New Ranger Bad

[@JoCat]

goddammit not again

[@TheShanicpower]

Hope you’re doing alright man

[@RadiusIgnus]

Glad to see you around the KZbin space, Jo!

[@verdragon5591]

Man, I can't believe WOTC liked Crap Guide To Ranger so much that they made it a real thing, don't know why they took out the "Guide To", though, that seemed unnecessary

[@unironicallylikesranger7122]

@@JoCat us Ranger fans can’t catch a break, we just want to camp outside and send out fey sending radar pulses

[@GrimViridian]

Omg it's Joseph cat! XD I'm so glad to have heard you're still doing great, also thanks for getting me back into monster hunter XD

[@everettw.9610]

“You can gain greater awareness of the world around you by learning to use your fucking eyes” - WotC getting rid of Primeval Awareness, 2024, colorized

[@MeatbagSlayer]

"But I'm blind." "Deal with it. It builds character."

[@GrabnokTD]

@@MeatbagSlayerJust take expertise in perception. You don’t need eyes you just need expertise and spellcasting Edit: just to clarify this is sarcasm

[@Deoxys_Used_Mimic]

@@MeatbagSlayer …and several more levels you basically won’t be blind anymore anyway.

[@Grinner11]

I like those changes that get rid of marginally useful class features in favor of core gameplay (ability checks). Much more streamlined and takes away unnecessary complexity.

[@CrizzyEyes]

​@Grinner11 it's terrible, reminds me of 4e and how they seem to want to turn the game into an MMO. here's an idea, how about turning hunter's mark into a thing that just happens instead of a spell with castings you have to track. like sneak attack. that would actually be streamlined but instead they turned the class into a caster

[@nathanwarner4278]

At level 20, your Ranger can finally become... a 5th level warlock.

[@agentpyro2350]

LMAOOO

[@ZannNewman]

*6 times a day* !!!!

[@brendonhavener]

@@ZannNewmanwell we gotta balance it somehow. Can’t be on par with a 5th level warlock *all* the time.

[@ShetlandShanty]

the fact that the ranger's level 20 capstone feature just increases their average damage per attack by 2 is the greatest insult I've ever seen upon this class.

[@sofiasoderstrand3094]

After listening to the original video closely, I'm pretty sure they're not replacing the capstone with the Hunter's Mark boost, they're adding it to the old one.

[@blobjorn3248]

​@@sofiasoderstrand3094 Wow! So you can still add 5 damage to one attack a turn?! The Ranger is saved!

[@andrewelliott483]

This is the worst bit for me.. +0-4 damage IF you have a spell on your target.. If you're too lazy to write something interesting you could at least grant an extra 1d6 or something.

[@uncouthkoala]

@@andrewelliott483 Hey, then it would be equivalent to a rogue's level 3 sneak attack! So as a 20th level ranger you could expend a spell slot to use an ability that another class can do for free at 3rd level! (which is, bafflingly, somehow better than what we actually got)

[@artinallforms7220]

@@uncouthkoala oh wait but don't forget the 6 free castings!

[@Gregg554]

Ranger in 2034: "So we have completely removed hunters mark and the class now focuses around true strike!!!!!"

[@Sammie1053]

Oh this made me burst out laughing

[@vorpalkickass8825]

Ranger 2035: Just play Eldritch knight with a bow.

[@ast8177]

No more features, you got spells for that now. I know, no need to thank us at WotC.

[@Lexgamer]

2044: You have no language or weapon proficiencies, all rolls are made with disadvantage, your hit die is a d2, all attacks auto crit you.

[@slade4672]

and true strike has been nurfed(somehow)

[@laBoogy]

I love that they made Ranger's CORE THING a spell that requires concentration, meaning you can't use like any Ranger spells because they mostly require concentration.

[@VirTekInc]

Yeah, I'm homebrewing that out of the spell for rangers at my table.

[@surr3ald3sign]

​@@VirTekIncim homebrewing the entire class into something that makes some damn sense 😂 atp WOTC is dumb as shit and we might aswell just make our own ttrpg from scratch bc 90% of of us could make a better ruleset than WOTC 💀

[@VirTekInc]

@@surr3ald3sign DC20 is looking promising tbh. I'm gonna copypasta something I posted elsewhere in this comment section. And, yeah, they need a complete tear down and rebuild. I prefer the idea of a Wisdom based Warlock-type class. 1.They could have fixed it by just rolling all three of the abilities from Hunter, at each appropriate level, into the base class. Instead of choosing horde breaker or colossus slayer, you get all three at level three. Then, you get all three of the abilities at level 7. None of the abilities are op, and other classes get more/more useful abilities at the same level integers. I mean, can we discuss the warlock pact boons and invocations? Why don't rangers have something at least on par with that? 2. We make them more like Warlock, and base their "conclaves" on creature types. Dragon, Magical Beasts, Aberrations, Undead, Animals. Or, specific animal types, Wolf, Bear, Cat, Serpent, Elk, and give them "infusions" similar to the Eldritch Invocations. And, just roll the Hunter subclass abilities in the base class, and just give them ALL of them at the noted level integers. This switch and swap on rest is ridiculous.

[@VirTekInc]

@@surr3ald3sign I think they need to be the Wisdom version of the Warlock, and the Hunter subclass should just be rolled into the core class features. I posted these down in different spots in this comment section, and might actually make sense: "Hear me out, we make them more like Warlock, and base their "conclaves" on creature types. Dragon, Magical Beasts, Aberrations, Undead, Animals. Or, specific animal types, Wolf, Bear, Cat, Serpent, Elk, and give them "infusions" similar to the Eldritch Invocations. And, just roll the Hunter subclass abilities in the base class, and just give them ALL of them at the noted level integers. This switch and swap on rest is ridiculous." "They could have fixed it by just rolling all three of the abilities from Hunter, at each appropriate level, into the base class. Instead of choosing horde breaker or colossus slayer, you get all three at level three. Then, you get all three of the abilities at level 7. None of the abilities are op, and other classes get more/more useful abilities at the same level integers. I mean, can we discuss the warlock pact boons and invocations? Why don't rangers have something at least on par with that"? These are my takes on the problem.

[@LP-zn8sc]

Yet they made it so that warlock invocations are no longer only for eldritch blast.

[@Luke08700]

2014 Ranger:It’s so over Tasha’s Ranger:We’re so back 2024 Ranger:It’s so over

[@jackdiddles4304]

jeremy made it joever

[@jetstreampaul5029]

WotC: But wait! *THERE IS MORE!*

[@TaismoFanBoy]

@@jetstreampaul5029 But wait! There's less...

[@jetstreampaul5029]

@@TaismoFanBoy i mean, more -nerfs- _b a l a n c i n g_

[@ikaemos]

Aw, come on, it's not _worse_ than Favored Foe from Tasha's; that one was gone as soon as the target was dead. It's just _not keeping up_ with the boost Monks and Barbs got. They're leaning on the sooner spellcasting, more spells prepared, easier retraining of spells and the fact that you get HM prepped for free and don't need to spend slots on it a few times a day. All of that isn't bad, per se, and new!Rangers do get Weapon Mastery now like every other martial. It's not exactly _inspired_ design, but it's "Tasha's Ranger, but like 10% better because Weapon Mastery and more accessible spellcasting." It's ok. Rogue didn't get any direct buffs compared to Tasha's either, it's just that Cunning Strike is _cooler_ than whatever Ranger got.

[@initial2301]

My favorite playtest change is the level 9 feature that allows rangers to choose an extra 2 favored terrains, when the ranger can already swap out their favored terrains on any long rest. So after a ranger hits level 9, they're rewarded with a small bonus to nature checks on days in which they encounter four different biomes

[@chickengaming4344]

If you are in a campaign where you can cast teleportation circle 4 times a day that would be a godly feature.

[@sleepylad951]

@@chickengaming4344 I wouldn't say godly, more like a fringe scenario that turns a useless ability into something useable with a benefit that is not worth the effort made

[@chickengaming4344]

@@sleepylad951 I am aware. That's why I was making a joke.

[@NickW855]

Hey it could happen in a Planescape campaign. Maybe. Outside chance.

[@sarahmellinger3335]

@@chickengaming4344 goes crazy in limbo

[@TheDukeofCheese12]

Monk: “What did you get for your 20th level ability?” Bard: “I can cast Power Word Kill and Power Word Heal!” Monk: “Nice! I got a +4 to my Dexterity and Wisdom, now my AC increased by 4.” Bard: “Oh sweet! What did you get, Ranger?” Ranger: *staring down at their d10 with pain and regret in their eyes. The world blurs around them as their breathing gets heavier.* Bard: “Ranger?”

[@rawmen2127]

Cleric:do you want me to divine intervention you a new class? Ranger:oh god please

[@jabber9594]

It really hits you when you imagine it written out without the flavour text. Level 20, your final, capstone ability, your reward for surviving to the peak of what a Ranger can be, sticking solely to this class: Your Hunter's Mark is a D10 instead of a D6.

[@ShiningDarknes]

@@jabber9594 couldn’t even get rid of the concentration requirement, even at the peak it is still worse than a cantrip *_cries in 4d10+20 EB that has been that for 3 levels already_* oh and warlocks can choose to at-will use invisibility so get fucked rangers that can only do it 5 times max. Ket’s see here oh look at that a warlock can also choose to speak with animals at-will… wow. With these changes warlocks are better rangers than rangers. Oof. No really. It is funny how they justified removing class features or moving them later because they gave them a couple more spell slots but the spells they cite as doing what those abilities did A. Are concentration and B. Warlocks can choose to have access to as at-will spells. They could have at least given them +2 wis wirh max 22 and wis to mark damage.

[@Gamer3427]

Honestly yea, at max that's a whole extra four points of damage, when by the time you're playing level 20 characters, four points of damage is nothing. There's basically anything they could have done with it at that point that would be more useful, and honestly since the main point of Hunter's Mark is its actual effect, not the damage, why didn't they expand on that instead? There's so much potential there, and they decided "minor damage increase" was the epitome of the class.

[@Maximilian_Romus]

​​@@Gamer3427it's not always four points of damage. On average it's only two.

[@Gamer3427]

@@Maximilian_Romus Yea, like I said, at max it's four. So still a small increase even in the best case scenario. Most of the time it'd be even lower, if it even ends up as an increase, since 60% of the damage numbers it could roll, it could have rolled with the D6 instead.

[@frankmachado4142]

They recreated the exact old lackluster damage buff, but now it's "Hey, fellow kids, we noticed how much you like this spell so... no need to thank me"

[@HarPaelTheMessenger]

If they want to flavor ranger as "hunter who uses hunter's mark" why didn't they lean into it? Hey, at x levels you can mark up to five creatures at a time! Hey, you can give your allies your hunter's mark bonus as a reaction! Hey, you can deal up to 5d8 damage at x level with hunter's mark! Hey you can have a hunter's mark on a foe for a full year, and not even magical means can obfuscate your wrath!

[@lorenzocassaro3054]

Red Dead Redemption's Deadeye would be nice.

[@lagg1e]

Actually cool Hunter's mark sounds like it would be too much fun and playtests in the hasbro offices didn't react well to that.

[@Erathiatw]

Similar to Rogue or Warlock, have a list of upgrades to Hunter's Mark improvements that you can scale up as you advance, so you could lean into doing more damage, or targetting more than one enemy, or maybe even re-marking someone who you don't have line of sight to in order to find out where they are. Nah, leave it as the base spell.

[@louiesatterwhite3885]

​@@Erathiatwnah don't just leave it at the base spell, make it *worse*. In the UA playtests, not sure about final version, they nerfed hex and hunters mark (already very suboptimal spells) to only be able to proc once per round!

[@nickxcaliber7991]

Just a basic, hunters mark deals 1d8 damage, or you can buff your hunters mark by expending a spell slot. A level 5 spell slot would let you throw 6d8 additional damage as you infuse all your knowledge about the foes weakness along with divine magic into your arrow

[@heroponriki5921]

"I'm mentioning the battleaxe here to show Strength based Rangers some love." The actual abilities: -You're now 10 feet slower if you wear heavy armor, so you have to invest in dex and will have a lower AC, negating one of the few advantages of a strength ranger. -You can't invest lightly into wisdom either because everything that used to use your proficiency bonus now uses wisdom. Thanks for making my already niche character even less optimal.

[@toasterllama4764]

The speed not working in heavy armor genuinely makes me so mad its so unneccesary and only debuffs an already suboptimal ranger build >:(

[@surr3ald3sign]

The actual changes: fuck you, fuck you some more, oh heres an extra 1d6 damage at level 20, fuck you again btw, we're doing thus bc we love you, fuck you some more, why do you even want to play ranger? Fuck you one more time for good measure and oh yeah fuck you again for having the audacity to play ranger in 2024

[@jasonbritnell42]

Good God my Ranger Cleric is never gonna be useful in combat now.

[@capman42]

"All the Ranger's abilities have vanished" is more than comedy gold, it's gotta be at least comedy platinum

[@dezdanna9297]

...comedy electrum.

[@rawchicken3463]

​@@dezdanna9297 3 comedy electrum... atleast

[@annexamv2776]

​@@rawchicken3463More like ≈5, but whatever.

[@Desolain]

2024 bard capstone: Free (buffed) powerword kill AND (buffed) powerword heal 2024 ranger capstone: huntermark can potentially do up to 4 more damage now :3

[@Wilgonsi]

But goodberry, bro

[@VivaLaDnDLogs]

8 on a crit. Vecna's gonna be shaking in his bones.

[@theveganduolingobird7349]

@@VivaLaDnDLogsisn’t vecna immune to piercing bludgeoning and non magical slashing?

[@katherineminor3402]

@@theveganduolingobird7349 hunters mark does force damage now

[@CPForte]

TBF we don´t know what spells do precisely what, but the power words are still worse than other alternatives for level nine spells. Mass Heal is at least in 5th edition likely better than twin power word heal and Meteor shower and Psychic Scream are easily better damage spells than twinned power word kill in most situations. So in essence you just get to effectively prepare two additional lower level spells, by choosing somewhat supotimal ninth level spells. Which is also lame for a cap feature. What makes this worse is the changed magical secrets means, there are no downsides from taking these spells at level 17. So the bard cap stone would probably mean for the bard I am playing now to retrain Mass Heal at level 20 for some slightly more niche utility or combat spell and instead use Power Word Heal. When one excludes power gaming and just sees this from a flavor and flexibility standpoint, it also pretty lame. You have spent 3 levels using one or two ninth level spells you decided on, which represent the pinacle of what your character can do. An incredible ace in the hole or weird ancient magic that many foes struggle to deal with. Then level 20 comes and says: "Nope, you're a bard how about you do this thing." Rangers still worse though.

[@rayindc2074]

Since WotC is so hyped on turning class abilities into spells, how about we make the Assassin a half caster and replace the disguise kit with Disguise Self, Poisoners Kit with Poison Spray, and Death Strike with Power Word Kill. Wouldn't that be awesome?

[@anyoneatall3488]

Please, don't give them ideas

[@Flamewarden_Honoushugoshin]

Ah yes, Green Flavored Wizard but not as magical as the other better Green Flavored Wizard.

[@everettw.9610]

And also not as good at fighting, because wildshape will probably still outclass ranger in most instances

[@spi231]

@@everettw.9610 It did before the UA changes

[@KaitouKaiju]

Magic flavored fighter but still not as good as any of the other magic flavored fighters. Ffs even the bladesinger wizard is a better martial than the ranger

[@aidanarmaggeddon]

​@@KaitouKaijutbf bladesinger is a better martial than most martials

[@anyoneatall3488]

​@@aidanarmaggeddonas someone playing a fighter in a party with a bladesinger, i feel that

[@vincentmiller9555]

Love the design philosophy of "At this level you can look forward to getting nothing! In fact, you will get a nerfed version of the feature removed in a few more levels!"

[@surr3ald3sign]

Ong 😂 they took everything good about tashas ranger and made it slightly worse and 3-4 levels higher into the class while removing literally ALL the incentive to ever take ranger levels, literally just build a fighter with a bow and you got a better ranger than the entire ranger class 💀 hell continuing that for the funny, build literally any other class and give them a how, and its somehow a better ranger than '24 ranger 😂

[@FentonHardyFan]

@@surr3ald3signYou don’t understand! Your 2024 ranger can get expertise in PERCEPTION! Are you not understanding the incredible flavor of the class!!! 🙄 I really hate the new ranger.

[@neverbloom4717]

ranger, the already most shafted class gets new stages of shaft we thought not possible

[@GrassPokeKing]

So much Shaft I thought they were making a sequel 😭

[@PriestOfTearshed]

They are going to need a bigger quiver if they get any more shafted than they have been.

[@SteveAkaDarktimes]

"we don't know what to do with ranger, so instead of actually defining the class, giving it fun and unique features, we just turn it into a bad Druid with a few fighter levels and vaguely gesture to the spell list."

[@recursiveslacker7730]

I think once the new PHB comes out someone is legit going to make a Fighter/Druid multiclass that can out-everything the new ranger and post it online. It’ll be good content seeing it stack up better.

[@Lucarioguild7]

5e Players: Playing non spellcasters feels awful because the wizard is so op they can solve everything singlehandedly WotC: Alright, bet. We are happy to announce all classes are now 50% more wizardy

[@ShiningDarknes]

They clearly wanted to lean into the hunter's mark, everything they just flat-out removed should have been replaced with per long rest abilities that effect the current cast of the spell. Like oh they removed the primeval awareness BOOM now while concentrating on hunter's mark once per short rest you gain the benefits of primeval awareness. Now instead of expending a spell slot for a mere minute you have potentially an hour, oh and let's tack on once per long rest if you are within your favored terrain pick one type of creature listed by primeval awareness, you know the number and direction of that type of creature within 500ft of you for until the spell ends or one hour, which ever comes first. (that is really useful info if you are currently after a particular creature type and it is on the list the ability gives info on since 500ft is way more narrow than 1 or 6 miles now suddenly it is like radar/sonar) Yeah, still mostly useless in many situations but you still have it and it costs you nothing really... that or, I dunno, give them the exact same ability but instead of making the old optional primeval awareness, well, optional you just give them that instead since it was far more useful to have one free cast of some neat flavorful spells than "oh yeah guys there are undead in this area that we knew there were undead in already." Land's stride was removed, so now while concentrating on hunter's mark once per short rest as a bonus action ignore non-magical difficult terrain while following tracks and once per long rest grant this effect to allies within 30ft with the same bonus action, if you are in your favored terrain you also ignore magically difficult terrain. So you still get the ability AND can help your allies move around and it is a little better. It only works while tracking so it doesn't overshadow other things that get around difficult terrain. Hide in plain sight was removed, so now once per short rest as a bonus action gain advantage on hide checks while concentrating on hunters mark with a target marked, if you are in your favored terrain gain +10 on the check when not moving. This effect lasts until your marked target is reduced to zero HP or you move more than 90ft from your marked target, or you lose concentration on the spell (obviously). Limited use but it lets you mark a target then sneak up on it... you know, like a hunter. And you get it back on short rest so you can potentially use it multiple times per cast if you don't lose concentration.

[@EnlonWhite]

This is the summary of the new 2024 ranger. Wow, way to bullseye it.

[@Gale_789]

⁠@@recursiveslacker7730 The book isn’t even out yet, and I’ve already done that with Eldritch Knight SOLOCLASS! Be a Dexterity based Eldritch Knight Fighter with the Wood Elf species and the Magic Initiate (Druid) Origin Feat, at level 4 take Fey Touched for Hunters Mark. BAMM! Maybe you take a one/two level dip into Rogue. Maybe you take a one/two level dip into Druid. You don’t really have to though… :(

[@AxleDoomrod]

Love that they did a whole survey so they could ignore it entirely.

[@blackfang0815]

Survey results for the past 5 years (yes, they've been playtesting Hunter's Mark as a core class feature since 2019): Whatever you do, DON'T do this! Absolutely do not do this or you will completely ruin it. Final product: *Does the thing. But it's okay, because at level 13 you get an ability that doesn't fix the problem but does point out that we know it's a problem.*

[@TheWonkster]

They don't fucking care, they never have. Wizards is doing their level best to destroy this game regardless of how the people who actually play it feel. Either play pathfinder 2 or take on the task of fully editing 5e or 3.5 or even 4th to your tastes like my play group is doing in the face of this nonsense.

[@kurtisdeakin]

@@TheWonkster They never cared lol

[@PotatoPatatoVonSpudsworth]

@@TheWonkster| They made mistakes, sure, but pretending they don't care about their top-selling product is goofy.

[@innocentsmith6091]

Didn't it come out during the OGL debacle that they really do just ignore the surveys?

[@noahrotter]

WotC: "Look guys, it was either create exploration rules and systems so that one of our core classes would feel relevant; or explain what an RPG was for the thousandth time. We couldn't do both."

[@anyoneatall3488]

Maybe we will have exploration rules in the gm guide?

[@MekkaYGO]

So we all agree to homebrew no concentration hunters mark.

[@pedroalmeida1456]

that is the right question to be asked bro

[@Brainwav]

And paste the Tasha's Ranger pages in place of these ones.

[@Deoxys_Used_Mimic]

Barbarian would LOVE THAT

[@malmasterson3890]

I'd limit it to where you can only concentrate on another Ranger spell when you have HM, but other than that yes absolutely.

[@malmasterson3890]

​@Brainwav I'm pretty sure you're allowed to do that anyway. This is still an improvement over Tasha's, and honestly Favored Foe is also concentration so it still sucks. Just have a way to allow your Ranger to circumvent the 1st level features Concentration around level 5 or so is really the solution to the new Ranger.

[@MrRedx55]

Level 13 wizard: shoots a green lazar from his had to do 50-100 damage Level 13 cleric: ask for literal god to intervene on my behalf, and the god will do it Level 13 ranger: if I get hurt I still have my 1-6 extra damage available 🤪

[@lighthadoqdawg]

Not sure why you think Ranger should have an ability as potent as two full-casters while also being a full-on weapon user who's damage and utility focused from ranged but go off king. also divine intervention was changed. they don't get god to do things for them anymore, they just get a free casting of any spell of theirs from 1st-5th level. and 7th level spells aren't the same thing as class features.

[@DaBlueIghuana]

⁠​⁠@@lighthadoqdawgmy good friend, spells are very much abilities, some classes just get more of them and more powerful ones, oh did I mention that they also get to choose which abilities they want to use every day instead of being stuck with one or maybe a choice between three different ones that increase your weapon damage by 1 or 2. It’s a very big part of why martials are in pure essence weaker than casters in dnd. Also, most utility is given through spells so if you want utility you better get good at casting. Then why shouldn’t classes have equally potent abilities at equal stages? I understand this argument if we’re going by ad&d rules where most casters have to get more xp to get to higher levels but now every class advances equally and should thus all be roughly equally powerful but at the same time in their own different ways.

[@thiagonet2]

@@lighthadoqdawg casters have the best utility in the game, a lvl 14 wizard can take you to anywhere by waving his hand, speak every language and blow stuff up and ranger get that stupid feature, their spell list is not even that great, want to be a ranger now? would advise to just play fighter or rogue and multiclass with druid for utility spells

[@lighthadoqdawg]

@@DaBlueIghuana three things: 1: I didn't say spells were or weren't abilities. I said 7th level spells are not on the same level as what classes get at 13th level. and you'd be hard pressed to name any feature any class gets at that level that's comparable. 2: why are you speaking to me as if you're OP? "oh did I mention- "? no, you didn't, did you just accidently reveal that you replied to me on an alt? 3: the martial/caste divide hardly applies to rangers and paladins. because they literally gain the thing fighters, monks and rogues lack that full on bolsters their weapon useage, relevant spell access. /that's/ why rangers shouldn't get a feature at 13th level that's comparable to a 7th's level spell. because no one else does. Hell let's be real, spells aren't better than weapon users because of damage. the best spells in the game don't deal damage. that's why OPs joke doesn't land when you actually have a grasp on concepts like "that martial/caster divide. who cares that the wizard can shoot a big green laser at 13th level, when the wizard could turn an entire battlefield of enemies into drooling idiots back at level 5?

[@lighthadoqdawg]

@@thiagonet2 Yes, thanks for reiterating that spells are on a whole other level than class features, that's exactly what I was saying. and all of that stuff you described was before level 13 too. rangers don't get access to that, obviously, but they get way more than enough to be better off that a fighter or a monk, and so to paladins. because any spell access is better than none because all spell levels have amazing spells.

[@brandonmcalpine8734]

I started my first ever DND campaign a year and a half ago as a ranger. There were so many sessions where the “ranger” part of my class saved us so much heart ache. I missed a session once when there was going to be travel and the DM started calling for nature and survival checks from the others and they got confused. “We’ve never had to roll these before, why now?” “Well that’s because Cursin has always been able to provide food and direction for the party.” Let Rangers be good at being rangers.

[@pheonixforce6442]

Imagine making the main feature of a class a bad first level spell

[@nicolebee3283]

Hunters mark isn’t bad?

[@Deathven1482]

@@nicolebee3283considering it’s a concentration spell that basically doesn’t scale and could be replaced by many of the other good concentration spells ranger has? I’d rather not have it as an option.

[@user-mu8ok5xf8d]

@@Deathven1482honestly just make it not concentration and it fixes a lot of this

[@PurpleNinja177]

​@nicolebee3283 It kinda is, especially when compared to a sneak attack, which is also a level 1 fearure. It compeeats for a few levels then is just bad. Unless you need to track someone you have already seen and marked, but some one could just use help and give you the same bonus.

[@T3hIluvatar]

@@user-mu8ok5xf8d Except it still uses a bonus action (beastmaster's pet crying in the corner) and removing concentration makes the lvl 13 feature useless

[@milkshakellie]

i think the worst part is that there's no identity here. while reading the abilities i couldn't form any kind of character that isn't just 'guy with weapons and magic'

[@malmasterson3890]

I don't really get that argument. I'd say most of the classes have really lost any sense of real core flavor and it's up to you to put it in there. Be creative. He'll, the subclasses for Ranger are arguably some of the most flavorful of any class.

[@xanderh2404]

In my opinion that's been the problem with the ranger the entire time. Aragorn, what most people think of when they hear ranger in a fantasy context, is just a fighter with some survival skills. That's it. That's not a basis for an entire class.

[@farot4594]

Hunter subclass helps you identify vulnerability

[@swordofstabbing]

@@xanderh2404 I disagree. Aragorn's entire thing is survival skills, and he even has magic herbalistic healing with an entire chapter dedicated to it. Maybe if D&D had more rules dedicated to travel and survival, rangers would be easier to implement.

[@thecomradewarda]

@@swordofstabbingpeople hate dealing food even now so nobody actually play with those rules .

[@shadowwearwolf4891]

so ranger isn't a ranger anymore, its just a wizard larping in a forest

[@gliscaradu1424]

😂😂😂

[@emerynoel567]

Worse: a wizard giving up all his extra spells _just so_ he can LARP in a forest.

[@Addrum]

This was like THE moment to completely overhaul the class, rework it from the ground up and have a full cohesive idea of what a Ranger should be. WotC just has no idea what to do with it.

[@aprinnyonbreak1290]

The sad part, they're almost close, but they missed the mark. Bleaching the Ranger of the crazy off grid survivalist hobo flavor was the PERFECT opportunity to pivot the Ranger into being a better realization of being a proper hybrid of mage and martial, something maybe more in line with the Pathfinder Magus. You can fight, you can cast, you can use spells to create advantageous fighting conditions, or use your martial abilities to win nerd fights. A true generalist class, less pidgeonholed into hard support than the bard, less pidgeonholed into being a fighter with tricks like a Paladin. What's your favored terrain? Hey, you have magic, MAKE that terrain. Go for like, a polearm fighter that makes rocks sprout out or goes up trees to leverage that reach, or someone who flashbangs everything with fog and darkness then fights well in it. Instead, they went for this weird noncommittal foot dragging spiritual regressor to the release 5e Ranger, now with 50% more Hunter's Mark per scoop version, day 1 please let me have class features edition.

[@armorclasshero2103]

Because it should never have been a class to begin with

[@ShiningDarknes]

@@aprinnyonbreak1290 that ironic pun tho.

[@karlkhai51]

​@@armorclasshero2103 Says who and why?

[@alphastronghold715]

The point of a ranger is to be a soldier trained to fight in specialized environments. They’ve completely removed the one feature which actually incorporated that in favor of making them Druidic rogues. This could straight up have just been a new rogue subclass and you’d never tell the difference.

[@DoomsdayR3sistance]

new Ranger, "Any spell the caster wants, as long as it's Hunter's Mark"

[@grimaldur778]

Dnd is starting to feel a lot like UNO with the "Thanks for the original, we're gonna take it from here."

[@luckilylemons]

2024 Paladin: Nerf Smite into the ground, grant horse. 2024 Ranger: Remove everything. What do you mean you're supposed to get something new?

[@Fenikkusu14]

It's not nerfed into the ground, it's been brought in line so its not the only thing Paladins use their spell slots on. People are out here being like "but counterspell!" Or "But Magic Immunity." If you are in a group where you DM is regularly throwing casters with CS at you, trust me, your 2d8 radiant damage is not the problem.

[@nm2358]

@@Fenikkusu14 Yeah, like Misty Step... oh wait. Making Divine Smite a once per turn BA spell means you're not doing anything else with your spellcasting when you use it. So one of two things happen: 1. You'll be playing a discount Cleric with a much weaker spellcasting stat and lower level spell slots, and not Smiting. 2. You will be Smiting the one time a turn, unless there's mechanically a better option for your Bonus Action, and just never run out of spell slots (lol). Unless the bulk of the new spells are an assortment of Bonus Action spells, you'll literally be doing less things as a Paladin from levels 1-20, lol. It doesn't help Clerics can slam down as an action spells like Hallow once per day to just outright power-creep your Auras with a 60 ft spell that does 90% of what your auras do, and more, while also just having much stronger damage options, and Searing Smite (lol). Divine Smite at the end of the day was a part 5e Paladin's identity that kept the Cleric from just being the better Paladin, and with the new Divine Intervention, they kinda are the better Paladin in 2024.

[@aprinnyonbreak1290]

​@@Fenikkusu14 The solution to this isn't to nerf smites, it's to give paladins spells they actually want to cast, and make the class actually, y'know, work, besides being a 6 level plug-in to a charisma engine, or a smite bot and walking aura. The fact that nobody not splashing Hexblade would ever reccomend going like, 18 Cha, 14 Str on your Paladin should really be all you need to understand the actual problem with smite/spell disparity.

[@nm2358]

@@aprinnyonbreak1290 I think think my favorite "don't worry, DM's won't counterspell your critical hit Smite" was the pretense that whatever a fullcaster is doing will be more impactful to counterspell than whatever the Paladin does, lol. It's really deflating when the Paladin's main thing supposedly isn't even worth attempting to counter over a potential Fireball.

[@life-destiny1196]

@@Fenikkusu14 you're right that counterspell is a bad reason to complain about new smite. personally my only real concern is BA clog; one smite per turn reigns in some of the burst damage potential that paladins were infamous for, so I think we were all expecting it, and even if they hadn't nerfed Counterspell very hard, I would argue that it's usually a bad idea to have a monster counterspell smites.

[@intergalactic92]

I love how often the text says "I like this change" in "trust me guys, this is better," way.

[@DarkVeghetta]

"How do you do, fellow D&D players."

[@feltrix334]

It can be annoying, but also people love to get mad about any change, so I understand why they do it.

[@YeetSpace]

​@@feltrix334I feel as though there is a certain consistent factor you're completely forgetting or intentionally not mentioning, that being that every choice is being made by the same people, so it's not entirely out of realm of possibility that every choice they've made it's just a shitty fucking choice unless actively having outside health that's tops them from doing their natural impulses

[@feltrix334]

@@YeetSpace I mean, sure, you could view every choice they've made as worse. That's subjective, everyone is going to have their own opinions. I think that MOST people who are not actively trying to shit on things will find SOME changes that they like in 5.24e.

[@YeetSpace]

@@feltrix334 The problem is is that they are strictly only removing features. Obviously the only acceptable option is just do what you want to make it better because the people actively making the official stuff obviously aren't. You're arguing something that doesn't make sense in the first place because that's already what people do. People make their entire own games. It's a moot point. This is this specific game with this specific community and we want the game to not actively be made worse by the people who own it. It's a wild concept I know I guess given the absolutely staunch like fight against this idea so stupid. Just cuz they own the company doesn't mean the choices they make about the game are good.

[@bluechromata6976]

Paladin changes pigeonhole the Paladin into being a mounted character. Ranger changes pigeonhole the Ranger into being an unused character.

[@Shalakor]

Or into only choosing the Hunter subclass, since that may be enough to make Hunter's Mark remain viable.

[@badmojo0777]

how in the hell is a Paladin pidgeon holed ito mounted combat??? dumbest shit ive read on the interne tthis week, and thats saying something.

[@v3lld039]

@@badmojo0777brother, read the new paladin changes before you say it’s the dumbest shit spouted on the internet. Summon steed is added as a core feature that paladins get now. Which pigeonholes players to build their character around that.

[@Hobbs783]

@@v3lld039gonna be honest, not having a steed summoned as a paladin is just kinda dumb, even if you don’t use it in combat, having a steed is a great utility item, and that’s not even considering at higher levels the find greater steed ability lets it fly.

[@51gunner]

It feels like they just sandpapered off all the "useless" features that differentiated them from a Fighter with a Bow and called the job mostly done. Sure your Ranger gets a bunch of spell slots and prepared spells, but it seems like between Hunter's Mark eating your Concentration, Bonus Actions, and so on the actual use for half these spells is just to fill up a character sheet. 2014 Ranger, once you dodged all the crappy options, could keep up as a damage dealer outside of really optimized tables. I played a whole campaign where the combo of Hunter Ranger + Colossus Slayer + Archery Fighting Style made the Ranger a reliable hitter that did steady consistent daamge, and who could tune things up with a Hunter's Mark here or there. Doesn't seem like they've really veered away from that with 2024 Ranger.

[@SaulFemm]

Jacob at the start: I'm gonna try to have an open mind Jacob by level 2: 😡

[@PlatinumAltaria]

The fact that a lot of people think they're called Rangers because they use ranged weapons really kinda shows you how much effort they've put into fleshing out the fantasy.

[@floofzykitty5072]

This is exactly what I was thinking, and the fact that the reliance on Hunter's Mark pushes you into just another ranged DPR class (which we already have so many of) cements this loss of identity. When rangers use spells like Entangle and Spike Growth it reminds people that, "Hey, I actually have a deep connection to nature!" The "primal" spell list has so many good nature themed support options, now players will feel bad for using them because it shuts off part of their class.

[@CptObvious]

I'd say people thinking that isn't entirely a D&D problem, it's partially a them problem. "Ranger" has existed for longer than it's been in D&D. Aragorn from Lord of the Rings is a Ranger (and is in fact the basis for the Ranger class) and he fights with a sword.

[@FrozenLavaDragonProd]

​@@CptObvious That is the point, 5e doesn't play into the Aragon or Drizzt fantasy.

[@CptObvious]

​@@FrozenLavaDragonProd That wasn't the point I was making. All I'm talking about is where the name comes from. As OP said, a lot of people think it's called Ranger because they used ranged weapons. I am pointing out that the term Ranger already existed, and the Ranger the class was based on didn't even use a ranged weapon, meaning the name has no ties to the type of weapon used. Ranger actually comes from the verb "range," first used in the 1200s, meaning "roam with the purpose of searching or hunting." The word "ranger" was first used in the late 14th century and meant "sworn officer of a forest whose work is to walk through it and protect it." Because the term existed well before D&D, and even in something as big as LotR, it's not entirely WotC's fault that people have that false assumption, as they should know better. I can't imagine there's that many people that play something like D&D and don't know about LotR.

[@FrozenLavaDragonProd]

Yeah, I guess I felt it a bit redundant since OP's comment is basically already saying: a lot of people think Ranger is about ranged weapons when that is not true. The way I read your original comment it seemed as though you were trying to correct them.@@CptObvious

[@overwatchgeek5735]

"Okay, so ranger is underpowered I'm 5e, how can we work with that" **co worker raises hand** "make them even worse"

[@DoomsdayR3sistance]

Gotta love Wizard's maths, level 14 feature now uses your Wisdom Modifier instead of PB... as a Ranger you're still going to main DEX, so your WIS at level 14 is likely to only be a modifier of +2... at level 14 your PB would be 5. If you put everything into Wisdom, your Wisdom modifier would be 5. You'll get a PB of 6 at level 17. So in all ways, these features are now weaker. Tireless also similarly suffers, at level 10, your PB would be 4, your Wisdom modifier would likely be +2 again. Now you can get to a +5 WIS modifier if you take an ASI instead of the new feats, which are vastly better choices than ASI. If you optimize WIS with feats, you'd be at a +4 and won't see the +5 until level 12, which one level later, PB hits 5. These are straight up nerfs to their Tasha's incarnations.

[@PhalisoBringerOfDoom]

You just don't get WotC's logic, this is to stop those dastardly fiends who plan on taking a 14 level dip into ranger for this ability from benefiting from their high proficiency bonus despite only meeting the minimum requirements of 13 dex and wis for the multiclass Now all problematic multiclassing has been fixed forever, enjoy your flavorless level 1 dip into warlock for the exact same thing you got from hexblade but without any possibility of a subclass making your character more thematic or interesting

[@jdizzy192]

It legit sounds like "We didnt know how to fix the class so we removed what people complained about and gave more spells to compensate. If you have an issue with something being missing, then take a spell" Explains the odd WIS dependency WotC keeps throwing into the class as theyre trying to make it more spell focused.

[@bradleymartinez185]

Didn't even click that that would be an even bigger issue. Best case scenario you roll stats and get 18 in dex and wis and you can use it equally till it is just worse later on. You have saddened me

[@GoldfishEmpire]

The worst part of this is that they didn't have to remove the old Ranger features. They could've easily tweaked them and allowed Rangers to have both the original and Tasha's features coexist.

[@M9Seradon]

This is what hurts me the most. Were a lot of the scrapped features kinda meh? Yeah, but they were flavorful, and honestly not that hard to make worthwhile.

[@sillyking1991]

i mean, they could have literally just left them in place alongside all the "new" stuff, untouched. they'd still be just as weak, but at least they'd still carry the flavor of the class. obviously fixing them would be better, but if thats just too hard, its not like most of those features were so powerful that they couldn't coexist here.

[@PotatoPatatoVonSpudsworth]

Having so many niche abilities would overwhelm newer players, causing them to constantly forget what they can do, but removing them without adding anything new certainly doesn't seem like the answer...

[@averywhitaker3513]

​@@PotatoPatatoVonSpudsworth"Because the Ranger class in the _2014 Player's Handbook_ wasnt quite as streamlined or easy to understand as we want, all Ranger features have been removed. Instead, Rangers can now cast Hunter's Mark as an action"

[@Meacci133]

"you can cast more spells! Oh you want to concentrate? No no no, you need to use hunters mark" -Wizards

[@TandemTuba]

WoTC: *Slowly adds optional features that, when cobbled together, create a pretty ok Ranger* "But fuck all that noise, here's a much worse version!"

[@snazzyfeathers]

Yup. I played a Ranger to level 20 and used a mix match of Tasha's and the original ranger. By far my character knew the most languages which was fun, and the favored enemies I picked were relevant enough to the campaign that I used it often. Then being able to turn invisible as a bonus action was sick, gaining temporary HP was awesome, and removal of exhaustion during a rest was good. It didn't happen that often but it was nice to have

[@joshbecker4214]

Thank you for capturing the absurdity of this. The whole interview went on about how ranger was a "whole new class" and I listened to the whole thing and didn't hear a single new feature and was so confused.

[@aprinnyonbreak1290]

All I know is I heard a snippet about how many bad cantrips like true strike and blade ward were made better, and the "for example" was just explaining a nerf to Guidance.

[@metagames.errata7777]

😂😅 Martial/Caster Divide: is a thing. Ranger: Half-caster with basic abilities humans mastered 100,000 years ago, like tracking animals and foraging. D&D Team: What if ... What if we just use spells for that?

[@HaloInverse]

Kind of my thought on that too. Not long ago, I saw a documentary (can't remember which) where a historian said something to the effect of "conspiracy theories about ancient aliens and lost advanced technologies are an insult to the _actual_ ingenuity, craftsmanship, and perseverance of people in ancient civilizations". I could understand treating Ranger abilities like spells _mechanically_ for the sake of streamlining and balancing the rules, but saying those abilities _are_ spells seems like it cheapens both Rangers _and_ magic itself.

[@LieutyXII]

This doesn’t even feel like a ranger, just someone who knows spells. No survival flavor to it at all

[@commanderwyro4204]

couldnt you just make a wizard archer at this point. or warlock archer. thats what i was thinking as i listened to this. just be a spell caster who uses a bow and you are essentially the 2024 ranger lol

[@the_Royal_Crow]

@@commanderwyro4204 So just worst Arcane trickster, got it

[@jacksonhoiland2664]

​@@commanderwyro4204or use the arcane archer subclass for fighter, fighter literally has magic arrows as subclass.

[@Zyrdalf]

@@commanderwyro4204I’ve never used a bow as a ranger and don’t understand why everyone thinks that is what makes them a ranger. Is it because the bow is in the main art?

[@aprinnyonbreak1290]

​@@Zyrdalf I know at least a contributing factor is older editions of Ranger gave you the choice of speccing into Two Weapon Fighting or Archery, and Two Weapon Fighting was absolutely horrid, finally achieving functional parity to an Archer Ranger whipping out a Greatsword his stats aren't even optinized for after like 15 levels of such investment. But, it is still odd, especially considering that if all you want is a good archer, a Fighter absolutely clowns on the Ranger with basically any ranged option. Focusing on the spells IS important to making the idea of the Ranger work, but the problem is they... didn't do that well. I'm still not even convinced this abomination is a better caster than an Eldritch Knight.

[@kainhighwind2]

You don't get it, at lvl 20, that 1d10 is going to be SO HELPFUL when the group is fighting an ancient divine black dragon in its lair. That's a whole D10!!!

[@nananamamana3591]

And it's a WHOLE D10 of FORCE damage! FOOOOORCE Damage! That's the BEEEEEST damage! The bbbbbbbbbeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesssssssssssssssssssssstttttt!

[@SpookyScarySkeletor]

thats the type of shit i have unironically heard on pathfinder forums lmao

[@connkahn]

the wizard over there is casting wish or mass polymorph like a noob; look at me I can do an extra 1d10 on my attacks against one target with advantage while using my concentration, and I didn't even have to use a spell slot.

[@katlicks]

Ranger: At level 20 I get to roll an extra 1d10! Rogue: At level 19 I get to roll an extra 10d6!

[@EnlonWhite]

Plus 2 average damage.....WEEEEEEEE!!!!!!! we might roll 4 more instead. >.> oh the power. ( I just died inside making this joke)

[@joshpatton757]

I've always low-key hated the reliance spellcasting for ranger, thematically. - Replace favored enemy with something that's less pigeonholed into a single type and more about general knowledge, give them abilities around knowing creature types and being able to quickly assess vulnerabilities and capabilities of opponents. Tack on hunting-for-food survival and tracking abilities here. - Make them a non-magical off-healer. Give them abilities centered around herbalism and basic remedies to be able to non-magically stabilize the dying, treat allies wounds during rests, and stave off non-magical poisons and diseases. - Give them natural mobility bonuses second only to the Monk in terms of speed and versatility, and stealth abilities second only to the rogue. - Flesh out the fighting styles to be more of the major class archetype decision (with full progressions), let rangers pick two fighting styles, and then make one of the Fighting Styles grant the ranger spell-casting ability. A ranger is not, in my view, thematically a Fighter/Druid. A ranger is someone who survives and thrives in the wilderness through awareness, understanding the land and creatures around them, who relies on skill and experience, and who lives by their trusty bow. Their thematic relationship to the land has some similarities to those of a Druid, but are fundamentally opposed at their core - the druid seeks to become in tune with nature, supporting it and helping the land flourish. A Ranger's relationship with the land is more adversarial, an a respected opponent to overcome. I'd like to see WoTC focus more on the identify of these classes, rather than... whatever this is. Building around mechanics tricks.

[@pepperjack8813]

This is such a great idea. A martial off-healer is a nice idea and great for flavor

[@viktorrezdad]

finally making it possible to play a good ranger to make people like the class and then immediately planning to release a bad ranger again, truly a masterful gambit

[@akedus44]

Arguably made it worse since they cut off Ranger from sharpshooter + crossbow expert which did most of their work for their viability.

[@malmasterson3890]

​@@akedus44Ummm, no. PWT & other spells like Spike Growth, SWS & Conjure Animals are what carried their viability. Along with the Gloom Stalker. The Ranger will still be good, just that all the martials have now caught up to it.

[@RocKaFella57]

​@@malmasterson3890 Nah, it's Hunter's Mark time bb

[@malmasterson3890]

@@RocKaFella57 I hope there's a secret change to HM they didn't tell us, cause it sounds like only the Hunter will really have any reason to use it at higher levels, seeing as Beast Master, even if they get the boost, will just clog the BA economy.

[@RocKaFella57]

@@malmasterson3890 I feel like it should have just been a low level class ability that you can use proficiency times per day. Then at like level 5 or something it loses concentration.

[@burlychip44]

The weird thing about this is that it feels like WOTC just went, "Let's take the 5e PH and Tasha's, throw them in a cauldron with a half gallon of water to remove some of the flavor and mix so that we can sell the players Tasha's 2.0 to reintroduce features we stripped from the new book."

[@akedus44]

While also gimping the ranger's damage because we took away sharpshooter and gave him more hunter's mark and weapon masteries which barely compensate.

[@MrKiwitox]

I think its even more weird how other classes like rogue and figther did get so much added while retaining their flavor. The ranger got fucked in particular for no reason.

[@mohammadmurie]

@@MrKiwitox facts like fighter gets to be more tactical, rogue gets to fight dirty, and barbarian is more primal and savage, while ranger got none of that

[@GKplus8]

​@@mohammadmurieconsidering the smite shenanigans, it feels like they have a vendetta against the half casters.

[@mohammadmurie]

@@GKplus8 Yeah I understand wanting to but some constraints on smite but damn they over did it and ranger literally had no reason for it to become like this as it finally became a function interesting and fun class after Tasha's (was even among my favorites after those changes) and then they decide to strip it of everything interesting about it and call the Tasha's stuff new just because they nerfed those features too

[@zenthr]

The big problem with Ranger isn't anything you can fix with Ranger. They are a class trying to specialize in a part of the game mechanics that is somewhere between "not well supported by the mechanics" and "doesn't exist in the mechanics".

[@Cro1232cro]

literally just remove picking a specific favored terrain

[@anyoneatall3488]

Just add exploration, how is the expert in navigating the natural world not a must have in an adventure game?

[@Pomlithe]

@@anyoneatall3488because "exploring the natural world" is becoming less and less of a focus, it's mostly exploring mapped dungeons and towns and other stuff now it might not be the same for everyone but most games i've been in for the last few years have expedited the travel process not because there's not rules for it, but we just thought it was pretty boring and wanna get to the cool locations where stuff is. none of the games i've played in do random encounters (we always try for a few sessions then go "nah this sucks") and the idea of random encounters that are like, "you have to navigate this terrain" is something we've tried and it's gone poorly lol call it what you want but i think ranger's really just a relic of a different time tbh

[@dingding12321]

Isn't that just....any given class? Just half-baked?

[@rogerwilco2]

This was true in earlier editions, but the AD&D 1e/2e Ranger was awesome regardless.

[@derpydog0078]

My idea on how to fix how “Oops All Hunter’s Mark” Ranger can be vastly improved: make Hunter’s Mark good. Seriously. Removing concentration, buffing damage, and instead casting it on yourself and choosing a creature type to deal extra damage to during the duration of that spell would be phenomenal. Hell, remove it as a spell and just make it a feature so they don’t have to worry about Dispel Magic or Counterspell shenanigans.

[@adamloga3788]

I'd add a damage progression too. Just rip off the Bard's Inspiration die progression and you've got a spell that grows with you.

[@CitanulsPumpkin]

Hunter's Mark is a trap. Just remove it from the game entierly. My ranger fix starts with using the exploration rules in the Weird Wastelands book put out by WebDM and then gives ranger a choice of one of six broad categories to pick at levels 1, 6, 14, 20 and a pick based on the theme of their subclass. At those levels they pick one of the 5 mana colors from Magic the Gathering or colorless. They get a few bonus languages, and whenever they are dealing with any creature type, terrain type, background, class, or faction tied to their favored mana colors their weapons deal an extra die of damage, they get advantage on dex, int, and wis checks, and while in terrain tied to their mana colors they double their movement on hex maps, or just roll for combat encounters half as often, and roll for teasure, discovery, or social encounters twice as often when not using a hex map.

[@tedsmith9726]

I'd love it to be something like "the spell deals damage as if you had cast it with your highest level spell slot" because at present I'm *still* not gonna be casting it lol

[@aprinnyonbreak1290]

​@@CitanulsPumpkin Agree Either just remove it, or make it an entirely non-spell, non concentration, X times per rest ability. The Ranger actually does have good spells, and Hunter's Mark just makes the Ranger worse if they cast it

[@Justjoey17]

I thought level 20 abilities were supposed to be crazy, like “hunters mark is considered active on everything all the time”

[@Benzux]

Yeah it feels really bizarre looking at these, both now and during the playtest. Some classes really do feel powerful with their capstones, and then others are just... incredible terrible. WOTC just does not want to give Warlock or Ranger good capstones, apparently

[@SeiaiAnkoku]

Nothing says a Ranger has reached peak performance like an average +2 damage per attack! I'm 100% with you on capstone features being something more impressive than a little number increase. I've homebrewed Foe Slayer to give Advantage on all attack rolls, saving throws, and skill checks towards or caused by Favored Enemies.

[@janneswilmink487]

Meanwhile Pathfinder 2e's new book gave the monk a level 20 ability that basically let's them do three attacks, each of which launches an enemy higher into the air.

[@mikeesteves8427]

@@janneswilmink487 please tell me they have a big slam attack where it deals more damage the higher the enemy is in the air

[@mohammadmurie]

Meanwhile barbs and monks both get a +4 to their 2 main stats as their capstone features which does the same thing as give them +2 damage to all their attacks while also giving a +2 to hit and a +2 to DC

[@RedPandaSquadron]

The archetypal ranger: Aragorn. WoTC: Wanna be a martial druid?

[@Solus749]

yea that is the feeling I got too. I actually like the favored enemy setup and all that, gave flair to your character and made them really good at handling specific things. Same with hide in plain sight and that....I do like the free hunters mark casts as well as command pet as a bonus action though. The rest dear god they removed everything ranger and made a fighter light

[@RedPandaSquadron]

@@Solus749 yeah. I moved over to another system and I REALLY like the ranger mechanics there. No more D&D for me 😂 broken trust and all that

[@rogerwilco2]

Indeed. Back in the AD&D 1e/2e days Ranger was really good and required very high stats to be able to pick it. It was clearly modelled after Aragorn and the Rangers of the North. It might have been too good back then, but it has fallen a lot since.

[@magicbanna555]

As a Ranger lover, it feels like they gave us a burnt cookie, then aunt Tasha gave us a bigger and not burnt cookie (it was a little burned around the edges but not horribly.) 24 Ranger feels like they fished the first cookie out of the trash, put Hunters Mark frosting on, and then broke it up and tried feeding us very small and still very burnt cookie.

[@varunvijay9293]

What does hunters mark frosting taste like

[@FromMan2Monkey-nb5fq]

@@varunvijay9293it looks kinda tasty until you realize it’s the most basic sugar paste you can imagine with bits of hair stuck in it

[@varunvijay9293]

@@FromMan2Monkey-nb5fq perfect description. Thank u

[@katlicks]

@@varunvijay9293 Better than you expected but worse than you hoped.

[@velocitymg]

@@FromMan2Monkey-nb5fqI believe they took it out of the trash after the stray cat peed on it, rewrapped it and then sold it back to us for $75 bucks….is it a joke when nobody is laughing ??

[@MrSnekLuuk]

feels like they took candy from a baby but the baby is already an orphan with bad life prospects :)

[@frostbite3357]

They really went “hey this class has an identity that’s kinda poorly executed, so instead we’re making it so that they have no identity! This is what everyone wanted, right?”

[@icetide9411]

"So basically we took the Ranger from Tasha's Cauldron, and then removed most flavorful abilities without replacement!"

[@scrapbotcommander]

No no, you misunderstand, this is completely different than Tasha's Cauldron. That old dusty book used proficiency bonuses for its abilities, but _you_ my friend get to use your wisdom modifier instead! *But wait, there's more!* We also streamlined the language to make it easier to understand. Nature's Veil is a great example, where we only said *you* turn invisible without specifying if your equipment does as well, but then claimed we didn't change it from the Tasha's variant which implies it's _supposed_ to turn equipment invisible without being clear about it. It's so much easier to understand now that we hit ctrl+c and ctrl+v without thinking!

[@PsyrenXY]

​@@scrapbotcommanderIt also lasts twice as long as Tasha's, and keep in mind this is no-concentration Greater Invisibility we're talking about.

[@kelph1]

Moral of the 2024PHB story “Why make class or subclass features when you can just give them a spell that does it!”

[@niina83]

"Also remove those feats and passives instead of just giving them more spells ontop of it." "And/or push them into level 14+ territory.. because why the fuck not, it's not like Ranger needs to be anything like a tracker... right?" /WOTC

[@Sammie1053]

I haven't played as much DnD as I'd like, but hasn't one of the community's biggest gripes with 5e been that martials are severely underpowered when compared to casters? And now it seems like their response is to... Just make everyone a wizard

[@CharlesFreck]

@@Sammie1053 Martials were plenty strong when the core books came out. Fighter and Rogue were basically the highest damage output. Base game, martials are very strong. Paladin is essentially just a martial with a single magical ability, realistically they're a martial class, not a caster. Barbarian basically becomes literally invincible by like level 8. The problem is, martial classes are fucking boring, and so instead of giving them unique and interesting abilities, WOTC did exactly that. They made everyone a caster. Which means why play a straight forward punch things fighter, when you can have all the positives of a martial class, and still get a heap of spells as well? 5e sucks, go play Pathfinder or 3.5

[@ultrainstinctichigo5788]

"We decided to improve the spellcasting power of the ranger so at the level 20 they get access to 1 level 9 spell slot (which can only be used to cast hunters mark)!" - Ranger 2034

[@averywhitaker3513]

"Foe Slayer has now been removed"

[@MoonGoblin]

Name: Mark Background: Hunter Catchphrase: "Who's th' hunter round here? That's right, me. Hunter's Mark."

[@nm2358]

@@MoonGoblin I want to make a Ranger called Mark Hunter now

[@ShiningDarknes]

@@MoonGoblin What’s that? Mark the Hunter? No, they have a beast master, silly.

[@panda_commanda]

The saddest story ever in 3 words: "New Ranger Bad"

[@deadfire6438]

Jennifer dumped me

[@NisGaarde]

New Banger Rad

[@masoneraa]

Ranger bad. Why more word when less word work?

[@mrperfectjeff]

I mean if you played ranger in og 5e you're pretty much used to being sad so no real difference

[@ellasorellabrella]

For sale: new ranger, never good

[@smilerat8070]

"With the new spellcasting feature, you could already prepare more spells than before..." It doesn't matter if your concentration has to be focused on Hunter's Mark for every encounter and like two thirds of the spell list also requires concentration

[@thedogmaticdirector]

"This is basically the PHB, but we put Tasha's into it." THEN WHERE IS THE ARTIFICER??

[@ghmongo]

How else are they gonna milk more money out of you down the line?

[@CharlesFreck]

@@ghmongo Literally. This entire 'rework' is just a way to resell the core books again, because the splatbooks don't sell as well, since the majority of players don't get them. So they're saying "hey, we remade the game, so now you HAVE to buy the new books (if you want to play in any sanctioned events)" which means they can guarantee sales. Anyone buying these books is a rube and deserves to get scammed.

[@snazzyfeathers]

At this point I don't want them to add Artificer. They would ruin the class.

[@spongecakes1986]

​@@snazzyfeathers just you wait. They'll remove the cannons from artillerists and say "well you can still do it with this spell"

[@alankelly1001]

So basically, WotC went to this writer and said, "Here's a turd, throw some glitter at it. Don't worry, it's a completely different turd from the last time."

[@MasterKeyblader25]

"BUT WHY U COMPLAININ JUST FLAVOR IT BRO. YOU HAVE TO PUT THE WORK IN TO MAJE THE ABILITY GOOD STUPID HUEHUEHUEHUEHUE"

[@ShiningDarknes]

@@alankelly1001 yeah it is different, there is less shit in this turd yet somehow it is a bigger turd.

[@dragonheart1236]

It's more like the turd already had glitter on it, and they took the glitter off

[@WolforNuva]

@@dragonheart1236 "Everyone was complaining that the Ranger was a sparkling turd, and we took that criticism to heart. So now it doesn't sparkle." -WotC probably.

[@rogerwilco2]

Yeah, I feel sorry for the writer who had to try and polish this turd. They really tried, and if you remove all that text, you can see how minimal the 5.5 Ranger really is.

[@ReignOfError]

My favorite part is that now that we have the books, we can clearly see that Ranger gets the EXACT SAME number of spell casts per day that they used to (outside of level 1), so all the stuff about "you can cast more spells now" is only true if it's hunter's mark.

[@kmg9763]

Can we have the unfiltered 2 Hours rant?

[@GarroThposer]

Yeah it made me really curious

[@chrissugg968]

"Don't worry about the stuff we've taken out, check this out - now at level 20, your capstone ability after playing in your campaign for 5 years to get this far, you get to deal 2 extra damage six times a day, as long as you're not concentrating on anything else"

[@GundalfForHire]

It's kind of funny too, a lot of these changes seem to be emphasizing ranger as a spellcasting class... which, a lot of people don't even like the fact that ranger is a spellcaster, or at the very least, the fact that you HAVE to take spellcasting.

[@NewWarhammerNerd8881]

Ranger fans watching the ranger get ruined again

[@TJ-bg4fw]

Character development

[@MeatbagSlayer]

Ranger fans 🤝 Zato-One fans "Please buff our character, we beg you."

[@TheDragonshunter]

for another 10 years, yes...

[@verdurite]

It's still playable, far more than the 2014 version. But ultimately still not as good as it should have been

[@skinny_fingers4511]

I don't understand this statement. Rangers are not ruined. Rangers have never been more strong. The reliance on Hunter's Mark is disappointing, I agree with this, and the capstone is a joke, which I also agree, but that doesn't mean they are ruined. We haven't seen the Ranger's spell list and the changes on the Hunter's Mark spell, so we don't know yet how relevant the Hunter's Mark changes are.

[@Zedrinbot]

Ah yes, let us focus on the ranger's spell use and also double down on Hunter's Mark which will require their concentration and therefor restrict their spell use. Honestly it'd make way more sense to me if they just added combat benefits to the environmental and terrain stuff--like not just ignoring difficult terrain (which is fitting), but give them defenses against energy damage or the ability to turn environmental effects into traps. Maybe also make a way to grant their allies similar benefits--imagine if at the start of your turn, for no action cost you could designate an ally or yourself to ignore difficult terrain until the end of their turn. That'd be a cool and on-brand feature. Or heck, do the BG3 option for favored enemy and make it a bonus you get versus specific styles of foes, rather than creature types. There's so many better ways they could've done literally everything and they instead focused on an inefficient and annoying to maintain spell.

[@ryuwaizu9087]

That would be an insanely fun concept and character flavor. I wonder if I could design a class based around screwing with people in the environment. Things like advantage on attacks against opponents in difficult terrain and things like that. (I'd need to be way more creative). It'd probably be hard on the DM though, your battle maps would suddenly become super important

[@longtimenosee6169]

> Be WotC > Take the worst class > strip its core ability > '''""""""add"""""""" new abilities > overall nerf the class even further by making it even more half baked Here’s the ranger you’ve all been waiting for!

[@borofreak]

I just want to draw your attention to this: -You command your Beast Companion with a Bonus Action. -You cast/move Hunter's Mark with a Bonus Action. ...

[@llamatronian101]

You can also use your bonus action to turn invisible!

[@ShiningDarknes]

@@llamatronian101 it should really be a bonus action or reaction to move the mark. Action economy in 5e has always been meh but they just keep finding ways to make it worse by making everything a bonus action.

[@AnaseSkyrider]

@@ShiningDarknes Making more things into bonus actions when they were full actions you were guaranteed to never use adds to the tactics of the game. Like that's literally the point of the bonus action is to provide some extra stuff to do on your turn without cheesing with power-stacking.

[@ShiningDarknes]

@@AnaseSkyrider having your beast do something is a bonus action so it attacks the mark and the mark dies through your and your beast’s attacks. Next turn, still enemies up, your beast does nothing or you don’t get to use your mark either way you are missing out on a core feature of your class. There are still plenty of other bonus actions you have to choose from, core combat features should not be one of them. Granted, I don’t know what “command beast” entails. If you can command it to just go attack targets, no problem but if commanding it is what is needed for it to do anything other than make reaction attacks we got problems. You can’t remove a bunch of non-combat abilities then force arbitrary “tactical decisions” regarding action economy. If you gut a classes out of combat prowess it needs to excel at combat. This version of ranger is worse than original print 5e ranger at everything but casting.

[@KommandoCraftLP]

And it's not the only class. Fey wanderer gives you summon fey at level 9 as an always prepared spell and they both use concentration. Just like with 6 out of the nine (!) spells that only rangers get use concentration. I don't mind focusing on the tasha's version, it was pretty strong and fun, especially with some quality of life improvements that they made, but this Ranger does feel like conflict of interest the class.

[@hyperdreamer9483]

The “kitty” was actually a fairly accurate sabre toothed cat/Smillodon They actually were thought to have spots due to their ecosystem that they lived in

[@Drakoleech]

That's the one positive thing from the entire article.

[@hyperdreamer9483]

@@Drakoleech Heh and it’s a pretty much useless fun-fact about a extinct cat. That really says something

[@NolansGoons]

Ranger appreciators are starving... So, very hungry...

[@saldiven2009]

The sad part is that fixing Natural Explorer was super easy. Change it to a blanket smaller bonus that applies to all of the exploration phase and a larger bonus when the character is in their favored terrain.

[@Benzux]

This is almost exactly what I did for my homebrew version of the class. Natural Explorer gives you some of the bonuses in all terrain, and additional bonuses when you're in favoured terrain. Incredible simple and no reason to just outright remove it.

[@Aeivious]

​@Benzux you could also even give them a small benefit to being better at figuring new things about and could even get more favored terrains as the gsme progresses. A survivalist should in general know how to get what they need in a town or atleast where to start and be much better at adapting to their environment ls as they come

[@AnaseSkyrider]

Frankly, I wouldn't have even made it a specific terrain. Nix the double PB entirely, since they have Expertise as a class feature, remove the weird "hour or more" requirement, and just grant everything on that bullet-point list for all terrains.

[@TNickGuyPerson]

as a ranger main i am always excited then immediately saddened with any ranger news

[@RangerIV]

Same.

[@jack0lantern03]

Switch games. Or stay with 5e. Seriously, you'll experience way less pain.

[@bastiancole3565]

I think the most egregious thing i heard from the changes to ranger is they basically say "We remove this, because you can just use spells to KINDA do the same thing right?" Oh yeah, lemme just use up the several spells you gave me so that i can do the same thing Ranger could do before with either 1 spell slot or FOR FREE. The essentially made the tracking nature of the class even more expensive. Also i would change that Capstone feature to allow ranger to cast Hunters Mark on two targets rather than 1 and allow my allies to benefit from the 1d10 force damage as if they had cast the hunters mark. This would buff the feature considerably, going from an average of 2 dmg per attack to an average of 5 damage per attack across all allies. This would be like the Ranger spotted a weakness and relayed that to the party, like signaling the dinner bell on an enemy.

[@TheLyricalCleric]

New 2024 Druid subclass: Ranger

[@derekwatson8965]

They did the same with cleric, You know, the paladin subclass they added.

[@curnott6051]

"Just play a Fighter with a bow, it's better". -Jocat

[@flailingdragoon1072]

​@@derekwatson8965Paladin's great though.

[@derekwatson8965]

@@flailingdragoon1072 I mean sure, but clerics get infinite smites on cantrip. Plus losing paladin’s ability to Nike at the cost of spell slots was a bummer. I am by no means a meta gamer, it man I am gonna miss taking the BBEG to pound town for 20+ damage. Plus D&D as a whole has long forgotten its class structured roots and basically has catered to the sweaty DPS gamers since 5e rolled out. Don’t even get me started on multi-classing.

[@CivilWarMan]

@@derekwatson8965 Paladin is more of a Sorcerer subclass, since a Paladin who abandons the class at level 6 in favor of Sorcerer is objectively stronger at everything the Paladin does than a single-class Paladin. Their smites hit harder, since the damage cap was removed and smiting being a spell means you can buff it with Metamagic, and their mount is stronger, since Find Greater Steed was replaced with upcasting Find Steed with a level 4+ spell slot, which the Sorcerer-Paladin can do 4 levels earlier than the single-class Paladin.

[@jonathanfaulkner878]

Introducing Tasha‘s Drinking Game! Read through the new players handbook. And every time WOTC tries to sell something by comparing it to Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything, take a drink.

[@RangerIV]

I'm not tryin to die ok.

[@FeroDega]

That last bit from The Hunter subclass description was taken from the monster slayer rangers subclass.

[@KokoroFrog]

“It’s okay that we didn’t flavor your meal at all, you now have more spells and expertise, so you can fix that yourself right?” WoTC exclaims, narrowly dodging the low-flying “point” that zips over their head

[@FlameHidden]

Why did you only do HALF of a food analogy?

[@dummydodo737]

​@@FlameHidden Because the ranger class is half baked as well

[@walliam5506]

“Yeah, we didn’t season the chicken at all, but that’s because now you get to season it yourself, so it’s exactly how you want it! Anyways that’ll be 40$-“

[@KokoroFrog]

@@dummydodo737 you beat me to it haha

[@glitchedjson4042]

Nature's Veil using your wisdom instead of proficiency at level 14 is even more funny, because now it's capped at 5 (excluding tome of understanding), whereas if it were using your proficiency, as soon as you get that feature you _already_ have 5 uses, and it increases to 6 a couple levels later! It's a direct nerf lol

[@ShiningDarknes]

@@glitchedjson4042 yeah and before rangers didn’t necessarily need to get 20 wis because casting was sort of a secondary aspect of the class, now they NEED 20 dex and wis so that is less feats because they need more ASI otherwise they will be even farther behind. Maybe if they removed the cap of 20 this change would make sense but naw that stupid power-fantasy denial is still in place.

[@AnaseSkyrider]

It doesn't HAVE to be capped at 5, due to how Epic Boons work. However, it's pretty much guaranteed to be since you're going to be increasing your DEX long before then. This is a distinction that MAYBE only matters if long-term high level play sees like any support at all, and maybe depending on how certain subclasses work for creating WIS>DEX builds (like if the Beast Master still prefers to use your spell attack).

[@snazzyfeathers]

The difference though is that with the Tasha's ranger you would immediately become visible again on your first attack. This time around you're invisible until the start of your next turn. So one less use isn't that big of a deal, and it's a decent ability overall. So it actually isn't a direct nerf, they just did some balancing there. One less use isn't a big deal though especially when you're level 14. Idk how strong the subclasses and spells are yet but being invisible and being granted advantage on every attack I make is dope.

[@ShiningDarknes]

@@snazzyfeathers the invisibility still breaks when you attack unless I misread it.

[@AnaseSkyrider]

@@ShiningDarknes I believe even with some variation of whatever is in OneD&D, that's a feature of things which grant invisibility, not the condition.

[@ninten90z70]

As someone who has been spoiled on PF2e since the OGL incident, I truly feel bad for the DnD community. You all deserve so much better.

[@RyanStipe]

My homebrew for Rangers since 2015: Favored Enemies take extra damage equal to your wisdom modifier. (At level 20, any attack that hits your favored enemy becomes a crit) Rangers can change their favored enemy or their favored terrain (not both) during a long rest, gaining no benefits of that long rest. Boom. Now they are playing like a Witcher. Trying to find out what's in the area and how best to fight it. Staying up all night researching a new foe, or the next area to explore. It rewards planning and keeps the ranger relevant in all areas.

[@matthewbibby8921]

"And thus one random person in the youtube comment section did more for Ranger than WOTC has done since their release" ... Oh also make Hunter's Mark non-concentration so you can actually cast some of the other cool spells from time to time, thanks

[@UchihaKat]

The fact that they seem to have built around hunter's mark and didn't just make hunter's mark an ability instead of a spell already sets everything off on the wrong foot, oh boy...

[@Flaraen]

What's the difference?

[@benjaminholcomb9478]

Counter spell. The rangers main class feature can be counter spelled. (Which I guess isn't the most surprising given that divine smite is now spell, last I checked)

[@Flaraen]

@@benjaminholcomb9478 Why does that matter? The wizard's main class feature can also be counterspelled, why not the ranger. Also, how many enemies actually have counterspell

[@PapaBearIsHere]

@@Flaraen Wizard doesn't have a singular, main gimmick spell, Hunter's Mark and Smite are the biggest components to their class

[@Flaraen]

@@PapaBearIsHere Why does it matter for the argument whether it's a single spell or multiple. They can all be counterspelled

[@emerynoel567]

Hunter's Mark should not cost a spell slot, should not take concentration, but should take a bonus action to place or move. It is such minimal extra damage, even at a d6, and they're making it out to be a god-tier ability.

[@Abgilosby]

Wouldn't it be more cool if the ranger had less spells, but could have the same effects as spell casting through their knowledge of nature? They don't "Cast" Goodberry, they just know how to find super duper awesome berries or what ever that work exactly like Goodberry and stuff like that.

[@leodouskyron5671]

A small group of players like no spells but they are a small vocal group. Less spells really seems like the worst idea possible. Considering that focus on a 1st level spell is pretty universally hated and I think focus on no spell would cause gallows to be built. ((Rangers had spells in AD&D and people then complained not enough spells))

[@mathiasseverin5673]

Spell-less Ranger ❤

[@lamardavis688]

That’s exactly the ranger I’m playing right now. Sure the spells I cast are still in accordance with some of the spell rules, but I’m playing it as a hunter ranger that isn’t magical

[@SkyrimFan32145]

That ad transition had more thought than the ranger changes

[@xenit7837]

18:18 That's actually WORSE because when it's tied to wisdom it's hard capped at the start of your adventure. When it's based on your proficiency it scales with you so when you become a better ranger you get to be a better ranger! SHOCKING CONCEPT!

[@skiks3562]

I think Jacob is correct in WotC's thinking that, "because you can prepare these spells (which you get more of) and get better skill bonuses, you can still effectively navigate, forage and do ranger stuff". The problem with making a ranger work in 5E is that so much of the identity of the class is tied to stuff that isn't used at a lot of tables. Not using overland travel and exploration? Not bothering with food? Not having any quests that have to do with beasts, hunting or tracking? Congrats, the class now has a bunch of completely dead features. 5E's very light exploration rules means there aren't many solid mechanics to even build ranger features from. While every table is different, and you can't build a game that will work perfectly at all of them, the other two pillars don't have this problem: combat is so deeply ingrained in the game that its safe to design around it, and while social rules are also very light, none of the subclasses are hard coded to be built around it (other than, like, 2 bard subclasses). By swapping those class features with skill bonuses and spell options, it means a ranger won't have any dead features. I'm pretty sure if you were in an overland exploring, hunting and tracking campaign where you need to eat food, the new ranger would probably outpace the old one. Any other campaign, the ranger can build around that too. As for Hunter's Mark, so much will depend on if they adjust the other ranger spells to not need concentration. If you can run Zephyr's Strike and HM at once, for example, I think it will be fine and open up rangers to play with cool combat options. However, this only covers "why" the ranger was built this way. It was a smart approach for balance and integration with the overall system, but it is awful as a class design. While flavour is free and everything ends up just being a mechanic, the fact of the matter is that tying everything to a spell made the Ranger look terribly uninteresting and lacking a clear identity. 5E's classes are designed to make several different fantasy archetypes available at the player's fingertips, so when one of your classes does not make its identity clear from its base mechanics, it is going to feel hollow no matter how mechanically strong it is.

[@snazzyfeathers]

At this point I wish the spell would just go away lol. Its gotten so much hate in 5e as a "trap option" kind of like Hex, and now they're desperately trying to make it sound more appealing to use by building the new ranger around it. I just doubt that the spell is going to hold up at all whenever we see it even with the buffs. If it's still concentration there's no point in using it. The biggest problem by far for me is basically everything revolving around the spell and more or less forcing the players to use it if they want to play ranger. The whole thing feels like an elaborate prank or gotcha moment from the dev team after so many people hated on the spell for years 😂

[@scrapbotcommander]

Yeah, for sure. Without any unique abilities beyond hunter's mark, the class's identity becomes "single target half caster who doubles as a skill monkey." Except it even fails to live up to the title of an effective single target combatant. I do hope they either the concentration on hunter's mark, or allow _all_ of the ranger's attacks to have the mark damage applied, but they didn't say they were going to make either of those changes in the document, so I'd be very skeptical about assuming they want to buff hunter's mark at all. _Especially_ with the way they acted like changing hunter's mark to a d10 is a crazy powerful ability so broken that it's worth saving it for the class's capstone. And as-is, even the mechanical balance seems like it sucks pretty badly. You don't get any improvements to the damage output past level 5 through extra attack until that level 20 capstone. Y'know, at the same level wizards get *The Wish Spell.* 5e cantrips alone had better scaling than the swap from 1d6 to 1d10... and while it's great to have versatility via the spells, if none of the combat spells you could take trigger hunter's mark, it forces you to choose between playing as a worse caster or a worse fighter. The extra movement and teleport effects are nice, and you can use your spells to track enemies down, but what good is being able to track down a foe and catch up to them if you can't even deal hardly any damage to them? I think it just goes to show that the old ranger abilities being niche were not the root of the problem. Rather, it was the class being primarily designed around out-of-combat utility without enough emphasis on how that utility can actively support you and your team in combat. Shifting the class's identity to be just hunter's mark only exacerbates that problem, since hunter's mark doesn't benefit the rest of the team at all, forcing the rest of the balance to be designed around the ranger buffing himself. The designers actually pigeonholed _themselves_ into having to either buff ranger's damage significantly or rework the way hunter's mark operates to remove its anti-synergy with casting, and even then at best the ranger will become just another dps class that can keep up with the rest, just with more skills and a semi-versatile playstyle through the half caster system.

[@Shalakor]

@@snazzyfeathers Yeah, at this point almost do wish Hunter's Mark went the way of Flex over this cursed timeline. Although, it probably will hold up and be legitimately fun and useful ONLY when playing the Hunter subclass. Yay, that means everything is a trap option on Ranger now, even your subclass choices.

[@zuterwer1835]

Hunters mark being a d8 feels like a level 9 ability. Make it a d10 at level 14 and a d12 at level 18 or somthing (with an actual level 18 feature too) And even then, the spell is a Trap. It's not good to use beyond level 7 at the latest. *sigh* and yeah... I 100% predict that even IF this was compatible with old ranger, almost all tables are gonna decide on either old or only new. How many dms and players do you think are weilling to put up with tracking two different books and class abilities and spells and features? I bet not a lot. Make an actual 6E wizards. And maybe listen to the Polls you put out. I called a year ago, that they won't do what the feedback tells them to.

[@HazZzur]

I think the problem lies more with the core of DnD, the rules and how most tables play. The mechanics revolve almost exclusively around combat and everything else is just roleplay with very light mechanics. The fantasy archetype of Ranger is only partly defined by how they fight, a lot of it is flavor interactions with the environment which the DnD rules cannot provide in an interesting way.

[@reyntime8735]

The best thing I did as a DM was always play to the PHB Ranger’s strengths if there was discussion about someone playing Ranger. I watched videos online on how to run exploration, and not only does it make the party feel more like adventurers and travelers than mercenaries, *and* it made the Ranger a valid member of the party

[@Lumpyrox1412]

It is one of the biggest issues with rangers is they shine brightest between points of interest. Which adds further work to the DM's session prep and also runs the risk of disengaging a lot of the other players who just wanna hit stuff. But you are right regardless, it's absolutely critical to run exploration.

[@averywhitaker3513]

Do you remember the names/channels or have any recommendations from the exploration videos?

[@bear-tan6011]

20:43 "You know what I'm gonna tweak dude" 😭😭😭

[@tanna_k]

I love how they go out of their way to point out all the features that were deleted, and how you can have a- gasp, skill proficiency instead. Also, a +2 average damage increase for hunter's mark as a level 20 feature? wtf

[@bionicdragon5]

Jacob at the start of the video: "Let's try not to be negative. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt." Jacob by the end: [deranged, furious ranting] Reminds me of when I first read through the class back in 2014. Some things never change.

[@TheJboy29]

Can't wait for 7th Edition with classes such as Wizard, Sword Wizard, Shirtless Axe Wizard, Charisma Wizard, Horse Wizard, and more!

[@bookbagfox]

I swear Pathfinder ranger has more features at level 1 than this ranger gets by level 20. But hey, spells.

[@CharlesFreck]

That's because Pathfinder is... you know, actually good. It's a real game. Not something that's essentially "roleplaying games, but without any of the fun parts, so children and half-wits can play"

[@gonzy_estavez]

Rangers ... rangers never change.

[@malmasterson3890]

Except the multiple times when they did. This applied much more to Monk until now. Still a tragedy though with the Hunter's Mark features.

[@curiouswind9196]

"We cant expect WotC to do all the work" "If rangers dont change, homebrew must change"

[@SpadeOfAces55]

If rangers do not change, then homebrew must change.

[@Femaiden]

Changers. . .changers never range. . . . . now i want to homebrew a new class called "changer", still have no idea what it's features would be, other than an inability to use ranged attacks, lol

[@Brass319]

They do change! They change their proficiency bonus skills to use wisdom modifier, making it so they can use them less often in 80% of scenarios!

[@LAKINGSquick35]

I feel like if they were gonna make Hunters Mark the core feature they should make it not a spell and instead function independently from concentration like how Hexblade's Curse does. That way you get more versatility when you combine it with other concentration spells as opposed to having your core feature just be a level 1 spell.

[@jacobsiron6929]

New Ranger is pretty much "Hey, Ranger isn't bad for the same reasons anymore!" "Oh that's great to- wait what do you mean the same reasons"

[@unknowncomic4107]

There is ZERO reason to play the actual Ranger class. You can literally build a better ranger with Fighters, Rogues, and Druids just by using feats.

[@katechenault4808]

the ranger navigation aspects is one of the things that made the class fun to play from a roleplay standpoint. (you know, the roleplay part of tabletop roleplaying games. the roleplay where you play the role of your character with the other members of your roleplaying group. that roleplay.) taking it away just enhances the "ranged fighter, but Worse" side of the class

[@LastFantasiaWeapons]

I want to scream at WotC "I don't want to be a wizard, I want to be a superhuman warrior!" WotC saying you can get Goodberry, Alarm, and Speak with Animals means that you're a wizard with a bow.

[@walliam5506]

@@LastFantasiaWeapons EXACTLY! Spell casting is cool, but it’s always been a means to an end with Ranger. The fact you have to lean so hard onto spellcasting to be good has always been my biggest issue with the class, not the playstyle I wanted more of 😭

[@alphastronghold715]

This could have been a new rogue subclass and you’d never know the difference.

[@walliam5506]

@@alphastronghold715 Unironically I’m beginning to agree with the “Scout is a better Ranger than Ranger” crowd, and I’ve always disliked that idea lmao

[@urixl]

WOTC just slaps spellcasting to any class in attempt to make it more diverse. Turning it to the Mage User with the flavor.

[@baydiac]

​@@alphastronghold715As someone who always plays Ranger like a rogue (hello gloomstalker) this is unironically something I wish they would just commit to instead of dancing around it. Rogues are cloak and dagger because cloak and dagger are an aesthetic. If you're a Thief, that's fine. But any other rogue subclass is better served with a sniping mechanic (give them gloomstalker ranger and call it the ranger rogue subclass) and a POISONING mechanic. Please I am begging, a rogue subclass (or honestly just give a feature like this to all rogues idc, I think it's kind of small to base an entire subclass around but maybe hand it to Inquisitive?) with charisma as its secondary recommend stat based entirely around spiking people's consumables, weapons causing the poisoned status effect instead of just dealing one instance of additional dice damage and calling it a day... Each passing day, rogues seem less like rogues and more like skillmonkeys.