D&D 5E The 2024 Ranger is Actually Pretty Good (with numbers)

[ECMO3]

Being really good at melee damage kind of defeats the purpose of a Ranger IMO. To me though these damage comparisons with a Ranger are kind of useless, because if I want high damage I am going with another class all together.

I like the new Ranger in play so far (I am playing a multiclassed max wisdom, 13 Charisma, 16 Dex Fey Wanderer with Thrown Weapon Fighting Style). My chief complaint is how much they dumped into Hunter's Mark, but it really doesn't hurt the class, just kind of tries to drive you in a direction I am not really trying to go and which the class doesn't really excel at. When you are out of spell slots though, having some free hunters marks lying around doesn't hurt.

Finally, I don't know what assumptions you are using for Hunter's Mark, but in play there is going to be a big conflict between using your beast and using Hunter's Mark. It sounds good to say cast Hunter's Mark first round and then have your beast attack every round after that. But in play losing concentration or having the marked enemy die are going to force you to recast it, move it, or give up the extra damage pretty often. In actual play if you are using Hunter's Mark in melee that is typically using at least half of your bonus actions, less in some fights, more in others but generally over half.

 

[Greywolf143]

We have house ruled that the free uses of hunter's mark per day do not require concentration. However, they only have a duration of 10 minutes instead of 1 hour. Then if you want to cast hunter's mark with a spell slot it requires concentration and lasts the normal duration. Pretty much if there is a story element to hunt a target for a long period of time cast a spell slot and focus on tracking them. If you are just in combat targeting an enemy use your free use per day and still be able to cast other spells with concentration since you are not as focused on it like you are when trying to use it more for tracking.

Also allowing Hunter's mark to be switched using either a bonus action or a reaction as a house rule. The cost of using a reaction after you take out an enemy makes fluid sense. Costs you the use of your opportunity attack or a reaction spell if you have a reaction spell which many of my players do.

 

[Greywolf143]

We have house ruled that the free uses of hunter's mark per day do not require concentration. However, they only have a duration of 10 minutes instead of 1 hour. Then if you want to cast hunter's mark with a spell slot it requires concentration and lasts the normal duration. Pretty much if there is a story element to hunt a target for a long period of time cast a spell slot and focus on tracking them. If you are just in combat targeting an enemy use your free use per day and still be able to cast other spells with concentration since you are not as focused on it like you are when trying to use it more for tracking.

Also allowing Hunter's mark to be switched using either a bonus action or a reaction as a house rule. The cost of using a reaction after you take out an enemy makes fluid sense. Costs you the use of your opportunity attack or a reaction spell if you have a reaction spell which many of my players do.

Hex also is being allowed to use a Bonus Action or a Reaction to switch to a new target. Also will most likely have a Hexblade getting something similar with no concentration on their hex for a few times a day but waiting to see what the hex blade might look like when it gets an official update. Not sure the Hexblade will need this because the Warlock isn't made around the Hex spell like Rangers are made around Hunter's mark.

 

[Horwath]

We have house ruled that the free uses of hunter's mark per day do not require concentration. However, they only have a duration of 10 minutes instead of 1 hour. Then if you want to cast hunter's mark with a spell slot it requires concentration and lasts the normal duration. Pretty much if there is a story element to hunt a target for a long period of time cast a spell slot and focus on tracking them. If you are just in combat targeting an enemy use your free use per day and still be able to cast other spells with concentration since you are not as focused on it like you are when trying to use it more for tracking.

Also allowing Hunter's mark to be switched using either a bonus action or a reaction as a house rule. The cost of using a reaction after you take out an enemy makes fluid sense. Costs you the use of your opportunity attack or a reaction spell if you have a reaction spell which many of my players do.

Have hunter's mark damage part last for 1 minute without concentration, but skill advantage for full duration, no Conc OFC.
that way you can have both combat bonuses when you need it and ranger's "flavor" of having an ability to help tracking.

it would be best if that is not a spell in the 1st place, but everything more complicated than eating is a spell in 5E.

 

[ECMO3]

Have hunter's mark damage part last for 1 minute without concentration, but skill advantage for full duration, no Conc OFC.
that way you can have both combat bonuses when you need it and ranger's "flavor" of having an ability to help tracking.

it would be best if that is not a spell in the 1st place, but everything more complicated than eating is a spell in 5E.

That seems way to fiddley and complex. I just don't get why everyone, including WOTC designers, are so enamored with HM and why it is so important to prop it up or make it better. Just let HM die on the vine, like we do other crap spells and give Rangers the option to prepare a separate Divinitation spell to help with tracking.

 

[Greywolf143]

The class is dependent on it based on how they made the class.

 

[ECMO3]

The class is dependent on it based on how they made the class.

That is kind of what I meant when I siad WOTC was enamored with the spell.

I think you are bound to be disappointed if you try to make Hunter's Mark into something that a Ranger can rely on as a central component of the class function in play at high levels focusing on Hunter's Mark to make the specific class features better is an exercise in futility IMO. However, the Ranger class and subclasses stand on their own without Hunter's Mark. Treat the Hunter's Mark features as ribbons, and since castings are "free" with FE use them when you are mopping up in a combat that doesn't really matter and build your character around other more effective, iconic and fun abilities and spells that the class and subclasses provide.

 

[Minigiant]

That is kind of what I meant when I siad WOTC was enamored with the spell

It's less that they are enamored

And more that this is the only thing all five factions of Ranger fans agree on once backwards compatibility was mandated.

That Rangers should have a targettable damage and tracking boost.

 

[ECMO3]

It's less that they are enamored

And more that this is the only thing all five factions of Ranger fans agree on once backwards compatibility was mandated.

That Rangers should have a targettable damage and tracking boost.

I am a Ranger fan, I play more Rangers than any other class, both in 5E and in 2024 and I did not agree, I don't think Rangers need a damage boost at all, there are other classes players should play if they are DPR focused.

In 5E I never played a Ranger that had HM past level 4.

Also in 10 years of 5E and 2024 I don't think I have ever actually used HM for the tracking boost in play. I did use it on a couple times for the perception boost, but even that is rare, maybe 2 or 3 times total after playing dozens of Rangers.

 

[Minigiant]

I am a Ranger fan, I play more Rangers than any other class, both in 5E and in 2024 and I did not agree, I don't think Rangers need a damage boost at all, there are other classes players should play if they are DPR focused.

I didn't say need.

I said
"[Hunter's Mark] is the only thing all five factions of Ranger fans agree on once backwards compatibility was mandated.

That Rangers should have a targetable damage and tracking boost."

• The factions don't agree on it being companion based
• The factions don't agree on it a pure martial alt warrior
• The factions don't agree on it an Primal Smiter counterpart of the Paladin
• The factions don't agree on it more expert and less warrior
• The factions don't agree on it being archery based

As much as people say they don't want Rangers focus on HM, no one wants to delete HM from the Ranger.

The factions only agree on it having HM.

In 5E I never played a Ranger that had HM past level 4.

It's weak spell to concentrate on after level 5. Once you can concentrate on other combat buff, summon, or AOE spells, it's beter to concentrate on them.