Playtest 6 Ranger One D&D

[@LuizCesarFariaLC]

The redesign you propose for Hex and Hunter's Mark is perfect: drop concentration at higher levels. I think this should be tied as a class feature at level 11 to prevent multiclass abuse of both Hex and Hunter's Mark being concentration free.

[@gystes_]

Honestly even at 9th the feature would be fine. Spending 2 3rd level spellslots at 18th level to do an extra 4d6 damage per is FAR from broken.

[@ilovethelegend]

Hex and Mark don't both need to be concentration free to stack them.

[@loganreidy7055]

Honestly 11 is too high. That's like 1 year of play until you get to use a cool feature. I think 5/6 is low enough that it's impactful but too high to dip for

[@elementzero3379]

I really wish they'd redesign Hunter's Mark and Hex as class features. (This is how 4e implemented them.) Most importantly, do not require Concentration.

[@RenoKyrie]

Yeah, as a feature it would free up a Spell to learn which is good both for combat and roleplay Making it not spend Concentration also lets you concentrate on a much better spells like Fog Cloud, Spike Growth, Conjure Animals/Woodland Beings I want all the Ranger exclusive spells to be reworked in general on top of giving more that are actually usefull because its WEAK compared to the Druid shared list

[@AtelierGod]

That’s why they refuse to do it, they don’t want 4e haters to come for OneD&D.

[@elementzero3379]

@@AtelierGod They said that playtest feedback told them that concentration-free Hunter's Mark is "too powerful". It makes me wonder which game these people are playing. I'm trying to imagine that my table does zero optimization and only ever reaches level 8 or so. Maybe Hunter's Mark seems impressive at a table with zero optimization? It's effortless, after all, since it's handed to you. So, maybe at tables like that it seems pretty good?

[@TheOriginalDogLP]

@@RenoKyrie If these spells are really much better, why are you not concentrate on them instead of hunters mark?

[@AtelierGod]

@@TheOriginalDogLP because half the features of the Ranger requires hunters mark to be in effect to be triggered.

[@predwin1998]

RE Feedback on the playtest 2 Ranger: In "Druid & Paladin Survey Launch | Expert Class Survey Results | Unearthed Arcana | D&D" around 22:40 Jeremy Crawford says that the Ranger was "Really beloved" scoring in the 80s for satisfaction scores, even stating "the Ranger gets the reward for most improved class". So feedback was very positive indeed.

[@eewweeppkk]

Hard to not be most improved when the class was the worst at launch to the point where they were the first one to get any sort of official rework, and the other dumpster class (monk) got their most useful feature knee-capped with no benefits to make up for it.

[@lagg1e]

@@eewweeppkk Ranger was never the weakest class, only the most disappointing. In the past ranger and paladin were similarly popular. At launch ranger was like a worse (bow) eldritch knight, but an eldritch knight is still a solidly middle of the pack class. It's just that paladin is like a cleric with fighter on top and then some extra, and ranger was like a fighter, well, a slightly worse fighter.

[@Dudimus777]

I would like to kindly point out that the Conjure Barrage and Conjure Volley spells in Playtest 6 say in their description "...each creature of your choice..." These are powerful AOE spells that you can cast with reckless abandon as you won't worry about hitting your allies in combat.

[@PsyrenXY]

I'll also add that thrown weapons and ammunition both have costs. So replacing those components with a focus won't be possible.

[@AtelierGod]

@@PsyrenXYYou don’t really need a thrown weapon to throw it for the spell, you just need to throw it.

[@blackfang0815]

Are they powerful? You're getting these spells at the levels where full casters are getting Cone of Cold, and Shapechange/True Polymorph/Meteor Swarm, respectively. WotC doesn't seem to understand that half casters are getting all their spells later than the full casters do, so their spells shouldn't be comparable.

[@gethriel]

Well, if by "reckless abandon" you mean once or twice at VERY high level (compared to a full caster). 🙄

[@blackfang0815]

@@mogalixir Yep. The problem right now is that other than copying some stuff from Paladin, WotC doesn't have a clue what half-casters are supposed to be. They seem to have settled for "What if we multiclassed 10 levels of Fighter with 10 levels of Cleric/Druid?"

[@godminnette2]

I think someone at WotC is really married to the whole Rangers and terrain thing. Terrain is an aspect of 5e that was heavily under-baked, so the parts where it is included in class features is clunky and awkward. But I can see why some people just love the fantasy of a Ranger being specialized in the terrains they roved and stewarded before the adventure began. But now that they can switch through meditation... the whole concept of terrain is kind of bunk, because a Ranger will of course always meditate for whatever new climate a party goes into, with extremely niche circumstances where that isn't the case. Just give them the benefits all the time, I think it's a great ribbon feature for Rangers to have advantage on such checks, just drop the whole terrain business.

[@HunterTracks]

I honestly dislike even the idea of marrying a given class to two specific ability checks to begin with. That's not a restriction that's placed on any other class -- bards aren't required by their class features to be good at Performance, Rogues don't need to be good at Sleight of Hand, etc. It'd be fine if it was an option you could pick instead of normal Expertise, or if you had the benefit along with Expertise. As is, it's just straight-up worse than other Expert classes, which is not a great start.

[@LithmusEarth]

Correct. In my campaign for YEARS we've basically swapped out the feature immediately. Usually with the revised ranger ability from the UA as soon as that came out.

[@RogerS1978]

I'd give them this, the expertise in a choice skill and expertise in survival (the guy's travelled the world and survived so had to be good at it)

[@JJV7243]

It would be fine if reworded "you gain adv. on int nature and wis survival WHILE IN THE WILDERNESS"... no more is needed.

[@Ahglock]

On the D&D forums a lot of people were asking for it. They didn't feel that expertise was evocative enough of a rangers abilities. That nothing they gained really felt like the ranger. They wanted some abilities back that were more flavorful. Thing is imo those abilities are more ribbon features so I think they could have brought them back without costing a expertise. And there is no need to limit it to two terrains per day. You are never going to go through more than 2 a day so it should just be all terrains from the get go.

[@donaldcrankshaw1627]

They did say in their design notes that playtesters wanted Natural Explorer back. I personally think they should make Hunter's Mark a cantrip. That way it would scale with level, they could make the concentration go away at level 11 when the duration increases to 8 hours, etc.

[@thiagoknofel8982]

It would be great. Maybe it could scale the amount of times applied instead of bonus damagen on the first attack that hits (the limit would be 4 at level 17), which would give a constant bonus, but preventing abuse with action surge, haste or swift quiver.

[@jasminebryant4238]

For Conjure Barrage, you didn't really mention the change in regards to who takes the damage. In 2014 it was all creatures in the area, this one you get to choose the targets. A little less damage...28 vs 22.5, but you have a more reliable damage, a larger area (yes cones are problematic) and no friendly fire :)

[@chris-the-human]

The changes to Conjure Barrage are very good more damage, enough to make it worth a 3rd level spell slot better damage type and it's essentially constantly under the effect of Sculpt Spell Conjure Volley too to a lesser extent

[@andreasaslaksen4430]

Think the changes is good if consider the removal of friendly fire, that said the 9th level feature should Definitely be a once per long rest free-casting at highest possible ranger spell slot level.

[@M9Seradon]

​@@andreasaslaksen4430either this or a removal on concentration would be solid options. The new Conjure Barrage/Volley are nice spells but they just aren't worth a class feature so giving buffs to Hunter's Mark alongside them would make hitting those levels more exciting.

[@optimus2200]

Actuially i am the one who wanted the turrain feature with changing it on a short rest. So changing it in a long rest is a change . I Like because its way more flavorful than experties . Still hunter mark and the spells as features are not good. We didnt like the 2014 turrain because it was a trap . If you pick a turrain and the whole campagin never go near that tirrain it becomes useless . There was a change that let the ranger get a resetance based on the turrain and that would be very great

[@chris-the-human]

@@optimus2200 the 2014 favored terrain was extremely strong if you knew where you were going to be playing the whole campaign. I am currently playing in an Icewind Dale game, and the ranger has arctic as their favored terrain, and it nearly completely eliminates the challenges of survival

[@ElJefeRules]

Disappointing that they had the perfect opportunity to give Hunter and Beast Master spell lists but didn’t. Gloomstalker is RIGHT THERE!

[@leokoten]

One thing to note about the Hunter's Retaliator feature is that now Hunter's Mark reads "you can deal an extra 1d6 Force damage to the target the first time you hit it with and attack roll on ANY turn". So if this reaction attack hits you also add you Hunter's Mark again, which is pretty nice

[@danielbeshers1689]

I think my biggest frustration with this implementation of the ranger is that so, so much of its functionality is tied up in having Hunter's Mark on a target, to the point where the tension between choices does not feel good. If I have a 3rd level Mark going and the party needs to stealth, giving up that resource use to Pass Without Trace is going to feel, at least for me, genuinely awful. --edit-- In thinking about it more, I want to liken it too if a fighter's level 11 Extra Attack upgrade said that when you take the attack action, if you have a use of action surge unspent, you get three attacks. That the primary method of scaling your damage is in conflict with the ability to use your most interesting features. You know. Like a monk.

[@Jaws1375]

Seriously, if they're going to tie in a bunch of class features to a very specific spell, then just outright make it a class feature instead of a spell

[@Elkay_J]

That is such a good way of putting it!

[@briang3598]

It does become a bit like the -5 attack, +10 damage feats where you need to take them for a character to operate optimally. "Here's a whole bunch of interesting things you can do, just know it's going to be a setback if you do any of them except this specific one."

[@matthewharding584]

My biggest problem with the hex and hunters mark change is that it requires you to continuously upcast it to get a similar effect as 2014. Level one hunters mark scales with your attacks. The new one just does damage once per turn but does more damage if you use your bigger slots, which limits your half caster slots and use for your lower level slots

[@wassentme1891]

For example, Bless remains good for Paladins at all levels.

[@rm2569]

Baldurs Gate 3 actually has some pretty interesting monk changes, and i think it might be interesting to see your take on how some of them would translate to tabletop. Every monk gets more ki, and In particular 4 elements gets basically arcane recovery but for ki points at level 3 and open hand monk gets wholeness of body but good, where it's once per long rest, heals you, restores half your ki, makes you restore 1 ki every turn for a couple of turns, and gives you a extra bonus action for those turns.

[@AnaseSkyrider]

I haven't gotten a chance to test it as well, does their Martial Arts finally work while in armor, and it's only the unarmored defense and movement that doesn't work? Humans can give Shield proficiency, which as worded, I think Monks can use Shields now too.

[@josequiles7430]

​​@@AnaseSkyrider I can confirm armor woks.Tested a githyanki strengh monk yesterday and you could use flurry of blows while in medium armor

[@josequiles7430]

I also love that they made the open hand monk actually be better at unarmed attacks by giving them extra damage. It really puts the UA version to shame

[@rm2569]

@@josequiles7430 Also, tavern brawler doubles your attack bonus from strenght so strenght monk is actually viable and good. You'll lose some midgame AC and unarmored movement from using armor and going strenght but it's really cool.

[@josequiles7430]

@@rm2569 yeah that's what I had in mind. Also getting Athlete at some point and combining it with the jump spell in order to make the ultimate jumping build. It's really great how these two feats that are usually underwhelming are such fun picks in this game.

[@Wyrmshield]

In regards to the beastmaster templates vs the wild shape playtest templates, I think a big point of consideration is the player's perspective of themselves vs an npc. Having a pet with a template is fine because they are an add-on to your character. Compare that to actually playing as that animal as your character and having a lot of your features and stats taken away or not apply AND without getting the flavorful and animal-specific benefits that make shopping through the book so fun.

[@TrixyTrixter]

I do not like the templates for either. Beast of the land really does not fit for a huge amount of land beasts.

[@killerfudgetastic]

I don’t think choosing terrain types is inherently bad, after all the land Druid does a similar thing and that isn’t a bad feature. The major difference is that the land Druid gets unique benefits from their choice, whereas the Ranger is simply choosing whether they have a class feature in their current area. I like the thematics this is going for, showing that the Ranger Is experienced moving and tracking and surviving in a specific terrain, but I feel this could be better done by making each terrain give a unique benefit to showcase how someone used to living in that terrain would be. So like, you could pick ocean and get a swim speed, caves could give dark vision, forest could give a climb speed, things like that. The problem is that the choice has no meaning, not that the choice exists.

[@snazzyfeathers]

So thematically I love Hunter's Mark. It's really cool to flavor as your ranger supernaturally marking their prey. Sometimes I'll take it even if I don't use it as often because its that cool. Despite that though, I'd be happy if they just removed it completely instead of basically locking class features away behind using the spell. I'd rather have concrete class features than just "Here's a spell that you may or may not want, deal with it"

[@neilm838]

I like the image of using a great club or maul as the component of conjure volley. That would truly be heavy rain.

[@tibot4228]

I am one of the freaks who asked for favored terrains (and favored enemies!). I love the idea of the feature and I think it could help define the class's identity. The way it works just needs to be more refined: for example, bonus to stealths, then, as you level up, damage resistances tied to your terrains and being harder to hit while you're there, maybe even extending those resistances to your allies, etc. Favored terrains imo can absolutely work if they are recognized as circumstantial features. They just need to do more with them instead of giving them the same treatment as lesser skills.

[@HunterTracks]

My favourite idea regarding the new ranger would be to give them something akin to Paladin Smite, but for concentration spells. Basically, a curated spell list that would allow the ranger to somehow subvert concentration -- either by enabling concentration-free casting for a shorter duration, or by allowing you to concentrate on two spells from the list at the same time. It'd be fairly easy to roll Hunter's Mark into this feature, and I think it'd give rangers exciting tactical value on the battlefield in a fairly unique way. And the cool thing is, you don't even need to remove those spells from the other classes, since the ranger is just going to be innately better at casting them than other classes.

[@josephsherck2150]

Haven't played D&D for years, but when I saw the legendary Treentmonklvl20 from way back on the Giantintheplayground forums has a youtube channel, I needed to stop and say Thanks! Man your class guides and writeups from way back then are legendary. How to be God has shaped my philosophy for caster characters when I do play (BG3, really...). Thanks for being the absolute last word in D&D character creation for going on 20 years!

[@SilentSooYun]

Actually, I _did_ suggest they add Natural Explorer back in, *BUT* as an additional feature to give the Ranger back some of it's flavour as Nature's Warrior. I didn't expect them to take away half of a good feature just to combine it with half of a famously bad feature. I asked them to consider putting it back in specifically *because* it had absolutely zero impact on Combat, but made travel _for the entire party_ a bit less tedious. Throwing it in on top of Expertise or Deft Explorer would have been a net gain for Ranger without upsetting balance in any significant way

[@michaelhenman8683]

I think maybe for hunter the "pick again" options could be rolled into one, so at level 11 you gain your second choice for both level 3 and 7 features, then make up something new for level 15 (some kind of auto-crit feature could be thematically appropriate maybe?).

[@pcz2093]

I read Charge from the Beast of the Land that the extra damage and the save against Prone can apply to both beast attacks if both attacks hit (there is no limit to once per turn mentioned). That means more damage from the beast and a better chance of getting the Prone condition for the Ranger resulting in even more damage. But I think because of the crowded battlefields (resulting in difficult terrain) 100% charge is a pretty optimistic guess…. Regarding Hunter’s Mark… What if the ranger had the option to cast it without concentration but with only a minute duration (like the fey wanderer ranger does with summon fey)?

[@CivilWarMan]

"What kind of damage does a sprig of mistletoe do?" My first instinct was Poison damage, but that's only if you eat it. So instead, I thought back to the Prose Edda. "Hother took the mistletoe and threw it at Balder, as Loki directed him. The mistletoe struck Balder and pierced him through and through, and he fell down dead." Therefore, a sprig of mistletoe does Piercing damage.

[@andrewshandle]

After playing BG3 over the weekend, outside "Nick" (which is great), I kind of think Larian did "weapon mastery" better than WotC did. In BG3, if a character is proficient with a weapon they get options to do things with them. Some of them are flat damage increases (like Lacerate which causes the target to bleed for 2 additional turns), some are bonus actions (one is striking with the pommel), and others are on a Reaction (the Morning Star lets you deliver your +STR damage on a miss). Extra options that are an Action or Bonus action are X amount of times before a short/long rest, and I think the Reaction ones are unlimited because you burn your reaction.

[@Ralathym]

50:22 Shouldn't the chance to hit at least once be 100 - (45 x 45)? Because if you miss the first attack, you're not getting advantage on the second

[@ShadGray]

Imagine if Wizards got a new upgraded Burning Hands, but the condition was that Burning Hands became the core of the entire class and nearly every single aspect of the Wizard required you to cast it. Despite the fact you have an entire spellbook full of utility, if you don't cast Burning Hands.... your wizard will perform sub-par to all other wizards. Imagine Burning Hands being so crammed down your throat that Burning Hands feels like it is the new archetype of what a wizard has to be. Forget that wizard character concept you had where they were an oracle of divination, because now you need to constantly cast Burning Hands. That wizard concept you had where they conjured creatures from other planes? You better figure out how to make Burning Hands work with the story you intended to tell. The entire class now requires you to be tethered to a first level spell that forces you to play just one way. That is Ranger and Hunter's Mark. I don't give a F@!K about the amount of damage you hit for at 13th level in a turn. Marking and remarking foes as they drop in combat, over and over, is NOT epic. It is NOT fun! In Chris's "snapshot" he glosses over the "lets assume I have to recast it 50% of the time..." Dude, This has been going on for 13 levels in your snapshot. It will continue for 7 more. Its just gonna be the same combat process for 20 G#$ D&%N levels! You NEVER feel epic. Half your abilities are junk ("Pick another terrain that you don't need"). The other half are repetitive and boring. Sure... you can do a fair amount of damage. But Id rather play something suboptimal than repetitive, which is blasphemy to a crunch-monkey like Chris. Give me features that are interesting, that function as part of the party. Not Hunter's Mark! Hunters mark gives no benefit to the group, but then anyone else can come along and hit the creature you have marked and kill it. Did they kill it because you gave them some boost? Nope... they just killed it despite you having marked it and been wailing on it. Now burn your bonus action to move to a new target, get one hit, and have someone else kill that creature. Dumbest and most feel-bad ability in DnD. You aren't event setting anything up for the rest of the party. You set it up for yourself only to have the rest of the party steal any thunder you had. Over and over and over and over and over for 20 levels. Now, you MIGHT say "Well, the Barbarian does the same thing with Rage. Its the same thing every combat." and you would be WRONG. Because once that barbarian rages, it doesn't matter who they hit. They go on a rampage for the entire combat swinging at anything that is close and dealing mass damage. If someone takes down the Barbarian's target, they move on to the next one and wail on it for mass damage. The Ranger has to use their bonus action to "mark a new target". In any given combat, a ranger marks and remarks targets over and over and over, often times moving their target to get a single round of combat before moving their hunters mark AGAIN. 50% of your bonus actions moving the mark is being generous. It's often much higher, depending on the number of players. and each time, it feels LESS epic. In contrast, the more targets the barbarian swings at makes them feel MORE epic. This entire class has been designed around a single feel-bad spell. Forget NOT using it. you HAVE to use it. You don't get versatility in combat. You do the same thing over and over or you are sub-par. No options. Forget helping the party. Forget setting up anything in combination with another player.... that's sub-optimal. Your job is to mark creatures and watch them fall (usually by someone else's hand) for 20 levels. Oh... and MAYBE track a creature now and then, if that's something your DM puts in the game.

[@fnzer0]

Commenting for visibility. I'll still do the surveys, but as a Ranger concept enjoyer, I'm mostly back to using Rogue, Fighter, Druid and Barbarian to actually fulfill the ranger fantasy than the ACTUAL CLASS.

[@Razdasoldier]

They did that... it was called silvery barbs xD

[@iolkos64]

I remember Crawford mentioning that they were leaning into the "multiverse setting," so I think the thematic changes to the Gloomstalker are to tie it loosely to the Shadowfell (fear abilities, etc.) and almost make it a counterpart to the Fey Wanderer

[@Klaital1]

Chris, you should read the sidebar where it explains about the features, they added the favored terrain because it was heavily requested in the feedback from the previous ranger playtest.

[@probablythedm1669]

I wonder why, since it's just "this part of the game is now totally irrelevant" or "why did you not take terrain X, useless ranger" and never actually fun. 🤔

[@Klaital1]

@@probablythedm1669 From what I have heard of lot of different people I have talked with online is that they just feel that favored terrain is part of ranger identity and it feels bland without it. Presumably because it's been part of ranger class in all editions of d&d.

[@AtelierGod]

@@Klaital1 an appeal to tradition fallacy won’t allow possibilities to thrive.

[@clarkside4493]

I'd like for the "free prep of _Conjure Barrage_ and _Conjure Volley"_ features to include something along the lines of "If a creature affected by your _Hunter's Mark_ fails its save against your _Conjure Barrage_ or _Conjure Volley,_ you can deal the damage from _Hunter's Mark_ to that creature as if you'd hit it with a weapon attack." Not just for "moar dmg!" but because it'd just make sense. You're incorporating your weapons into this spell, of course it should work that way!

[@craigauty8874]

I'd rather you get a free casting of it in the feature. Otherwise you won't even have the slots to use this because you used them to upcast Hunters Mark already.

[@clarkside4493]

@@craigauty8874 why not both?

[@struggl3bus984]

Watching these videos and thinking about it for a while. I think my biggest criticism of 5e class design is that there isn't enough class choices. Warlocks are probably the best with this because of invocations. Such a huge list of choices that all classes could benefit from. Imagine Hunter's Mark being a spell that could be upgraded and modified to prepare for whatever party mght face. Based on an invocation like system. Or offer choices to modify how rangers generally operate. Could even offer options to customize Beastmaster companions. This could be applied to druid wildshape to create custom creatures that are built off of the stat blocks they tried to introduce. Obviously this is probably way too late to do. But man, offering options to customize how features or change how our characters operate would open up so much for D&d.

[@indigoblacksteel1176]

I agree with pretty much everything you said as far as the class abilities. They wanted to make them more Rangery, and I kind of agree with thinking they need something, but I don't think the Favored Terrain is the way to do that. I wonder if some Channel Nature abilities (similar to the Paladin's Channel Divinities) would make them feel more like a Ranger. (I still think the Druid's Wildshape should be part of an overarching Channel Divinity feature, btw.)

[@caligena]

Man, i can usually follow along pretty okay with the dpr math toward the end of the videos, but this combo really made my head spin lmao. Bravo for navigating all of that.

[@KCriticalHit]

Hey Chris, good video always appreciate the snap shot look at things. I tried following along a similar build meant to combine Horde Breaker and Greataxe's Cleave with the GWM feat (Who doesn't want to make up to 5 attacks). Getting into the weeds of it proved to be quite difficult when trying to determine how one thing might effect the other (the chance of a second enemy: I went with 50%, if one of the enemies drops, when they drop, which side do you trigger your Greataxe's Cleave, etc.) Based on my math assuming, which was messy, I got to around 37 damage on average factoring in the chance of only one enemy or more, but it looked super sweet. I also only stuck to Ranger, but I have a feeling you could probably get some use out of Fighter for some levels since past levels 5-8 you aren't getting much more from Ranger in my build. Either way thanks for the font of inspiration to work on a fun thought experiment. Happy rolling.

[@Hari-Harmonies]

I feel that your favoured terrain should in a fashion, mirror, the land druid, with more thematic spells or abilities that help your ranger gain some thematic identity.

[@gyletre675]

They should remove the deft explorer feat and replace it with two upgrades to hunter's mark. One should be that it no longer requires concentration, and the other that it applies when you hit the target with your weapon attack instead of using a bonus action. It probably shouldn't be gained at the same levels, but I think people would like it more. The only reason no concentration was broken in the previous playtest was because it was gained so early.

[@toshizue8627]

I only noticed now how they changed deft explorer. When I tried to homebrew a better natural explorer, all I needed to do was to have it give automatic always-on benefits for exploration in general, then anything tied to a favored terrain had double those benefits. They really seem to have designed ranger features in bubbles.

[@BobGrimminger]

I think you are 100% correct on the feel bad features. Features where you feel like you have to know which terrain to pick or features where you're just making the next least bad option after you already took the best ones really do feel bad. Choosing terrain and enemy types were the exact thing that made me look at the 2014 ranger and not look at it again until Tasha's. I think you said it all: why design a class where your features aren't useful for maybe large parts of the game. Imagine picking *ANY* of the terrains and going to Avernus. Which of those terrains are you in?

[@davidkelvon7936]

I like what they’ve done to the Gloom Stalker thematically, but there needs to be a few tweaks. Uses of the third level feature needs scale with Ranger level, maybe wis mod times 1/3 your Ranger level uses per long rest. That won’t fix the eleventh level feature, but it’ll make it better on paper at least. On another note I told my group after reading the play test that as of seventh level the Beast Master Ranger was the strongest Ranger if not the strongest marshal. I played it in a game and found I outdid other marshals, no barbarian in the group but two other Rangers and a fighter. I’m glad to see the math shows my experience wasn’t isolated.

[@МаратГабдуллин-б5ф]

Ranger isn’t bad by itself- main problem of the ranger is existence of the Paladin, and in oneDND gap in quality and power between those two half-casters are even bigger. Paladin gets better AC and better weapon mastery (Topple). Divine spell list more suiting for half-caster playstyle with Bless, Shield of Faith, Spirit Guardians and Smites. Whole extra 10 spells from subclass plus strongest second level spell in the game- On top of that feature Paladin got two separate pools of resource- Lay on Hands and channel divinity. And probably best non-spell feature in the game- Aura of Protection. While all ranger get is 10ft movement, half of expertise and 3 spells.

[@AwesomeWookiee]

In what world am I *ever* going to use 4 different terrains in a day? I don't want features that make the game less engaging at higher levels, especially in the planning department. If it was one at the start and another later, I actually think it would be a *better* feature. Also they need to add "Urban" as an option. It's cool, it feels thematically interesting when you use it, and most importantly: it means you aren't shafted when your DM says "so this campaign is mostly going to be in this cool city I made." Edit: I also think you should get an extra expertise at 9th level, and the Bard should have the same treatment of only getting 2 expertise total. Let every class (including Rogue) be best at something!

[@HunterTracks]

Rogues already get Reliable Talent as well as more skill proficiencies and an earlier Expertise, we don't need to nerf bards and rangers to make rogues better at something they're already the best at.

[@forgot-to-log-out]

It is amazing how much better rangers in bg starting fetures that replace terrain and enemy preparation where you still have a ranger feel but also you have good options

[@plop0r]

I'm playing dungeon of the mad mage and I get it nearly every combat

[@DesmondDentresti]

Does the Horde Breaker change mean anything? Like literally anything? If there are two enemies in front of you can you not still just: Action attack enemy 1, Horde Breaker attack Enemy 2 who you have at this point not attacked and then attack Enemy 2 with your offhand weapon afterwards, which isnt restricted? So many of these changes seem so random.

[@matthewdavis9966]

I’m gonna say again that I think Conjure Barrage and Conjure Volley are not terrible features IF this is a first step towards building out a Paladin’s Smite-esque feature. If they drop concentration from Hunter’s Mark (no class feature should require concentration imo) that can become the Ranger’s Answer to Divine Smite alongside some mix of appropriately scaled versions of Zephyr Strike, Ensnaring Strike, Hail of Thorns, Lightning Arrow, the two Conjure Spells we already have, Steel Wind Strike, and/or Swift Quiver. They should cost a bonus action like the smite spells and be useable on melee or ranged attacks. Call it Ranger’s Strike or something since a bunch of those spells already the word Strike in them. Do that and i think you’re a long way towards a perfect Ranger. It would be perfect to me if, in addition to Ranger’s Strike, they also divorced expertise and favored terrain; gave bonuses to Roving, Tireless, Nature’s Veil, and Feral Senses when in your favored terrain; gave expertise in 2 skills each at 3rd and 9th level; and gave a concentration free version of Summon Beast at lvl 5 (or kill the Beast Master to give all Rangers Primal Companion at level 5).

[@ODDnanref]

6:20 Funny enough. There were people saying that the deft Explorer festure was not flavorful enough. They orefered the olf feature because it felt more flavorful. Hence why we see this return. The main complaint qas that chosing a festure pidgeonh holed you into one terrain and thus became a non-feature if you mover away from your terrain.

[@wisey105]

Jeremy Crawford did say in a previous video, they were doing a lot of A|B testing. That explains some instances of bringing something back in a modified way and showing something completely different in another playtest.

[@shocknix]

It's not that fans hated picking favored Enemies/terrain. It's that players hated not having the right one. Favored Enemy/Terrain for 5 editions were TOO SLOW to obtain. You only got 1 every 5-6 levels of anymore at all. If it were every 3 levels, then a ranger could adjust to new adventures and the times where they were out of their specialty was occasionally. Favored terrain should have always been something you could switch once per level. As you leveled up you'd get more and be able to mastery multiple areas. But not being able to adjust was the trouble. Fans didn't hate it.

[@skippy9273]

I actually said something along the lines of "the new features are good, but they aren't unique and they don't make me feel like a ranger. I liked how the old one at least in concept felt like a specialist while the new one just recycles existing material."

[@AtelierGod]

Old Ranger: Overspecialized to the point of being detrimental. Tasha’s Ranger: Generalizes the abilities to make them more applicable to an ever changing landscape. OneD&D Ranger: Tries to marry the previous two philosophies without succeeding.

[@josequiles7430]

The old Hunter wasn't great but it was very thematic, because it gave you(or at least tried to) different choices that correspond to what kind of creatures you were good at hunting. You hunt big beefy creatures? Colosus Slayer and Multiattack Defence(and the giant one to some extent) You hunt creatures in packs? Horde Breaker and Scape the Horde The other features were less focused but there was something there

[@JJV7243]

The big power in the beastmaster ranger that you didn't talk about is just the total amount of HP/healing available. The beast has (at level 13) ~90 HP and the ranger can revive it via a 1st level spell slot. If there are 4 combats, and it dies each time it absorbs 360 HP worth of damage (while bonus action dodging), which gets healed for 4 1st level spell slots. This is an INSANE amount of tankieness! In fact, I'd argue that the beast master ranger has far more HP than a barbarian if you factor in HP healed to its companion.

[@AtelierGod]

Beast master became the new Moon

[@JJV7243]

@@AtelierGod I also totally forgot that the beast might also have hit dice (do they return when its revived?) probably doubling these values.

[@thiagoknofel8982]

In the same way that I thought the paladin should gain a feature similar to the divine order, where he chooses whether he wants a path with two Cabtrips OR two Mastery properties, the ranger should receive a feature that gives the same type of choice. Ranger is an expert, guidance suits him very well.

[@erickignacioferreira8143]

I love thorn whip and pulling enemies into spike growth. Feels very thematic.

[@irakhlin]

One thing about choosing terrain is that now they can change the terrain so they are not stuck with the wrong terrain type if the adventure takes them to a different terrain type. They could just say you have advantage on survival tracking rolls and it would be pretty much the same without the baggage of the previous version.

[@irakhlin]

You addressed this later in the video.

[@scottballentine1846]

I agree on the whole terrain thing. I see the new Gloomstalker to be... well Batman. I dislike it using the wisdom score for the GS features because it is so limiting. That said, unless you are in a very specific campaign (underdark etc), I think it more likely to find the ranger fighting typically in other lighting conditions than darkness and that is where the fear feature comes into play.

[@blackfang0815]

Yeah, a lot of people say the invisible in darkness feature is OP, but what are the odds you'll be fighting in darkness against creatures who have darkvision, anyways? If you DM runs darkness properly, a lot of creatures are probably going to want to just use a light source of some kind. The rest of the party will probably want to use a light source, even - and that's assuming you aren't just fighting outside in the daytime, where a ton of adventures happen.

[@plop0r]

In campaigns with lots of dungeon (a lot of them) invisibility feature is broken

[@dreamwanderer5791]

I like the terrain gimmick for Rangers, I really do. And I think this is better than the PHB just turning off gameplay with auto passes for certain things. Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut if you meditate to change then the current upscaling is pointless. Instead of that, an idea is that while you're in your favored terrain you can choose skills you aren't proficient in to be proficient, expertise if you're not, or hell, even Advantage PB times per rest. Make it so that when you're in your element you're actually going on all cylinders.

[@tarrickmerdev2324]

I believe the Gloom Stalker is meant to be play on a natural fear of the dark and imparts a sense of prey being stalked and hunted by a predator in the shadows to their targets. Think of the alien being in Predator as it hunts Arnold and his party through the jungle. There was certainly fear among their group. This theme for the subclass was implied in Xanathar's by the feature name "Dread Ambusher" so I'm a little confused as to why you would belittle that vision of the subclass and imply that a subclass called the "Gloom Stalker" would be frightening to be a silly thing as if it is a cheap Halloween ghost. Frightened, as a mechanic, not synergizing with the Invisible condition granted by the Umbral Sight feature is a bit of a annoyance. Perhaps it would make sense to grant an additional benefit if the target is unable to see the Ranger, such as the "cowering in place" fear of the Conquest Paladin that causes targets to have 0 speed.

[@ladaas9528]

One difference between the circle of the Land and the chosen terrain is that chosen terrain's benefits are already quite situational. Limiting them to only working in one terrain means that it it does nothing a large portion of the time. The spell lists from circle of the land don't _always_ come up, but are at least always available.

[@RK9th]

The damage is surprising, and it honestly turned me around on the Hex/Hunter's Mark reworks. If a ranger got two make (effectively) two greatsword attacks a turn, one possibly with advantage before even level 5, it'd be far too strong especially with the changes to Sharpshooter and GWM. I think the Beast Master is currently the highest DPR subclass for the Ranger, but that level 15 feature needs a rework if they're not going to give rangers concentration free HM. On the flip side, the revised Hunter subclass is abysmally designed at the higher levels. I was a fan of the old level 7 feature, predominantly the one that grants a +4 AC against multiattacks, but it's overall a good boost. But being able to choose the second best option of your levels 3/7 **non-scaling** features for levels 11/15 is atrocious game design. If they granted those alongside something else, I'd be happy with the changes. Hell, maybe for level 11, let your Hunter's Mark proc twice per turn, or let you choose two different targets so you can make good use of Horde Breaker. Now for Gloom Stalker, I think this video nailed the problem right on the head, but I've got some comments for it. I think the level 11 feature was changed in part due to the 20th level feature that makes it significantly harder to miss. I don't think it's a good enough reason to change it, but I wouldn't be surprised if that was their line of thought. At least now a 3 level dip into Gloom Stalker is a stellar dip for the martial leaning Druids and Clerics I guess ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

[@jeffreyrankine2533]

Honestly Foe Slayer should just be rolled into Favoured Enemy, perhaps with a rider that the +WIS to hit and +WIS to damage can only be used once on your turn or something like that. Then make 20th like, Improved Favoured Enemy: non-concentration Hunter’s Mark and unlimited uses of +WIS to hit and damage.

[@MefistoNH]

I played a Gloom Stalker on a Curse of Strahd campaing and the umbral sight came only on very few places... even at nigth many times there was still dim light because if there is light when the sun is blocked by the fog, there should also be when the moon is up does not have to be full moon. So it comes in way less often than you might think

[@Magnushamann]

Notice that this version of conjure barrage allows you to select targets freely in the area. Hitting all enemies and leaving out allies. I think that is worth the lost damage compared to fireball

[@Magnushamann]

They made the same change to conjure volley

[@erickignacioferreira8143]

I think the real problem of the 2014 natural explorer was the fact that you was stuck with your choices thus you would end up kinda featureless a lot of the time. That's why I used the Treantmonk variant before Tasha's coming out. The fact that you could stack favored enemy and natural explorer by swapping when needed so you get advantage and expertise in most wisdom and intelligence checks was very pleasuring.

[@thiagoknofel8982]

"Hunters mark" and "hex" would be ideal if the extra damage could be applied a number of times per turn equal to the spell slot's level (instead of scalating damage) and no longer require concentration when used with a level 3 slot. Would work fine with extra attack or EldrichBlast while preventing abuse with action surge, haste, swift quiver and etc.

[@UnbornHeretic]

I do like how it seems they are making rangers scale more off wisdom between the extra to hit and damage on hunters mark, the better conjure spells, the beast attacks, and the frighten on gloomstalker being spell save DC. Side note, we can treat hunters mark like a sneak attack, capitalizing on attacks of opportunity to get multiple applications per round; such as using the the Retaliator with hunter. Between that and the beast master getting to use it with their pet, I assume it is going to add up to very good damage.

[@eraz0rhead]

I think it's silly that a Ranger can switch their Terrain choice with a long rest. It effectively means you have the bonus for whatever terrain you're in. At low levels this can be quite powerful for wilderness centric games. (Where there are significant challenges -- getting lost, getting food etc) At high levels, many times those challenges disappear because of spells. (Teleport, create food and water.. etc)

[@tridentgreen3346]

I think a way to fix the terrain bits is to give a small minor boon based on your favored terrain choices. Like allow the ranger with Favored Terrain Forest to ignore plant based difficult terrain. Underdark can be advantage on hiding in Darkness. Desert can be advantage on blind based saves. Etcetera, etcetera. I feel like it’s a good way to buff ranger utility and make them an “expert”

[@OpenWorldAddict0]

It might be unfortunate, but the terrain feature from the 2014 PHB is something that a large number of people enjoyed, and thus requested in their playtest feedback surveys. This was mentioned both in the D&D's video on the Unearth Arcana playtest 6 packet focusing specifically on the Ranger. It is also slightly noted directly in the design notes of the playtest 6 packet.

[@azzaelulbrinter]

I feel that WotC is missing their chance to make some big questions. Things like deciding whether to keep the current subclass progression or a standirized one should be question #1 on the survey, as we can't really begin to balance without even knowing at which levels we are getting the features. Group class should be question #2, getting subclass at 1st or 3rd level should also be one big question. There should be a survey just asking general design questions to really focus on what's relevant before going for the details

[@PedroHISilva]

A problem of the new design is to force rangers, that have an incredible spell list, to concentrate on HM. Even worse, giving free casts that are only first level. To build on the removal of concentration at higher levels, and given that fey wanderer has already a feature that gives concentration-free casting, rangers could have a small list of spells thar they could cast concentration-free after level 11 and scaling, and each subclass could give additional options. For example, summon fey for fey wanderer, greater invibility for gloomstalker, etc. To control for abuses, the feature could be used once per short or long rest, or PB/LR. This list could not have spells that summon multiple creatures at the same time because it would be ridiculous to stack instances of conjure animals.

[@notsochosenone5669]

I like an idea of favourite terrain a lot - i just don't like implementation (at least in 2014 book). I am big fun of "pick a terrain - get and advantage for skill checks and additional feature". "Darkvision" for underdark, "roll initiative with advantage" for cities and other stuff like it.

[@blshouse]

Fireball is, by purposeful design, supposed to be more damaging than any other 3rd level area effect blast spell. There is no reason to expect any other 3rd level area effect spell to be equivalent to Fireball. Fireball is not the average, and never was intended to be the average, it is supposed to be the stand-out best in its class.

[@marssmit84]

I could go for Terrain features if they were spell lists like the Land Druid gets

[@monkeyman3194]

2 freely prepared spells thematically linked to each terrain with the ability to switch

[@andrewthomascochran]

Every time I watch one of your excellent videos I wonder about what “reverse compatibility” truly means and how it will actually work. I’d love to see you do an analysis of the challenges that a table trying to use the new rules with old classes and subclasses will face. I’m expecting so many arguments about shenanigans of mixing the two.

[@timjensen4320]

I apologize for the return of terrain selection. Part of my feedback from the last UA was that while I liked the mechanics, the flavor of a primal warrior was missing. I was NOT asking for the terrain selection back though and let them know this time.

[@LokangoFreewar15]

Th problem with this hunter's mark is that you're required higher lvl spellslots to cast it, with the old hunter's mark you could save your cast Conjure Animals, Summon Fey and save 1st lvl slots for hunter's mark and it would could be as powerful as the 3rd lvl one, specially if you're going for nick

[@danielbrockett8491]

I think the biggest problem they have with the Ranger is that the class needs to be its own thing, but they don't know what the class IS and at least in part, they still want it to be Aragorn (thus the focus on tracking and terrain). It's not entirely dissimilar from the problems they've had making the rogue work. Is the ranger a druidy gish? Is it a hunter? Is it Aragorn? Is it an archer? Is it The Beastmaster? Is it a naturey skill monkey? Is it a naturey warrior? Is it a naturey jack of all trades? Like a woodsy bard? Imo, they need to make a Ranger base class that's versatile, mechanically sound, and mostly flavor neutral. And then they need to make very distinctly flavorful subclasses that add one strong mechanical element to the chassis of the class.

[@ryanscanlon2151]

I agree they made some weird choices with ranger, hunters mark is in a weird place and while I dislike the change to once per turn damage boosts for the spell scaling by addition D6s feels much better than going up die sizes like hex. Concentration remains the biggest problem though, my mind keeps going back to the rogue and how much cleaner a mechanic it is. Hunters mark is just a much clunkier version of sneak attack. It feels like a litteral half rogue half druid where you get druidy stuff at half the rate of druids and rogue stuff at half the rate of rogues, it's especially on the nose when you get to pick up uncanny dodge and evasion for hunter ranger. It might be better to just make hunters mark a sneak attack clone but getting extra D6s every 4 levels instead of every 2

[@cjwynes]

I would need to know WHY concentration free Hunters Mark was considered OP to figure out what the problem is. Because my assumption would be the power is in being able to keep this up AND another concentration spell, in which case it’s not OP at lower levels where you lack other good concentration spells and should be trivial later. If it’s because you don’t have to make concentration checks for damage at low levels, then I could see that but it must involve much more melee focused rangers than I see at tables, because rangers I play with aren’t having to do concentration checks very often to keep up Mark.

[@bcw1nc865]

Thoughts on Baldurs Gate III ranger? Very interesting imo, I believe many of the changes in that game should be seriously considered for one dnd

[@drongodyle3156]

I really like the new direction for gloom stalker flavor wise, being kind of batman-esc; scaring the crap out of enemies while darting in and out of the darkness. However as you pointed out giving the frightened condition and gaining invisibility really clash mechanically. I'd just replace the frighten ability with "psychological warfare", which instead gives disadvantage on ability checks and attack rolls for one turn. Basically frightened without the movement restriction, but also without the requirement to stay in LOS Then players are free keep the effect while invisible, and to flavor it however they want. They can be the unseen terror attacking from the darkness, the hidden annoyance who provokes enemies into losing their cool, or for less emotional opponents, they can just be forcing them to devote part of their concentration to being aware of an unseen enemy

[@mynameisfurstandiamfunky616]

50:44 My calculations have a generic playtest Monk build at level 13 _worse_ than Fido on turns where the Monk doesn't/can't Flurry of Blows & only uses the bonus action Unarmed Strike. On turns where the generic Monk _does_ use Flurry of Blows, they are not quite ~25% better than a Land Beast. Sure, my generic Monk build only uses ASIs, but... to repeat: Action + Bonus Action + 1 Discipline is only ~25% better than a Ranger's Bonus Action. Not paying a Discipline cost every turn means a Ranger's subclass's features are better than your entire base class when you're a 13th level Monk. *Egads!*

[@NotreDanish]

I really want to know who on the design team thought that the way to fix gloom stalker was trying to change its subclass identity to be based on frightening enemies? Cause that was so far out of left field to me

[@buraeen5735]

I don't actually mind the Gloomstalker having frighten features from a flavor perspective. I think the problem is everything at later levels starts javing frighten immunity, and they scale the class based on the frighten effect. That basically makes later features useless.

[@LetsDelve]

Couldn't hunter's mark just work like foe slayer, and give it a times per day usage? Like instead of adding dice and using concentration, you mark a target and you add wisdom to hit and damage. You could have that at low levels and it wouldn't be OP. You could even have a later level feature that doubles the effect for scaling. You can only mark one creature at a time, so that wouldn't be crazy. Just make it a class feature instead of a spell

[@Wannybooi]

My biggest gripe with 2014 choosing terrains was that it forced you to specialise into a few terrains whereas I wanted to be a generalist wilderness explorer. It also meant that the feature was either very strong if you only played in those terrains, or very weak if you played in different terrains. This version completely fixes both of these issues because you can CHANGE YOUR TERRAIN ON A LR. It embodies a ranger preparing for the wilderness challenges to come.

[@hunterthorne4671]

Well, half the damage the ranger was doing was just due to the beast. I feel as though the numbers might not be the same with another subclass. But also, I don’t think the ranger should be doing more damage than the fighter. They are doing more damage, and they also have another body in the combat to absorb attacks, and also get spells, and also get weapon mastery’s which was supposed to be fighters thing… I don’t think half casters should get weapon mastery, they already have spells to augment their attacks, why do they need masteries too?

[@thebitterfig9903]

I read the Fighting Style/Background Feat interaction the same way. At level 1, a Ranger doesn’t have the feature, and they might never have it, it they multiclass out of Ranger. I think that’s fair, tho, since they get access to one Fighting Style as part of their class. But they’re a half-caster not a martial, so it should be harder to match the flexibility of a Fighter who can more easily have two styles. With Favored Enemy, I think it’d be more fun and interesting if the feature granted a single use of Hunter’s Mark as if cast with your maximum spell slot, rather than a lot of casts at 1st level. My guess is that a lot of players are hesitant about the spell, and what might sell folks on it is having a free max-level use, since that becomes a substantial resource eventually, it’ll feel bad if you don’t use it.

[@ungainlytitan1460]

I am not surprised that it is pretty strong. That confirms my less thorough math across all the levels but I agree a lot of the features are unexciting, particularly Hunter's Mark. And I am not a fan of the terrain thing also. At the very least make the terrain list the same as the druid one and make them more thematic. The ribbon features of Hunter's Mark should persist for the duration even if concentration is lost and buffed a little. Give some indication of the direction of the creature or the like. Sort of like Aragorn putting his ear to the ground and asking the land where the orcs were.

[@SortKaffe]

Have you calculated what the damage would be if you used the Hunter rather than the Beast Master subclass?

[@HunterTracks]

I have, here's my results: 2014 with Hunter's Mark, no advantage, Sharpshooter + Crossbow Expert, Dex 20: 34.5 DPR With advantage: 52.4 DPR OneDND with the same build, no advantage: 32.55 DPR With advantage: 35.7 DPR

[@AtelierGod]

@@HunterTracksboth I’m gonna assume uses the archery fighting style?

[@HunterTracks]

​​@@AtelierGodYes, Archery fighting style, 70% chance to hit (45% with Sharpshooter), Hand Crossbow, three attacks per turn. I also factored in Vex (which was a pain in the ass to do), which is why the advantage bump is noticeably lower for OneDND than it is for 5e: you already have advantage most of the time.

[@sillvvasensei]

The new hunter's mark is EXTREMELY potent on the beast master. Both you and the beast apply hunter's mark damage, including the extra damage from foe slayer. MW = magic weapon Level 5: You: 4.5+4DEX+1MW = 9.5 Companion: 2.5+3+3 = 8.5 Turn 1: BA: Hunter’s Mark, A: Attack (You * 2) Turn 2: Same as T1 or A: Attack, BA: Beast Attack T1: 2*9.5 + 1*3.5 = 22.5 T2: 2*9.5 + 1*3.5 + 8.5 = 31 Level 9: You: 4.5+5DEX+(1-2)MW = 10.5-11.5 Companion: 2.5+3+4 = 9.5 Turn 1: BA: Hunter’s Mark, A: Attack (You * 2) Turn 2: Same as T1 or A: Attack, BA: Beast Attack T1: 2*10.5 + 2*3.5 = 28 T2: 2*10.5 + 2*3.5 + 9.5 = 37.5 Level 11: You: 4.5+5DEX+(1-2)MW = 10.5-11.5 Companion: 2.5+3+4 = 9.5 Turn 1: BA: Hunter’s Mark, A: Attack (You + Beast * 2) Turn 2: A: Attack, BA: Beast Attack T1: 1*11.5 + 2*3.5 + 2*9.5 + 2*3.5 = 44.5 T2: 2*11.5 + 2*3.5 + 2*9.5 + 2*3.5 = 56 Level 17: You: 4.5+(5-6)DEX+(2-3)MW = 11.5-13.5 Companion: 2.5+3+6 = 11.5 Turn 1: BA: Hunter’s Mark, A: Attack (You + Beast * 2) Turn 2: A: Attack, BA: Beast Attack T1: 1*12.5 + 3*3.5 + 2*11.5 + 3*3.5 = 56.5 T2: 2*12.5 + 3*3.5 + 2*11.5 + 3*3.5 = 69 Level 20: You: 4.5+7DEX+3MW+4WIS = 18.5 Companion: 2.5+3+6+4 = 15.5 Turn 1: BA: Hunter’s Mark, A: Attack (You + Beast * 2) Turn 2: A: Attack, BA: Beast Attack T1: 1*18.5 + 3*3.5 + 2*15.5 + 3*3.5 = 70.5 T2: 2*18.5 + 3*3.5 + 2*15.5 + 3*3.5 = 89

[@matthewdavis9966]

Hey Chris! A lot of the discourse around the Playtest 2 rangers was that, while the new Ranger was much better, it lacked a lot of the flavor. That’s probably the reason for blending favored terrain and expertise. I personally dislike it but I think I get the purpose behind it.

[@gloryrod86]

I an mostly in non optimization circles and i assure you that the reason picking terrains is back is that a large part of the community say that expertise has no ranger flavor and that although natural explorer is bad it has the ranger flavor that they want. I don't agree with them but i have heard that opinion a few times. I guessing that with this they are trying to make everyone happy. At least since you can change the terrain it should be easier to use than in 5e.

[@AtelierGod]

Flavor is free, and should be up to the player not the class to use it’s limited features on, maybe the class and subclass descriptions but not their features.

[@HunterTracks]

If you want to be good at tracking, you can just pick expertise in Survival. You're free to take that flavour for yourself. I prefer having the freedom to subvert the class stereotype, rather than being locked into playing along with it.

[@gloryrod86]

@@AtelierGod i agree. This isn't my opinion, but I've seen many people think this way.

[@gloryrod86]

@@HunterTracks me too. But some people don't agree.

[@AtelierGod]

Because templates on the Druid draws on the Druids spellcaster HP, while the ranger beast master templates had its own HP pool.

[@thebitterfig9903]

I kinda like the Spooky Gloomstalker vibes. Sure, the literal invisibility is a problem that needs to be fixed, but I think the fear things have potential. Maybe allowing them to give up a spell slot instead of one of their uses. I guess that kinda makes them step on the Paladin’s toes a little, since it’s almost sorta kinda a “frightening smite” but eh.

[@Sanglant4342]

Being invisible is why it's frightening. Imagine 2 of you standing guard in the dark and your mate just drops from an arrow through the throat BY SOMEONE YOU CANT SEE! Would scare the shit outta me. The problem is the mechanical implementation if it.

[@thebitterfig9903]

@@Sanglant4342 It all goes back to that 3rd level ability. Full "invisible condition" without duration that isn't stopped by anything just has so much potential to be a problem mechanic.

[@Commodore468]

Hunters mark should just be a a spell and they should make a separate class feature not related to spell slots that uses another resource kind of like channel divinity that does not use concentration. If they are worried about power make it like 1d6 once per turn or no damage but have cool effects that subclasses features can alter or add in to. Also even if hunters mark is good I don’t want to have so many features tied to 1 concentration spell good or bad

[@mathguydave3699]

I am ready for this!

[@bennettellis1154]

The new conjure barrage/volley spells are fine but they aren't cool. The point of a class specific spell should be to do something interesting that it's hard to get access to elsewhere. I wonder if they could do something with weapon mastery. Like if the weapon you use in the spell has a mastery that has an effect on a hit you can apply it to everyone who fails their save

[@andreasaslaksen4430]

I think given they are weapon based they should somehow require weapon damage roll to determine the damage inc. Add-ons like HM. Would this be potentially harder hitting than a fireball? Yes, as it should be.

[@blackfang0815]

They're fine for the level spell they are. If you're a full caster. For the level you get them at? Full casters can deal more Force damage with a single breath weapon from a Shapechange dragon at level 17 than you can with your blasting spell.

[@HunterTracks]

I dislike their inclusion because it actively muddles ranger class identity. You're telling me I'm good at messing up that guy in particular? Yeah, cool. Why are you giving me an AoE blast spell, then?

[@TheLegoLord100]

I really dislike how they are presented as a "Martial Spell". They aren't, they don't have anything to do with martials besides the damage type. It uses your spellcasting modifier to determine its effectiveness, it doesn't interact with any features that weapons use like fighting style, weapon mastery, or any cool things a magic weapon you wield might have (from a simple +1d6 fire damage enchantment to any big effects from legendary weapons, nothing is used), and it doesn't even use an attack roll, so hunter's mark, the thing they are desperately trying to sell you on, doesn't even work wirh it. Even Steel Wind Strike got that part right, and we all know there's a reason wizards are more likely to pick up that spell compared to rangers. They honestly should have just stayed with whirlwind attack / volley, but change it so it's 1 attack roll that is checked against each target in the area, and then 1 damage roll against each target hit, as I assume the "problem" with the feature is having to roll to hit and damage for each individual target (even though outside of damage it should involve the same amount of rolls, 1 attack roll per target and 1 saving throw per target make the same amount of rolls)

[@Klaital1]

The Gloom Stalker mass fear effect also has friendly fire to make it even worse.

[@andybaxter4442]

I think when a feature gives you a free casting, they ought to let you upcast it to a level you have spell slots for. I dont think that is too pwerful, because you can usually only do it once per long rest, and you can thinknof it as just scaling a class feature (and class festures SHOULD scale!).

[@mrbean3470]

"My favored terrain is your underdark." Best cheesy D&D pickup line. 😂 I always think of Ginny Di's video when that feature gets talked about. So at least there's that about it.

[@jeffbinning1244]

Treantmonk is right: the problem with Ranger is not damage- it's the features that feel "bad" or "lackluster". Everyone is upset about Hunter's Mark, but the problem with HM is not damage. The problem is that it has become the primary focus of the Ranger class- and its basically just a damage boost. Its kinda boring. I think all Ranger subclasses should have a thematic bonus spells known list. Hunter especially seems to feel lackluster to the others because of this. The Natural Explorer change at first level is fine. Choosing two terrains and changing them on a rest is ok. Id like to see some explicit defining of where dungeons, castles, crypts, towns, cities, sewers, etc fall on this list- or include a terrain type that includes them. The level 9 Natural Explorer feature sucks however. Just choosing two more (so that you have 4?) doesnt make sense when you already have 2 and can change them. And its therefore not an exciting choice. Id rather see an expansion of the abilities that you get while in your Terrain. Advantage on more skills. Perhaps a bonus to hit in combat. Or a bonus to saves. There's any number of things that could mechanically express a Ranger's gaining further expertise in their Terrain types. And perhaps they could use this growing expertise as a feature for other levels (and then ditch the Barrage/Volley features- or combine them into one feature and add a free casting onto the free preparations.) Perhaps they could provide a choice of several abilities from which to choose. Kinda like the Hunter subclass. Whatever they do, i hope it addresses the Ranger's mechanical identity, not just damage.

[@KnicKnac]

As a ranger fan I’ll take expertise in one skill and one tool instead of terrain choices. Tools can be helpful and it wouldn’t ruin the ranger knowing how to craft traps or disarm nature based traps or make healing kits something that might be a ribbon feature yet still useful.

[@jessemarcus9262]

Maybe keep the terrain choices but ascribe more interesting/impactful benefits to each. Eh arctic/tundra gives resistance to cold damage and ignore difficult terrain caused by slick surfaces or deep snow, underdark provides extra darkvision distance and a climb speed or advantage on stealth etc. seems like there are tons of cool ideas that could be explored here.