring concentration would be insanely broken, then, for example, you would have all those valor bards upcasting conjure minor elementals and making 5 attacks also adding hunters mark on all of those. And even single class rangers could break it, beast masters are already able to do five attacks per round with four of them benefitting from hunter's mark starting from level 11 (which is easily over 50 damage even without counting in any possible damage boosts from magic items or feats, and they are making most of those attacks with advantage), if they would also be able to stack another damage boosting concentration spell on top of that it would get totally stupid.
@@Klaital1 That spell is the issue. It should be nerfed (and I'm betting it will be at some point).
@@Klaital1 That's why I suggested that it happen at Ranger level 9 not level 1 like the first Ranger playtest. You would then need 7 levels or either Druid or Wizard (or 10 levels of Bard) to get CME. CME also needs a nerf. It should be an extra d8 per 2 spell levels like Spirit Shroud not 2d8 per spell level!
Remember that at level 11 Paladin's get an extra d8 radiant damage to EVERY attack which is basically a better HM without concentration and they can do this and Divine Favor (another d4) and a concentration spell (which might be HM depending on their subclass).
If anyone wants a polished homebrew Ranger with flavorful and mechanically useful terrain bonuses, the ability to have a pet in the core class, better traps, and a feature that makes them good hunters/trackers without it being HM, let me know and I'll link it. It's free, and I'm pretty proud of it
Ca I see it? I am also working on my own 2024 Ranger and I’m interested in what other people are doing.
Always interested in seeing people's stuff! :)
@@DM-Timothy I've tried every way to link it or to tell you guys how to find it, but my comments get taken down lol
@@BenHameen33 sorry about that, RUclips is like that! Email it to me at Timothy@dmtimothy.com and I’ll see about getting it posted.
The 2024 ranger is better than the 2014 version. Part of the problem is the "reliance" on spells. If you look at the literary versions of rangers most players are familiar with: Aragorn, Faramir, Hawkeye (last of the mohicans, not Marvel) and Drizzt, they are not spell casters. You could argue that Aragorn can cast healing spells as magic is not overly used in Tolkien's work. Since survival is a key skill for ranger's, why not give that to them at level one with expertise? Right away that would make them better at it than other 1st level characters. Rework hunters mark into an ability where they choose a foe as a bonus action and get a damage bonus against that foe. No concentration required and can reuse it. Start the damage bonus at a d4 and scale it up as the ranger levels. The nerf to sharpshooter means more rangers will go melee and take advantage of dual wielding using the weapon properties to maximize the d6 damage bonus from hunters mark.
Its almost better to make a human fighter and give him the skilled feat so he can make sure he gets both survival and stealth at level one. You can easily make a classic hunter/guide who can navigate the outdoors and dish out the damage when needed.
Rangers were always casters in DnD. This is DnD, not LOTR. Drizzt could innately cast spells and his animal companion is essentially a planar ghost.
Flavor is free. Your huntersmark is a spell, but you don't have to imagine casting it like a mage would. You point and wag a finger at your target while saying some gibberish and then start cutting them down. Drizzt was using Huntersmark, Salvatore just wasn't describing it. Maybe that's what happened.
Rangers were always the weird hermit dude that could get the forest animals to attack you or have vines grapple your ankles while they take pot shots at you from a tree.
That's as ranger as you can get. Flavor is free, I remind you all.
Multiclassing a fighter, or feating it up, is a great way to play out the non-magical ranger fantasy, or as 007ohboy pointed out, reflavoring your spells as being mundane tricks of the trade (rather than some gibberish, your hunters mark could be a specific shooting ritual that you have practiced in order to win archery competitions, kind of like a basketball players little foot-step and bounce pattern to prep for a free throw).
@DM-Timothy Yep, as long as it follows the rules of spell casting with VS, you're fine. That's only needed if a spellcaster wanted to counterspell your Hunter Mark for some odd reason...or a silence spell. I'm assuming Hunters Mark uses VS, I'd have to look.
If you want Eldritch Blast beams to come from your eyes instead of your hands, that's free flavor, do it. We just need the components to be represented in some way, anyway you like within the parameters of the spell. So ritual marks/verbal uttering work when doing HM. DnD leaves a ton of room for flavor and so many fail to use it. There is mechanics and then there's making that sound cool/bad@ss/heroic narritively.
@DM-Timothy Also, the Weapon Mastery Synergies are outrageous for Rangers. At 5th level without any feats and a Nick weapon, they can literally make 3 attacks and put up Huntersmark on round 1 at 5th level. Actually, they could make 4 attacks on the first round and get Hunters Mark up if they use a Cleave Weapon on side by side enemies and then strike with a Vex short sword followed up by an Advantage Nick after having used a Bonus Action to put up a Hunters Mark on an enemy.
You add Duel Wielder and TWF feat on top of this and it gets insane. Rangers will be DPR output machines while expending 0% resources (free castings of an Hour long spell is insane...insanely good!)
The problem is that it isn't unique to rangers. Only the hunters mark is unique and it falls behind very fast. It has no scaling and takes concentration. In games we've played the ranger feels bad to play compared to all other classes in combat. RP is still fantastic, but the game is a partial combat game and ranger is just missing out.
I think it's clear that different teams worked on different classes, which is why the Paladin Divine Favor dropped the concentration requirement but HM didn't. I think they didn't have clear guidelines on what was okay to "break" when remaking each class, and honestly, almost nothing in this new book feels new.
PF2e new player core had huge changes that felt like whole new classes. The alchemist is WILDLY better for instance. I'm just not as enthused about R5e
Sorry you feel that way. I've LOVED the new changes by and large, though I think they went too far on some things and not far enough on others. I'll never be truly happy with everything a book has, though, that's just life. :)
@@DM-Timothy it is what it is! When I sit down and make characters, there are build ideas I wanted to try that didn't feel possible in the old book. So it has that going for it.
@@JamCliche that’s definitely a solid plus. I feel like weapon related builds have become a far more level playing field than they have in the last decade. I’m excited for that.
🥳🫂👍🏿
Thanks, my man ❤
Absolutely my pleasure! Thank you!
@@DM-Timothy you’re very welcome ❤️
Could you do a video covering the fact that scribed spell scrolls now use the crafter's casting stats for DCs and attack bonuses, instead of being based on the scroll's level like it was previously (Page 233 in the new PHB). In combination with everyone getting ritual casting, this is huge for Warlocks in particular, since they can make use of their full selection of low level/utility spells without having to exhaust their precious high level spell slots and still benefit from their high level casting stats, and I don't really see anyone talking about it.
I will add it to the list! It's definitely an interesting point. Would be fun to muse upon. I'll put it in the next poll for the Tank Class supporters if I can, but they decide which musings make it into the world as one of their perks of membership! :)
Crowd control is the strong point of the ranger, it is a strong class, you just need to think like a hunter...
Here's an easy solution to fix this problem. Keep everything they have just add these.
Hunter's Mark damage scales like the monk strike damage. At level 6 ,11, 17
Add to Level 9 - Augment mark - Spend half your free uses of Hunter's mark rounded down to not concentrate on the spell. The spell duration only last one minute.
Replace with this - At level 13 you have advantage on Con save for mataning concentration on spells.
Replace - Level 20 Supreme foe slayer
You critical in a 19 or 20.
You can add your wisdom modifier to attack and damage to creatures affected by your Hunter's mark spell. Affected creatures all take an extra die of damage every turn they are not healed while Affected by Hunter's mark.
Hunter subclass - level 11Primary evil awareness
Spend all your free uses of Hunter's mark to mark a number of creatures equal to you wisdom modifier. The spell duration last for one minute.
Natural augmentation - After using Hunter's Lore. You can change the damage type of your hunter's mark damage. Acid, cold, fire, lightning, thunder, radiant, nocratic, psychic. As long as that creature is marked by your hunter's mark.
Some interesting suggestions there! Looks almost like a whole subclass of options.
I don't think the concept of a ranger is that hard to nail down. They're explorers, hunters, survivalists, and guides. They can navigate the wilds, track creatures, stay fed and healthy with resources found in the wild, they can help parties navigate through the wild. With a ranger in the party, you're never lost, you never run out of food, you always have medicine/potions, and difficult terrain is easier to deal with.
That's definitely a classic example of ranger. But others think that rangers are characterized by animal companions, for instance. There are a lot of archtypes, and ultimately, all of them could be accomplished with multiclassing, which I think is the biggest difficulty the ranger faces in finding his true identity.
@@DM-Timothy Well, animal companions are more of a specialization for a ranger (i.e. subclass). There's no reason they can't have access to find familiar.
Yes! THIS is what a Ranger is!
I can't see the 'thumbs up' icon to press it for this video.
Also the word you were looking for was 'cowboy'. Rangers are the cowboys of the fantasy world. Once you understand that, you understand the class. Be it a ranch hand that keeps an eye on the cattle or patrolling the barbed wire fences to repair it when needed and keep an eye out for rustlers or coyotes, they don't stride the line between nature and civilization, they are the line.
Great analogy.
Absolutely agree mate. Besides, the people that hate on the ranger probably never even played one (i too thought it was bad until i gave it a go), or are doing that just out of habit at this point.
5.5 seems to be quite balanced in power and utility as far as martials are concerned. Sorcerers bards and wizards are still the kings of the game though, no douts about that. For super high damage go fighter or assassin rogue.
Great job dm Timothy! I think they are better than before and yes the 20th level ability sucks, but the rest is okay.
I agree. I’m actually excited to play and dm for Rangers again. :)
I really don't like that you have to pick two weapon fighting or archery
You don't have to. Lots of attacks are good with Hunter's Mark which makes TWF tempting, but you could go other routes if you want. There's a Dueling + Shillelagh (via Magic Initiate) + Polearm Mastery + Staff and Shield build, for instance. One less attack but notably better AC, higher damage per attack, and the ability to be Wisdom primary making your spells better.
And that's just one example off the top of my head.
@@DeadmanwalkingXI I want both options
@@MrMuddyWheels I think you get two weapon masteries, so you could pick a bow mastery and nick. You're fighting style will probably be two weapon fighting, but if you than pick a bunch of "ranged smite" spells you can really combine the two. Once you have extra attack you could even get the dual wielder feat to make switching out weapons easier and make three attacks with your action one of which is with a bow. I think if you want to have a ranger that combines archery with two weapon fighting you can make a perfectly viable option.
@@MrMuddyWheels You can pick an additional fighting style for your ASI. You'll just miss out on a +1. Sacrifices must be made if you want multiple options.
@@MrMuddyWheels You can really easily do both by just putting one weapon mastery each into, like, Longbow and Scimitar. You could get both Fighting Styles with an ASI if you really want, but also you don't need Archery as a fighting style to be a good archer.
They had an opportunity to do all the Hunter’s Mark focus on… the Hunter subclass. Then let the other three subclasses have their own abilities without making Hunter’s Mark compete for action economy and concentration.
Yeah, the hyper-focus on hunter's mark is an irritant to be sure. Removing concentration in a few key places has been pretty key, though. Ultimately, I just wish they didn't spend so many feature "slots" on hunters mark, but I don't mind it being a major staple like Hex is for Warlocks.
Legolas was a fighter, Aragorn was the ranger
Ranger is a really good dip for a fighter build. The first 3 levels of ranger are good. For a character that doesn’t otherwise get multi-attack the first 5 levels are good. But the ranger fails to scale into tier 2 play and beyond. I plan to build a dual wielding dex fighter and take a ranger dip for my next character. But ranger is still a bad straight class.
Interesting! What makes you say the Ranger fails in tier 2 and onward?
I have never understood why so many people seem to not understand Rangers. It's like they have never read Robin Hood, Tarzan, heard of the Brave Woodsman from Grimm's Fairy Tales.
Rangers are simply put Woodsmen who stand at the border between nature and man, protecting both, and preserving the fragile peace between them. The act as guides, hunters and Guardians. Want to get through that dark forest without getting lost? The Ranger. Need when confronted by an angry wolfpack or a rampaging Ogre? The Ranger. Does your village need enough meat to last the winter? The Ranger. Is there a Werewolf haunting the woods and terrorizing little red cloaked girls and their grandmas? The Ranger.
Whether alone or with a trusted animal companion, the Ranger patrols their native forests and looks for those in trouble,whether they be man or beast.
If they had really wanted to 'save' the Range, they would have designed the new class primarily around the 2014 Rogue Scout subclass. It would have retained the Ranger flavor,but with better wilderness capabilities, and a really useful capstone ability.
Fair enough. I think the hardest part for rangers is they’re totally accomplishable in flavor with a multiclassed character. Finding a way to make them unique from there is potentially challenging. Your approach sounds as good as many I’ve heard proposed. That said, I think this ranger is still pretty good at hitting those tropes.
@@DM-Timothy I never really understood people complaining about the flavor, flavor of your character is whatever you make it with your backstory and how you roleplay them, it's not something that should be enforced by mechanics.
@@Klaital1 that’s fair. I should say “feel” more so than flavor, but the point is a good one.
2 attacks from a great sword*
The problem with the Ranger is, and always has been, glaringly obvious - the ranger IS a subclass. Period.
Every system has tried to force the ranger into a role it refuses to fit. It doesn't want to be its own class because it can't be.
The ranger debate has become exhausting. There is only one solution. Let it be a fighter subclass. Because that's all it can be. Common sense can't be argued with.
Great channel, by the way.
Thanks so much, for the compliment and for your offered opinion. I can see how ranger would make a solid subclass, though the sub-genres of ranger that people love would require additional subclasses... It could get out of hand :D
Actually, if you go alllll the way back to the AD&D PHB, the Ranger WAS a subclass of the Fighter. Page 24 of the AD&D PHB says, "Rangers are a sub-class of fighter who are adept at woodcraft, tracking, scouting, and infiltration and spying". They didn't get spells until 8th level (one Druid spell).
@@mikepowers8607 Classic case of "If ain't broke, don't fix it".
Ranger isn't weak and a lot of the changes were great. It is just super annoying that some features again are badly designed and take away from this. The stuff focussed on hunters mark just have an anti synergy with a ton of ranger stuff like spells and subclass features that activate on a bonus action, like beast master. They also take up design spots that could've been interesting things instead of something concentrating on one of the most mindnumbingly boring spells. Hunters mark is basically just a you do a little more damage on attack spells.
And since some of these features are pretty good power wise you are now sometimes posed with the conundrum of having to decide between using the more fun and interesting spells or being a more powerful character.
So tldr, the hunters mark features are bad cause of mainly two reasons:
- They have anti synergy with other ranger stuff which feels bad.
- They incentivise a more boring playstyle.
True. If they wanted to focus on HM, they should've made the improvements more interesting. Allow Rangers to augment HM depending on their playstyle.
The 2024 ranger is excellent, and people will realize it soon enough.
If they think the ranger is boring, that's on them. Rangers rule.
Guys I'm sick of it. Ranger is better than everything except paladin in the melee department. The nonsense that people keep saying that they are bad is just silly.
That assumes you want to play a melee Ranger. I personally don't because it doesn't fit my vision of what a Ranger (primarily an archery based with melee backup woodsman..basically a Daniel Boone type) is. If I wanted to play a melee class I'd go to a dual wielding Fighter of some sort. Not a Ranger.
@@mikepowers8607 Oh sure i'm talking about the number crunchers out there refusing to do the math of an extra d8 and d6 per turn.
Big problem with the 2024 ranger is a bunch of know it all influencers with little understanding who are jumping on the bandwagon to make YT cash by trashing it.
I can't speak to people's motivations, but it's true that we get stuck into following the crowd with our opinions at times. Always best to make a reasoned decision for yourself.
ASI feels kinda lacking these days. Not taking a Feat feels bad to me. I think it could be interesting if ASI gave 3 points instead of 2 that can't all go to the same stat
It would be interesting, for sure. It feels like they would potentially have had to do a lot more balancing work if we adjusted things that way?
@@DM-Timothy it would definitely require a lot of testing. The extra point to put in a second ability score, or being able to spread three points around. This point it feels like feets are the obviously correct option a vast majority of the time
All the ranger hate is overblown and they frankly sound like cry babies. Imagine getting 5 different cakes but you complain about the chocolate one and tbus, the whole thing is ruined. Dont like HM? Dont use it. Are you whinning because now you feel sad because you didnt use Hunter Mark? Then use it. You also get like 6 free castings of it eventually.....good lord. 😂😂😂
"I hate all this free stuff because if I use it I feel sad, but if I dont use it I feel sad...." 😂
Ive never seen more bipolar reactions from any other class besides Ranger mains. Someone should do a Sociological study on what tyoes of personalities gravitate toward the Ranger class. We need some long term field studies on that. 😂