We Need To Talk About The New Ranger - Full Class + Spells Breakdown

Falko's Vault is out now on Kickstarter! Make Magic Items Matter in your games by grabbing some beautiful Dungeon Decks here! www.kickstarter.com/projects/...
Support the channel and get awesome stuff on Patreon here! / dndshorts
Let's take a look at the 2024 player's handbook new Ranger! People seem annoyed, but is it that bad really? Let's break it down!
I've been told to use keywords in video descriptions, but I don't know what I'm doing. I stole these tags from MonkeyDM who seems on top of this type of thing when we chat.
TIER LIST How to play Dungeons and Dragons Beginners Guide What class to play in dungeons and dragons best class in D&D best subclass most powerful optimised monk build DandD Warlock Bard Dungeon Master, Fighter, Ranger, Artificer, Cleric, Barbarian, Wizard, Sorcerer, Monk, Paladin, Rogue, DnD Shorts D&D Shorts TikTok Dungeons and Dragons potentially a bit a with dungeoneering tabletop community next to tabletop RPG dungeons and dragons tt 5th edition dragons 3.5e DM GM dungeon master game master tips dnd shorts
0:00 - Intro
0:14 - The Core Ranger
2:17 - The Hunter's Mark Problem
4:34 - Beast Master
5:27 - Gloom Stalker
6:34 - Hunter
7:47 - Is It Actually Bad?
9:18 - New Spells!

[@DnDShorts]

🥳🥳The *BEAUTIFUL* Falko's Vault is out now on Kickstarter! Make Magic Items Matter and add physicality to your games by grabbing some beautiful Dungeon Decks here! www.kickstarter.com/projects/dungeondecks/falkos-vault-of-wonders-5e?ref=9ehr6u

[@jasonmorley9217]

As much as it's in your name, I'd love to see you expand past D&D and see what kind of other TTRPGs you'd recommend or enjoy; Due to how they've treated the community and their employees, I'd like to steer clear of Wizards' products, and have no interest in the upcoming "Rules Update". That said, you're one of my favourite content creators in this space, as the way you like to have fun with your games matches a lot of what I like to do myself.

[@JaviusSama]

The solution for the ranger is easy: the ranger doesn't need to concentrate on Hunter's Mark.

[@emperorxander666]

yeah but that be nice for the ranger so the one dev who hates Ramger will not let it happen

[@AquiJuanin]

What if they had made a different type of concentration for Hunters Mark called Focus, which you don’t get if you multiclass and can stack with standard concentration?

[@Muchez14]

Or maybe make it like favored foe where rangers specifically can hunters mark someone on hit and don’t need to concentrate. So pet subclass are actually usable with rangers.Big buff but it’s ranger and if other classes want that they need to multiclass to get the feature maybe lv 5 so it’s a big commitment.maybe even higher they can change targets when they die as a reaction.

[@Gale_789]

@@AquiJuanin I don’t like rules that punish or disincentives multiclassing, but maybe allowing them to not concentrate on Hunter’s mark at a higher level like 7-ish would fix it. That way they have to take Ranger as their main class to be able to get it easily.

[@brannenpfister2579]

The reason for choosing to not do this was so it doesn’t stack with hex

[@crestenor]

I think my biggest complaint is that all three of the features that buff hunter's mark (save for the level 17 one) would be perfectly fine if they were 5-10 levels earlier, and the spell itself would be fine if it scaled by a damage die every few ranger levels instead of only as a capstone. If it went to a d8 at level 6, a d10 at level 13, and a d12 at level 17 - all as part of the baseline ranger features - it would feel like a more impactful feature without impacting something like multiclassing since it requires more commitment to ranger itself.

[@kurtacus3581]

They learned nothing from arcane archer which only increased damage of arcane shots at 18. Everyone told them that was dumb and yet now they've gone and done this. Its so stupid

[@Zecteiro]

@@kurtacus3581 I think almost none even remember Arcane Archer even exists tbh.

[@malmasterson3890]

Or just be able to upcast it. Honestly, that simple change would be huge, especially for the capstone. That's a sizable damage boost later on, just cap it at like 3rd or 4th level so MCing doesn't get too excessive.

[@zilba4405]

It feels like they looked at studied target from PF2e and wanted to make hunter's mark just like it but forgot to take notes on what makes ST good and HM a bad spell

[@pezdispencer113]

@@Zecteiro I got excited when I first read the subclass name back in the day, then I read what it does and completely lost interest.

[@regeoberon3676]

I don't understand why they haven't just made Hunter's Mark an ability. Really. It's not hard. Make it so that "Once per round, when you attack a creature, you may declare it your mark. The mark lasts until you mark another creature or the current creature drops to 0 hit points, to a maximum of 1 hour." Otherwise, it is functionally identical. Then you could modify it with more powerful features at later levels, like say, allowing the ranger to always see the creature even if it turns invisible, or mark multiple creatures per round instead of just 1, or maybe even inflict status effects with their attacks.

[@eliascabbio7598]

@@regeoberon3676 that's becuase ranger should rely on its magical power (AKA spells slots) to do more damage on its turns. However, I would have been in favor of removing Hunter's Mark from the spells and give it to the ranger as a feature, as you say, if the class realies completely on that spell.

[@HunterTracks]

​@@eliascabbio7598They already can use spell slots for extra damage and/or utility, it's called "using spells". This change actually allows them to do that sometimes.

[@Fallanir]

Agreed. Just make it a class feature that doesn't require concentration, similar to Hexblade's Curse. That would have been so easy.

[@kurtacus3581]

Thats too fun and makes too much sense 😠

[@MithrilRoshi]

they want to make everything spells now, which screws with action ecom, hence why all the classes seem bad.

[@thefloridaman41]

It a particular feels bad because they finally broke Warlock from being a EB only class and now Ranger feels like a HM only class. They kinda made all Rangers now want to be Stealth archers so all other subclasses not pushing that playstyle just feel awkward

[@soldierbreed]

Thats the part thats confusing the had a specific design goal for one class but the exact opposite for the other

[@zacharyreutlinger7623]

It’s ironic because I think the changed a Paladin’s smite because it was too good that many players didn’t use their spell slots for anything else, and now they anchored Ranger so much to Hunters Mark now they can’t use many of their other spells.

[@LydCal999]

i’m still gonna spam spike growth + slowing longbow lol

[@godzilagiroflex]

Against a target with Hunter's Mark, you are an amazing level 20 character that can do a lot of cool stuf and huge amount of damage, against a target without Hunter's Mark or if you break concentration or if you have no spells slots or if you want to use your bonus action to anything else, you're literally just a guy with a bow. I really don't understand why WOTC hates Ranger so much because I really refuse to believe that more than one person looked at this and said "Hey, a class that literally needs to maintain concentration to use its abilities? Cool, print it out"

[@almisami]

Especially when it was considered shite last time around IN THE SAME EDITION.

[@foldionepapyrus3441]

Maintaining concentration to use its abilities would be fine, could even be great if it was for a primary spell caster - some bonus features you can only use on the spell you are concentrating on or while concentrating when you have lots of spells to choose from and spell slots would be great fun, and if that class gets neither armour or proficiency in con saves these features are likely to be a fun risk/reward balance and far from game breaking. But it is a flat out failure for the hunter, and doesn't fit the theme either...

[@user-ni7ji3fb8m]

"literally just a guy with a bow" who can turn invisible, can cast spells, have very powerful subclass abilities- non-concnetrationsl always-on greater invisibility, non-concentrational summon, resistance to all damage. Don't be dramatic, the "guy with a bow" is fine. Especially when only 0.1% plays at level 20, and for majority of play at level 1-6 it is easily top 3 class.

[@joshlewis8860]

@@user-ni7ji3fb8m Except you have to choose between giving up half you class features to cast spells, or being restricted to Hunter’s Mark. Not fun, especially with all the bs with subclass features requiring your bonus action to use but your ranger class features also require your bonus action to use. That’s just frustrating to play, and bad game design

[@user-ni7ji3fb8m]

@@joshlewis8860 you are not giving up anything. Those features are ribbons- look at the 2014 paladin and ranger- they got nothing at level 13 and 17, those are the levels you got your 4th and 5th level spells. Rest is free bonus. Your class features are weapon masteries, fighting style and second attack from "martial-half" and half-casting with one of the best battlefield control spells in the game from druid-half. You don't "choosing" any of those, you got it all the time. At level 1-4 to have 2 extra first level spell to play with and move on with spell progression letter on. It is that simple. Ranger is one of the strongest classes in the game.

[@Varizen87]

I think what's most irritating, going along with things said about enforced deadlines and staff cuts, is that when this all started, they said they would take as long as needed and do as many UAs as needed to play test classes to perfection. Then after 8, they just said Welp, that's the last one. No one is happy with Ranger, but people still play it despite dissatisfaction. We're just gonna move ahead. It was half finished back then. Honestly, after BG3, I think a lot of fixes were right there. Like the option to get Find Familiar for someone who wanted a pet like in 3.5e without having to be a Beast Master. People don't just want a battle pet, sometimes they want the flavor of a pet that is with them without needing the hassle that comes with options attached to other spells. They're too scared to let Hunter's Mark be concentration free while adding damage per hit. In UA they tried to take the damage per hit away from Hunter's Mark and Hex. In some ways, I think it bring things in line with nerfs to Paladin's Smite, but Ranger needs something different. With how Hunter's Mark is treated, it shouldn't be a spell at all, just a feature. *edit* I'd also like to add that the Hunter's Mark upgrades come FAR too late to be fun or meaningful in most games. The first upgrade being at 13 is laughable.

[@graysaltine6035]

You do realise how potentially having +1d6 on every shot/swing from level 1 is extremely strong, right? That's just double damage for a shortbow or shortsword. There's so few lvl1 concentration spells and fewer worth casting, and even at base spell level it lasts long enough that you can get multiple encounters in without a recast. It is objectively a _very_ strong spell, especially in meaty single-target encounters. If it's not going to require concentration then _all_ the other effects should just be separated from the damage and it becomes purely an enabling condition that does not deal damage ( a la Bladesong). Perhaps they could create a new spell that has just the old damage effect and concentration requirement but does not interact with other abilities in any way. I do think it's funny that Ranger's core feature is more attractive to other classes as a dip than it is to most of Ranger's own subclasses.

[@Varizen87]

@@graysaltine6035 I absolutely realize how strong it is… but that’s +2d6 a round compared to an upcast smite. And there’s still room for missing. I personally like Ranger. But the criticisms levied are just as valid. The upgrades should all happen 1 upgrade round sooner. As per your point… a Fighter would get the most out of Hunter’s Mark. Ranger seems to be headed in a direction of stacking damage from spells and effects. But it’s like Will says…. You can’t Haste and Hunter’s Mark at the same time. You’re stuck with depending on it without being able to cast Swift Quiver (+2 attacks from your bonus action, 5th lvl slot), summoning spells (unless you are a Fey Wanderer), Ashardalon’s Stride, Lightning Arrow, or or spike growth,or Zephyr Strike.

[@MrRedx55]

Like it’s insane, a level 13 wizards can cast a green ray from there finger that does 50-100 damage, a cleric can ask, and will have there god intervene on there behalf, paladins are practically gods, but a ranger at 13, you don’t have to concentrate to make your damage do an extra d6 worth of damage, like seriously you should be Legolas slaying an elephant levels at 13 instead you do 2 more damage then an unarmed strike

[@2MeterLP]

@@graysaltine6035 Its not double damage. A longbow is going to do 1d8+3 for an average early game ranger, so average 7 damage. Hunters Mark adds average 3 damage, so a 42% increase, even less once you get more than 16 dex and start getting magic bows.

[@graysaltine6035]

@@2MeterLP Feels like you're deliberately misinterpreting what I said - obviously it's not literally doubling the damage of your hit that would be stupid, but a d6 rider on every hit for nothing but a bonus action and a conc slot you weren't using is objectively good, and getting it for a one-level dip is even better. Unless you're starting a campaign at level10+ or your DM hands out magical starter gear like candy, it's hard to get that much impactful damage on every hit at low level without Feats that drastically lower your attack (which are also good but they "need" advantage to be reliable and they stack with HM so why not both) and are also stopping you from hitting 18 in your primary stat by picking them (dipping just delays your increase, Feats replace it forever :p). Besides, you make it sound like more damage stops being good at some point...? Again this is value on every attack, it's not really made worse by having a magic bow. If you found a Longbow in your campaign at level5 that did 1-8 + 1d6 pierce +1d4 fire instead of just base + fire, you'd think that was a pretty fucking sweet bow. So many riders are either conditional or once-per-turn whereas HM just gains value with more attacks. Also I get damage averages are a thing, especially when talking about a rider for every hit in the encounter, but a d6 isn't exactly the same as +3.5 - we run lethal criticals at our table (crits always roll max damage - goes both ways) so there's some better value there when it's always a 6. Really feels like people are shitting on Hunter's Mark because they are salty about Ranger. HM is good, it's not HM's fault that the Ranger milestones and capstone suck dick. There is no good way to remove concentration without nerfing the damage and ruining the ability, so just don't make it so inexorably tied to Ranger's gameplay - problem solved.

[@azrik6084]

The focus on hunter's mark really should have been a subclass thing.

[@IHateNumbersOnNames]

hell, it seems they mixed the HUNTER with the RANGER. It's not RANGER'S mark, some rangers dont want it. Or, at least, dont want to want it.

[@teknogothyk]

Agreed. It would have been great with the Hunter subclass.

[@mordisgaminggedons5119]

It should just have been a ability like Hexblade curse. No Concentration, no Bonus Action, just upgradable Dueling enhancement for a class would be good (Also suddenly a Hexblade Ranger multiclass would be great. Super Hunters mark+hex+Curse=insane Single target damage)

[@xInsane333x]

I had suggested in my feedback that if they were going to focus on Hunter's Mark every subclass should do something to modify/improve it. The more I think about new Ranger, even though it's not as bad overall as the current online discourse makes it out to be, the more annoyed I am by the design quirks and inconsistencies compared to other classes... It really feels bad even if it's still probably my favorite 5e class.

[@eliascabbio7598]

They had all the time they wanted to make it better, but they just sticked with Tasha's version + the most iconic spell for Rangers and thought it would have been an easy win. Too bad.

[@yesyes3839]

SW5e handled the Scout, their version of DnD's ranger, in a good way that the new ranger could benefit from. At first level, they get access to a feature called "Hunter's quarry", which is basically a concentrationless Hunter's mark that starts at a d4 and damage, duration, and casting time scales with levels in the class, along with rider effects determined by your subclass. For someone wanting to "fix" the new ranger, I'd recommend homebrewing something similar as a replacement feature for their Hunter's mark, but tweak it to be per hit instead of once per turn as current Hunter's mark does.

[@m.otoole7501]

This is exactly my homebrew solution!

[@PrincessSkullcrusher]

@@m.otoole7501 mine too. i've focused in on the flavour of "fuck that one guy in particular". it applies on your first hit, and following attacks deal a d4, scales to 2d4 at level 9 and 3d4 at level 17. the duration also increases (up to infinite at level 17), you get a bonus action teleport step, and the level 20 feature lets you cast teleport or plane shift targeting your mark. i give rangers a bonus action hide at level 3 to match rogue and monk getting stuff too, and this upgrades into nature's veil. along with giving rangers and paladins a 3rd attack at level 13, which i think is fair with the smite nerf.

[@BlueTextingStories]

As you mentioned, the over focus in Hunter's Mark is the problem. It should have more uses through rests

[@samuelniesen8929]

Hunter's mark also needs to be better than any of the 2nd level or higher spells, too; at least with the upgrades.

[@deezboyeed6764]

The over focus then making it absolutly fucking useful

[@gyorgyor7765]

You do get more free hunters marks as you level up, 6 I think.

[@sharmelfattakhov5041]

This “focus” isn’t really relevant until lvl 14, so I wouldn’t even care about it that much. But alas, I’m not sure why would I want to progress ranger past lvl 9 at most.

[@HarryFernandes15]

If it dropped concentration at like level 7. And at level 20 instead of 1d10 u gave vulnnerability to like one dmg type on hunters marked target . I feel everyone be happy

[@jakethejax]

Few ideas I've had to help new ranger out: Allow them to apply hunters mark as part of an attack action, I'd probably give this to them when they get their second attack, this will give them the option to open up their bonus action but doesn't autoapply it so against enemies with high ac it might be he better to cast it normally. Let them concentrate on one additional ranger spell in addition to hunter's mark, I'd probably give them this somewhere between levels 9 and 12, at the latest level 13 when they get the ability that lets them not drop hunters mark concentration for taking damage. And lastly building off of their level 13 ability mentioned above, allow hunters mark concentration to only break if the ranger pc dies, I'd probably give this between levels 16 and 18.

[@eliascabbio7598]

My solution: move Hunter's Mark as part of an attack at level 5, no concentration for HM at level 13th (substitutes the actual feature). Easy peasy

[@GlacialScion]

This is just centering even more of the Ranger's features around a 1st level spell, no?

[@jakethejax]

​@@GlacialScion My idea was more that the class is already hugely designed around HM in such a way that it detracts from the Ranger's other spells and abilities. By opening up their bonus action and allowing them to duel concentrate that helps give them more opportunities to use other spells and abilities. And then making HM stay up until they die helps ensure that the ranger doesn't lose out on all the bonuses that are now stacked onto HM and that they won't have to recast it if they're knocked down, which really isn't that crazy but feels like a better capstone then a d10 instead of a d6. My goal with these changes is that they can easily slot into the existing ranger design without having to completely redesign the class. For better or worse the designers decided to build the entire ranger and it's subclasses around HM, so instead of fighting against HM I wanted to instead focus on making HM more flexible to use and thusly make Rangers more flexible to build.

[@jakethejax]

​@@eliascabbio7598I like your level 5 ability, but I think it's important to keep language about HM contraction specific but not remove it entirely.

[@captainnyan-nyan2005]

Or maybe give them another attack? Rather than the typical 2. Make it 3.

[@colmortimer1066]

The worst thing about a 5e Ranger was the reliance on Hunters Mark to make the class good, so the fix is not to add feats, skills or mechanics that do not waste spell slots, on a spell that every ranger must use...the "fix" was to make that spell every ranger had to take even more needed.

[@clarkside4493]

Most of the Paladin's Smite spells lost concentration, and given that the Paladin gets spells at level 1 (like the new Ranger), I would say many Ranger spells will also lose concentration. So that's at least ONE thing to look forward to. Whether it's enough to mitigate _Hunter's Mark_ concentration? We'll have to see, but probably not.

[@Reapor234]

While I also think they're going to remove concentration from the ranger "Smite" spells like they did with paladin smite spells, I also don't think there's really enough of them. You've got... - Ensnaring Strike. - Lightning Arrow. - Hail of Thorns. - Maybe Zephyr Strike and/ or Ashardalon's Stride if you squint real hard. - Not counting the Smite spells they get since they're not really "ranger smites." I doubt they'll remove concentration from Stride or Zephyr Strike for balance reasons, so even if you were to count them that leaves only 3 spells that function like Smite spells. Even if all of the spells had concentration removed, I don't think that'll be enough to make a difference.

[@clarkside4493]

@Reapor234 you're probably right, but they keep saying they're adding new spells so we can hope that includes the Ranger.

[@DramakilzU]

Here’s my fix to the Hunters Mark problem while preventing multiclass abuse: -Change HM so that it deals an extra 1d6 per turn, not per attack. -Have ranger not require concentration on HM at 6th level, yet the effect ends if you are incapacitated. -Increase HM damage to 1d8 when ranger reaches 13th level, and then 1d10 when ranger reaches 20th level. -Give HM an additional effect at 20th level, such as making a creature targeted by HM have disadvantage on saving throws against your spells/weapon masteries.

[@1wasavi]

I disagree with the 1d10 at level 20th, it should be entirely trashed and be something else entirely.

[@Real-Shadow]

Either make it something you can just do without a bonus action, or make it non concentration, and I think ranger is solid

[@snoochieboochies2011]

Or make it able to be upcast. Or give rangers more spells that are not concentration.

[@Shalakor]

@@snoochieboochies2011 I think they've reverted to the 2014 version of Hunter's Mark, so the multiple free castings almost work better than upcasting with how they've done it, since any time you want to cast another concentration spell, you can the put Hunter's Mark up again afterwards with another free casting. But needing to juggle it like that is still dumb and feels bad. Honestly, the worst part is that they put effort towards not having the base class and subclass features of Paladin overlap in action economy too much, but did nothing to alleviate that with Ranger. They only made it worse, in fact. Nearly EVERY main and subclass Ranger feature uses a bonus action. For an example, think about it, if the whole point of Beast Master is attacking in tandem with your Companion, why can't its attacks be part of your Attack action? Are they really that afraid of repeating any bit of balance that existed in 4th Edition? Summoning spells needing a bonus action to command make sense, but your Companion is basically meant to be an extension of yourself, and should function a bit more like the Echo Knight in concept (without all the teleporty stuff, since that's another subclass's shtick). Though, even beyond that, Hunter's Mark shouldn't be taking a bonus action every time you switch targets in the first place. That's basically just a punishment for killing enemies efficiently, and makes combats with a lot of targets that little bit much more of a potential slog to get through. .

[@katlicks]

A ranger is a fighter, rogue, and druid all mixed together, it's like 35% of each, making 105% of a class. You get the spell casting of druid, the skill utility and expertise of a rogue, and the fighting and combat utility of a fighter, each will outplay you in their respective niche, but you're a good B+ to either assist or fill in where there's any missing, which makes it so attractive because it's basically never caught on the wrong foot. However, you give up your spellcasting with the over reliance on Hunter's mark, relying on concentrating means you can't use leveled spells as needed, unless you want to give up what Hunter's mark is empowering with your class, so all the great utility in level 1/2 ends up being "Turn off most of your ranger features while providing appropriate utility, or forego utility to maintain your ranger features" 90% of the problem is that Hunter's Mark requires concentration, if it was a set it and forget it, it's great, you're not doing the explosive damage of a rogue, you're not doing the blitz of a fighter, and you're not dipping your toes in the high level spells of the druid, but you're taking parts and pieces of each to make a uniquely useful class, and Hunter's Mark helps add a unique flavor to Ranger and give it it's own utility. A ranger's identity should be "Self reliant and guiding", you should be able to do everything, even if not the best, you've got a tool for the job or an idea of how to make it work. You're suppose to be worldly, with languages and an understanding of your terrain. People will compare parts of Ranger with the strongest specialized alternative, but, that's not entirely appropriate. They're your Jack of All, better than Master of One. They're suppose to lend a fairly good hand in combat, in traveling, in dungeoneering, and possibly even in social settings (Fey Wanderer in particular fills this niche). The revision doesn't play to it's strengths or expand on it's identity, and instead rebalances it too much and pigeonholes what it should be doing, which is the opposite of what a Ranger ought to be.

[@katlicks]

Suggestions: Hunter's Mark doesn't require concentration when cast for free as a Ranger, but you can only have one at a time. Make Favored Terrain more appealing. Free Hunter's Marks in your terrain, advantage (On top of the doubled proficiency) to Intelligence and Wisdom checks related to your terrain, most beasts in the terrain are neutral if not friendly (Unless provoked or they have a reason to be hostile, IE, frightened, injured by other humanoids) Don't make a ranger choose between Natural Explorer and Deft Explorer, give both, since Natural Explorer is much more situational. Favored Enemy should grant free uses of Hunter's Marks, something like Danger Sense, if you can see the enemy and you're aware of it, and it tries something, you get an advantage on the save so long as it's your favored enemy and you're marking it. Overall it should feel like you're an all around good character, with specialized targets and terrain you can really shine uniquely as a Ranger with.

[@eliascabbio7598]

This class has been completely destroyed and flattened out, its spirit completely shut and stepped on. They removed alle the unique skills, making it some sort of mosaic of skills, similar to others but never original, and its usefullness and expertise completely forgotten and restrained by these strange compelling rules. This class deserved better.

[@HunterTracks]

​@@katlicksI think that the way Favoured Terrain works in BG3 works well as a fix: just scrap the entire idea of you getting bonuses while in your terrain entirely, and instead give permanent bonuses that would be appropriate for the terrain in question. Your favoured terrain is forest? That probably means you're good at hunting and gathering, have a permanent advantage to Survival and Perception checks. Your favoured terrain is desert? You must be used to the heat, have fire resistance. Mountains? You're very fit and great at climbing and movement in general, have +5ft to movement and advantage on Athletics. Alternatively, the fixes from Tasha's (one expertise of your choice, faster movement and better stamina) should be fine, just label them as one feature they were always supposed to be and add more features in other parts of the kit to make up for this removal.

[@katlicks]

@@HunterTracks I haven't played BG3 but that sounds like a great and unique system to at the very least start to work with

[@Rushbolt43]

The problem with the Ranger is that the base class should have it's stronger abilities in the base and then have a subclass focused on terrains, skills, etc. so people can select it if they want that. Instead, we force people into weaker abilities then hope they make up for it in the subclass choices. It's totally backwards.

[@sirhanser3523]

They already stated you can use your 2014 characters in a campaign that uses the 2024 rules. However, if a name of an ability or spell exists in both versions, you must use the 2024 version. It keeps the players from cherry picking from both versions. This is the only reason I can think of them naming the conjuring spells as the same name of the old ones. If they named the spell something else, then you would have some players still try to use the old spell. But I agree, it doesn't have the same mechanics. Nice job on covering this. I appreciate your hard work.

[@shadowmancer99]

Ya, I am tossing that idiotic concept. I will likely use the 2024 chassis, but I am definitely giving my players the option to use older features where the new one was nerfed. So Paladins will get to have regular smite, same with Wild shape, Conjure, shape changing spells....these nerfs are dumb, and now I will be making a new Ranger specific Hunters Mark spell that will : 1. Eliminate concentration. 2. Scale damage, +1d6 at levels 5, 9, 13 and 17 3. At higher level, you cast it and can apply the target effect to more than one enemy OR the bonus to more than one ally. That makes this CORE feature of the Ranger actually useful.

[@shadow-faye]

​@@shadowmancer99The conjure nerf is NOT dumb

[@shadowmancer99]

@@shadow-faye Totally disagree. So in the interest of NOT getting this to be a flame war, I will leave it at that. If you prefer it, fine, but its not necessary and was better the way it was....they wanted to give spirit guardians they should have just done that...still dumb, but more honest.

[@kongoaurius]

​@@shadow-faye I loved the new conjure spells, the new summon options are way easier to use and not overpowered like conjure animals used to be

[@sirhanser3523]

@@shadowmancer99 I was thinking something similar to your ideas with the Ranger as well. I think all of your ideas for the classes are good. Really all it comes down to is if the players and the DM are on the same page. Thanks for sharing your suggestions.

[@bobathan280]

The push to publish this year is a side to this I didn't recognize till you pointed it out and yeah it does seem that with the 50th anniversary but also the layoffs it has been a tough time. And ultimately in my opinion the new Ranger isn't suddenly unusable or terrible but the friction is noticeable after being pointed out. Awesome video!

[@andrewparsons2391]

to repeat myself from the official reveal video 'Gratz on finally making a Ranger as powerful as the other 2014 classes!- oh, wait..'

[@Milo__M]

It's really strange WotC decided to basically just grab the Tasha's Ranger, nerf it slightly (except on Roving), and then shove it into the new 2024 Class framework. They basically reverted the vast majority of changes they tried to experiment with during playtests. Roving not working on heavy armor while Ranger doesn't even have an option to pick up that proficiency is also strange, as it's to discourage multiclassing or picking up the proficiency with a feat? Although unpopular already, STR based Rangers got it even worse now because a lot of uses are now based on Wisdom, making you even more multi-attribute dependent than going with a regular DEX Ranger. A lot of the power of Ranger is in the subclasses so I still have my fingers crossed for when we get to read those in depth. In a homebrew rule me and a friend use, we had a similar kind of function as the new Rogue's Cunning Strikes where you can dispel a Hunter's Mark to trigger an effect on the enemy (think things like Blind, Slow down, Disadvantage). Which means you can get the damage out of hunter's mark like usual but can choose to drop the spell at the end of your turn to hinder your quarry. Would've been a nice thing they could've tried to explore for Ranger or anything else really, but alas. Seems like Ranger is still gonna need a bunch of homebrewing from DMs just to get competitive with other classes... again.

[@kaynanbirro7277]

I agree with the general analysis that concentration is what is killing the ranger here, but just saying "no concentration lol" leads to multiclassing problems as we've seen in playtesting. The way to fix this would be to incorporate the "no concentration lol" part into one of the higher level features (since higher level is when ranger got gimped in this version). Could also be fun to add "once per turn, HM can be apllied as part of your attack action, and takes effect before damage is apllied" solving the bonus action conundrum as well.

[@humperdinkthewarlock3049]

Great analysis Sir Shorts! I think they might have mis-worded the Ambusher's Leap component of the Dread Ambusher feature. It says "at the start of the first turn of each combat, your Speed increases by 10 feet until the end of that turn". In D&D 5e a 'round' of combat is made up of multiple turns (every player and monster has a turn, see the legendary actions section of a statblock). So, unless the gloomstalker is top of initiative, it is unlikely to get to use the bonus speed. The first turn of combat belongs to the creature with the highest initiative. The first round of combat covers every creatures' first turn. Also on that snip (5:40) : "Level: 3th" . Proofing needed!

[@SkywardSpork]

If you want to see a super cool Ranger adaptation, I recommend checking out UESTTRPG Ranger. It's now a martial class, they give the class primal mark (basically hunters mark) for free, non concentration & only works on the first attack in a turn, you still have access to hunters mark. The damage scales with levels & the subclasses can add more variety for how it works, like it being able to be applied to two enemies instead of one. There's so much to it, super fun adaptation.

[@h-manandfriends9653]

why not just remove the concentration of hunter's mark at higher levels instead of not breaking concentration? with so much investment it wouldn't be that strong for multiclasses

[@almisami]

That's absolutely how I'm going to rule it at my table. F that noise.

[@MaMastoast]

Still an issue with bonus action economy, especially for the beastmaster. It should be an entirely different thing from hunter's mark, something that could be applied freely and didn't take up concentration

[@tuxxle8830]

I like the Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything version of the Ranger, where you get an extra hunters mark as a class feature, I just wish it didn’t require concentration so you can stack it up with other fun spells.

[@pheonixforce6442]

Idk what drugs the dev who was in charge of the ranger was doing but it must be some pretty hardcore stuff to make a bad first lvl spell one of the main abilities and base ranger features around it

[@iampineappleonpizza]

It wouldve been ok if they just removed concentration at later levels

[@M9Seradon]

​@@iampineappleonpizzaeven then, all the features that upgrade HM are either too late and/or don't add enough. You have to been sniffing some of that old lead paint to forget letting melee Rangers not get some way to maintain their HM until level 13, the advantage at 17 can be irrelevant depending on your build, and the capstone is self-explanatory. It really feels like the changes were last minute additions after the December job cuts

[@astercat49]

Hunter’s Mark is not even a remotely bad spell, but it is very stupid to base the entire class around it. If they had made it so you gain additional effects when you hit a marked creature, like the Warlock does with Eldritch Blast, that would be a little better. But basing ANY class off of a single spell is just bad design.

[@dodhethompson4841]

​@@astercat49It's kind of a bad trap after level 5, most 2nd level spells are way better to concentrate on

[@CivilWarMan]

Funny thing is, they did make another subclass in the game that's heavily incentivized to concentrate on a bonus action 1st level damage spell even into much higher levels, but for that one it's way more interesting and satisfying to use. The redesign of Great Old One Warlock gets a lot of incentives to concentrate on Hex. From level 3, they can cast Enchantment or Illusion spells (including Hex) without verbal or somatic components, so they can Hex targets before the target realizes what's happening, and they can change the damage type of their spells to Psychic, meaning they can get around Necrotic-resistant enemies. Then at level 10, their Hex also debuffs the saving throws for the chosen ability, meaning they can debuff an enemy then follow up with a devastating save-or-suck spell, or they can set up their party members to start hammering that ability score with their own spells and abilities. I imagine Monks in particular would love being in a party with a Great Old One Warlock debuffing the BBEG's Constitution. Then at 14, they can cast Summon Aberration and reduce the duration in exchange for not requiring concentration for it, so they can have both the Aberration and Hex up at the same time, and the Aberration deals extra damage to the Hex target. If they want Hunter's Mark to be a core part of Ranger throughout the game, they need to take a page from the playbook of whoever designed the new Great Old One and start introducing the buffs much earlier and make the buffs that come online at higher level much more powerful.

[@jamesbartlett4477]

Please talk about the paladin next. Ty always love your stuff. Really well thought out and interesting.

[@ethsy77]

Beast master bonus action problem could have been easily fixed by giving you the option for your beast to attack the creature you marked that turned as part of that bonus action. Would have been pretty cool thematically as going "hey boi sick em" ya know. Also oh god the gloomstalker change feels like they're just stripping any identity from the subclasses. Gloomstalker was one of the only ones that wasn't just you get an extra dice of damage once per turn.

[@williamgordon5443]

In UA 6, there's a line that says "You can also sacrifice one of your attacks when you take the Attack action to command the beast to take the Attack action." You can still use your bonus action to issue the attack command and you have to use your bons action if you want the companion to do anything else (except for Dodge, which it will to if you give it no commands). If this made it into the final version, then it will help with the bonus action issue.

[@ethsy77]

Did not know that but it has the issue of the beastmaster where you feel more like a pokemon trainer rather than a man with his beast fighting side by side.

[@barban534]

@@williamgordon5443 That just playing sub-optimally for better RP, unless your beast has it multi attack feature your attack with hunter mark is gonna do way more damage and is way more likely to hit.

[@thygamerguy]

Thank you for all the updates 🔱

[@LostWhits]

Loved your sponsor spot. The fact you corrected the Australia/New Zealand mistake was hilarious.

[@brandoncurtis1636]

I’m so gutted by this demotion to the Ranger. I can’t wrap my head around why they decided to nerf from the way it was after Tasha’s. Like it’s actually worse. Did nobody compare the Ranger to ANY of the other classes at each level?!

[@cookie8162]

It's really not, and the complaints are over blown

[@turtley8581]

@@cookie8162 it really is. almost all of ranger's biggest strong points and utilities have been nerfed by other factors in the playtest. surprise being massively nerfed, conjure spells being entirely reworked, subclassing at 3 significant nerfs lifeberries, gloomstalker got big nerfs, etc although everything they changed in that list was very unhealthy for the game, that doesn't change the fact that ranger is weaker, and all it got in compensation were VERY late, mediocre buffs to a first level concentration spell. multiple of the 2014 features were also nerfed or straight up removed, and the emphasis on wisdom modifier instead of proficiency on things makes the class a bit more MAD as well

[@brandoncurtis1636]

@@cookie8162 20th level feature is garbage; I don’t think I need to argue that one. The 14th lvl ability to become invisible until the end of your next turn as a bonus action used to be Nature’s Veil. It was 10th lvl (4 levels earlier if you’re not following), and it was invisibility until the start of your next turn. However the number of times you could use it was tied to your proficiency bonus, not your WIS. At 10th lvl that gives you 4 uses of it. Even at lvl 14 I’d be surprised if a Ranger had more than +2 to their WIS. The feature where they get temp HP as an action used to be 1d8 + WIS a number of times = to your proficiency. Same problem as the invisibility feature. Your PB is probably gonna be higher than your WIS, unless you make your Ranger worse on purpose. If you don’t see that the 13th lvl feature to not make concentration checks due to damage on Hunter’s Mark ONLY isn’t a joke then I can’t help you. It doesn’t stop you from losing concentration from being paralyzed/ incapacitated, and those things can be pretty common around that level; happened to my character at a game last night. 17th level of gaining advantage on the target that’s marked is okay, but it comes online too late. Oh and don’t forget, some of the subclass features are tied to Hunter’s Mark as well, so you’re basically ALWAYS punished for not using it. Don’t forget Tasha’s also had Favoured Foe, which was a d4 extra damage on one attack per round (d6 then d8 at higher levels), could be applied on a hit at no extra cost, and could be done a number of times per long rest = to your PB. The only thing that sucks about it is it can’t be transferred as a bonus action. Why couldn’t they just have made this Hunter’s Mark and non-concentration? The only things that are an actual improvement when compared to the Tasha’s Ranger are getting a movement speed increase at lvl 6 of +10 instead of +5, and gaining 3 expertise skills instead of 1. Also the spellcasting being more flexible in that they allow you to prepare 1 different spell on a rest. Now explain to me how this isn’t markedly WORSE than the Tasha’s Ranger.

[@gloryrod86]

It's better than tashas in every way... like nothing is worse.

[@brandoncurtis1636]

@@gloryrod86 nah dawg go re-read the optional Tasha’s features; you’re straight up wrong 😂 I listed most of the differences pretty neatly above for your convenience 😂

[@Lex-we3ly]

Hunter's Mark should be a feature with a limited amount of uses instead of a spell and shouldn't require concentration. Instead, it stays for an hour or until the creature you marked is dead. This change removes the ability to change targets in one use of the spell, but it makes it not require concentration. That way, you can give yourself buffs via concentration spells on top of marking an enemy. Maybe you could buff this featue making it so that if the creature tried to escape, you have advantage on tracking it.

[@GKplus8]

Agreed. especially since something similar already exists with the vengange paladin's mark of enmity.

[@jaspermooren5883]

Yeah that would have been way better. I've never been a fan of the Ranger anyway, it's just conceptually too much, which is why it's bad at everything. It tries to be a fighter a rogue and a druid at the same time, and it kinda has to miss all 3 or be practically broken. It can't be as good a fighter as the fighter, or it's just plain OP, it can't be as good of a rogue or druid for the same reason either. But so heavily relying on a spell that requires concentration does very heavily hinder the entire class. Not just mechanically, but also conceptually. With the 2014 paladin they chose to go the broken way, and make it an effective fighter while having tons of cleric abilities as well (particularly since most people have way less fights that matter per long rest than the game design anticipated), with the ranger they at least didn't do that. But honestly I've always felt the ranger should just be a rogue subclass rather than class. And I much prefer the rogue scout over any ranger for that reason alone. If I want to play a ranger conceptually I'd honestly just play a rogue scout with some druid levels.

[@KevinVideo]

They should have stuck with Favored Foe from Tasha's. It was less damage and only lasted 1 minute. All it needed was to have concentration removed and say it doesn't stack with hunter's mark, but will overlap with it. It could have the always advantage at 17th level quite easily.

[@Lex-we3ly]

@jaspermooren5883 I'm not gonna lie with you. I was going to make my ranger in a campaign a Ranger Beast Master/ Rogue Scout to make it strong and more flavourful.

[@TrixyTrixter]

agree, the feature can even just add one of those "You may expend a spellslot to use this feature if you have no uses" line.

[@alanmaxwell9105]

Thanks for the video man, I appreciate the breakdown and that you recognized we don’t have the full book yet. It is possible that they changed the final hunters mark spell to something like Bestow Curse, “if you use a spell slot of 5th level or higher, the duration is 8 hours” to remove concentration. But maybe they make that 3rd level instead of 5th. I get that if the spell didn’t require concentration then everybody would grab it with the fey touched feat and go nuts, perhaps they built a way around that in the spell itself. We won’t know until we know, but you’re right that it’s kinda hard to judge without the book.

[@cronykil74]

The simple fix is to add a new ability allowing a Ranger from level 5 onwards to change the target of their Hunters Mark as part of the attack action. They can do this only once a turn. Sure, you'd still need to concentrate on it, but it would no longer require a bonus action mowt of the time.

[@bobarkansas9251]

I think that the Ranger is just undefined. If it had a niche, I think it would be fine. I think having it be a beast master and making the base subclass would fix a lot of what’s wrong with the Ranger.

[@vortigern7021]

I like the ranger but building so many features (subclass too) around hunters mark just feel like you are being punished if you want to concentrate on other spells, which the ranger has some really good ones.

[@almisami]

Maybe they'll do like a paladin and make some of the shot spells non-concentration, but I'm not holding my breath...

[@Shalakor]

Like, I don't mind the Hunter subclass focusing on Hunter's Mark, since it's kinda right there in the name and theming, but it's pretty dumb to make it the new Eldritch Blast in concept for the whole class, except only scaling at extremely high levels and not as -well- goodly.

[@ZedemMonk]

Off the top of my dome HB: Hunter's Mark is now an ability you get at level 2 not a spell. It is automatically applied to the target of your first successful attack that round if it isn't already active and assuming you don't one shot the target. It requires no concentration or bonus action, but you can still apply it to a different target using a bonus action. On application and the first successful attack of every subsequent round it would deal 1d4 force damage rising to 1d6 at level 6, 1d8 at level 10, 1d10 at level 14 and 1d12 at level 18. Then I would make the level 17 advantage come on at level 13. At level 17 I'd give hunters a second extra attack. Level 20 Hunter's mark is applied to all targets in a 15 foot cone between the ranger their primary target that and the force damage activated for all of them together no matter which target is hit.

[@barcster2003]

Unless it changed massively that is not what it said.

[@TheSqoad]

Lemme try a new Hunter's Mark. Hunter's Mark: No longer a concentration spell, but breaks if the Ranger loses sight of the target for 10 minutes. You deal bonus damage to target on ANY attack with an attack roll (not just weapon attacks). Lv13, Hunter's Mark now also benefit your allies attacking the target. Lv17, you and your allies have adv. on attacks against the target. Lv20, the developers write you a personalised apology letter for having done a bad job with the Ranger. Also Hunter's Mark's bonus damage is based on your Ranger level, increased each 5th level (i.e. Lv1 = d6, Lv6 = d8, Lv11 = d10, lv16 = d12). There, Hunter's Mark is now a really cool spell. Try it out and see if it's makes the Ranger cooler. Go and be the Legolas you always dreamed of being. Full disclosure: I have never played Ranger, and I've never had a Ranger in my party.

[@Perukids123]

I feel like lowering the time limit doesn’t work here, seeing as higher level spell slots increase the time limit. Also a part of the spell is to allow advantage on tracking.

[@clarkkent163000]

My group uses LaserLlama's Alternate Ranger. It's fantastic and way better than base 5e or the new ranger.

[@KevinVideo]

Nice. My group uses Dungeon Coach's alternate ranger. and it's been such a blast.

[@malcolmb2019]

Something a lot of people are ignoring is that the Beast Master in ua and probably in the release will be able to use one of its attacks to command their beast; if you have to use your bonus action for something else on a turn, you won’t have a traffic issue with getting your beast to attack

[@kenpachi78]

Till lvl 5 ranger has only ONE attack

[@williamgordon5443]

Let's just hope that this change actually made it into the final version.

[@booklover4078]

I am sure the beastmaster will be happy about that when they reach lvl 5 until then if you want to cast HM on turn 1 you will then have the issue should you act and use the HM you just casted or do you want to use the pet you got your subclass for

[@malcolmb2019]

@@booklover4078 as a ranged beast master this will suck a fair bit but you could play a Nick weapon mastery beast master and sacrifice your Nick property attack instead; it said an attack it didn’t say you couldn’t use the additional attack granted by Nick. If you look at the class holistically… a lot of the defaults make two weapon fighting really good for the class; it seems like the ranger is being sort of pigeonholed into being the quintessential dual wielder (a la Drizzt)

[@booklover4078]

@malcolmb2019 having just looked over the UA version of nick and the light property I really don't think so

[@josiahtaylor2246]

2014 Ranger had several features that were rich in flavor, but mechanically weak. 2024 Ranger is technically buffed, but only slightly, and they did it by removing all the flavor. Removing flavor might be excusable if the buffs were much bigger, but the better solution would have been to adjust the mechanical benefits of the existing flavorful features.

[@daithi1966]

Two of my favorite dips were the Gloomstalker and the Assassin, but the 2024 PH has castrated both of them.

[@Feanor6450]

I just had an idea, they should add a feature to ranger where you add your wisdom modifier to every attack and damage roll, and you choose whether this is to strength or dex when you get this feature.

[@eliascabbio7598]

@@Feanor6450 that was level 20 foe slayer, your add wis to atk or dmg, your choice

[@Feanor6450]

@@eliascabbio7598 nah I'm saying add it to both, from level 14 as a core ranger feature. That alone would make it good.

[@eliascabbio7598]

@@Feanor6450 you're right, maybe just at level 13 to substitute the actual class feature, which is super meh. We could also implement it into the spell upcasting mechanism, but it could be accessed by other classes easily, considering HM being a 1st level spell

[@Feanor6450]

@@eliascabbio7598 make it only for ranger spells then, that should prevent multiclassing shenanigans.

[@eliascabbio7598]

@@Feanor6450 sure, still I think that wis to attacks and damage is the only cool thing I've seen for Level 20, so I wouldn't waste it on lower levels. Concentration on Hunter's Mark is the most painful thing right now, so just make it not require concentration (allowing in this way to cast stuff on top of it) at level 13 would be enough to fix it, maybe even at level 9. Rangers have a very flat damage curve after level 5, so I think big damage boost shouldn't come too early, and not too late.

[@johnevans5782]

It seems to me that the new philosophy is NO REAL ANIMALS for players. Beastmasters get 'Casper the friendly forest spirit', which might be great for power gamers who could not care less about actually having a companion; but it sucks for anyone who actually wants one.

[@Lex-we3ly]

That is why when i tried to play beast master I was annoyed because the player handbook one was trash and weak, while the tasha one was too magical and flavorless. I tried hard to find a balance between them without making it too powerful or too weak.

[@pixels_per_minute]

I know very little about Beast Masters, but just off the name, I would presume most of their strength lies within their animal companions. Not letting the "Beast Master" have beasts doesn't sound fun at all, and a spirit just isn't as cool imo.

[@phillconklin382]

You can flavor it however you like.

[@anthonyrowlodge5357]

​@@pixels_per_minutenot to mention your beasts cannot have a CR above 1/2, which is stupid. If a player is going the beast master route, the CR should increase to 1 at taking this subclass and increases by 1 like every 3 or 4 levels

[@anthonyrowlodge5357]

​@@pixels_per_minutenot to mention your beasts cannot have a CR above 1/2, which is stupid. If a player is going the beast master route, the CR should increase to 1 at taking this subclass and increases by 1 like every 3 or 4 levels

[@penderrin1637]

It seems with what they've done with Paladin and Ranger, they expect the spellcasting to give them a big buff in power, cause both classes seem underwhelming if they were using 5e spells.

[@barcster2003]

I mean they could have given them amazing spells we have no idea

[@penderrin1637]

@@barcster2003 yeah, they could turn out to be really good, we just don't know yet. Off of what we've been given they don't look great but we just don't have the whole picture yet

[@CivilWarMan]

Funny thing about the expectation that spellcasting will carry them through the nerfs, particularly with Paladin, is that the changes buff multiclassing out of Paladin even more. Sorcadins will be able to drop bigger smites sooner, more frequently, and more reliably than single-class Paladins. Partly because they get those higher level slots faster, so if Limited Magical Immunity is still a thing moving forward then Sorcadins can smite enemies that a single-class Paladin can not. Partly because with Divine Smite becoming a spell Sorcadins can apply Metamagic to them. Particularly Subtle Spell, which will allow the Sorcadin to smite when affected by the Silence spell and protect their critical hit smites from potential Counterspells, while the straight-class Paladin has no way to protect their smites from anti-magic counter-tactics at all. And with the changes to Find Steed, the Sorcadin's steed becomes more powerful much faster for much the same reason. Single-class Paladins don't get high enough spell slots to upcast Find Steed to get a flying mount until level 13. Sorcadins can do it as early as level 9. When the Paladin is finally able to summon a flying steed, the Sorcadin will be able to do it with a spell slot 1-2 levels higher, meaning the Sorcadin's steed has higher AC, more HP, and deals slightly more damage. (a 13th level Paladin can summon a flying steed with 14 AC and 45 HP, while Paladin 5/Sorcerer 8 can summon one with 16 AC and 65 HP)

[@ElectricR0MEO]

Gloomstalker getting frightened works mechanically. They are effectively invisible to creatures who need dark vision to see them, the chance to frighten allows them to get a similar benefit while in daylight or well lit areas.

[@LocalMaple]

I loved 2014-Tasha Ranger. But the 2024 Ranger, when compared to its fellow 2024 classes… I would rather play a Fighter-Warlock multiclass. Without subclasses, Fighter-Warlock with the right Feats replicates everything Ranger gets except the Hunter’s Mark upgrades (replace with Hex stuff) and the ability to remove Exhaustion over a short rest (how often is that relevant?). So unless the Ranger subclass features are better than Fighter and Warlock subclass features _at the same time,_ there is no real reason to play a Ranger. “Just play a Fighter with a bow, it’s much better.” - JoCat Read over 2024 Ranger, then the list of non-concentration Ranger spells, and contrast that with 2024 Paladin. Guess the ratio of Paladin to Ranger players. As Duke of OneShotQuesters noted, they designed Ranger to be for range exploration, an aspect to the game most DMs gloss over to get to the next scene.

[@rinktheredlink9317]

Wotc hates martials. Wotc hates martials. Wotc hates martials.

[@tjbrody]

I’m getting the impression Wotc has a strong opinion about martials.

[@EliSkylander]

I made a fix to the 5e ranger that makes the rangers "Favored Enemy" actually worthwhile: Add your proficiency bonus a second time against your favored enemy on attack rolls. Boom. You have to work hard to miss the enemy you have studied, takes, and obsessed over. This doesn't carry over to other enemies, but it doesn't have to. You can add more enemies as you go.

[@indigova]

I feel like changing either the level 17 or 20 feature to allow you to concentrate on two spells at a time, but only if one of them is hunters mark would help fix it

[@uriahronin4788]

Powerful? Not powerful? But is it FUN. To me no. This class looks like a headache to play. The DC20 Ranger is simple and fun. I'll definitely be sticking with that system over the corporations sad attempt at a ttrpg.

[@voltaalta1307]

Honestly One DnD is having one major problem all across the board with the classes: The classes aren't unique anymore. Obviously this is done for Multiclassing to be more balanced but you can really feel it now. I think the Ranger here is the worst example. It really feels like a lot of the classes are just the extra stats or centred around one ability and not the unique array of abilities which 5e felt like it had.

[@teknogothyk]

Yep. They turned their focus to making nearly every subclass magical, psychic, or linked to the feywild. Takes away the uniqueness of each class imo.

[@Lrbearclaw]

As someone who plays a Dual-Wielding Ranger, I never use Hunter's Mark because of Tasha's Favored Foe and the fact I need my Bonus Action to use my offhand attack.

[@williambradford6575]

Now you won't need to because the Ranger gets Weapon Mastery Nick

[@MaMastoast]

Beast master will have the same problem though

[@arkozhs]

like other people said. Hunter mark should not have concentration. isn't ranger similar to barbarian then? if not rage then barbarian lose half of class feature.

[@Voldrim359]

Yes, but the barbarian doesn't have that many other options, and he can rage and have a lot of useful features, more importantly, he doesn't have to concentrate while in rage, he is too stupid to do that

[@sw4ahl]

Remove concentration from Hunter's Mark and double the damage die.

[@Kevrik]

I like the idea of remove concentration (maybe have it as a mid level thing to remove it since there was feedback it was too strong at early levels in testing) but I like that part overall. Dont agree on the damage though, having an ability that mimics a rare quality item in damage profile for a level 1 spell slot (or less with the few free ones per day) is too strong.

[@cthuluyogsothoth1262]

I hate new DnD already

[@austinfontes3906]

I feel like I've mostly heard people excited about it, but I am not a fan at all

[@El_lamasticot]

@@austinfontes3906just take it as new optional rules for classic 5e

[@ncleasure94]

wizard at level 20: rewrites the fabric of reality and can wipe out whole planes in a workday. ranger at level 20: angry poke

[@mateusminikovski8976]

“They also get weapon mastery like every other martial class” *Cries in monk*

[@notherbert7095]

Why are they even still spell casters

[@skeepodoop5197]

Do you have even the slightest idea how bad they would be if they weren't?

[@jeffreybogard2713]

They pretty much always have been

[@andrewsuurmeyer9717]

Give each subclass unique abilities with a certain number of uses instead of relying on spells and concentration. Or make hunters mark a non-concentration spell. Either or both options would greatly increase ranger playability in game.

[@user-wz1dy1qy7n]

Because they have always been a half/third caster

[@RS-xt3qh]

wow, 5.1 really is so mid, looking forward to the community moving on to dc20/MCDM/daggerheart/PF2e so you can make content around those systems

[@vickieden1973]

As someone from Nu Zilland (New Zealand), I appreciated the sponsorship skit.

[@robbiesrevelations3096]

They were so close to the simplest buff. JUST MAKE HUNTER'S MARK CONCENTRATIONLESS upon receiving your subclass. Or literally just a level 2 feature

[@almisami]

That would make multiclass into hunter too strong. However, having it apply as a reaction when making an attack (like 5.5 paladin smite does after a hit) would free up your bonus action so that beast master isn't gimped.

[@robbiesrevelations3096]

@@almisami not really. Multiclass paladin, fighter would still reign supreme

[@robbiesrevelations3096]

@@almisami spores druid has the exact same thing, just only melee

[@anakaisnight4849]

y'know the name "DnD Shorts" isn't really applicable with all this long form content. you should change your name to "DnD Longs"

[@jaycub8547]

DnD Pants

[@skeepodoop5197]

Bold of you to assume Rangers were bad to begin with.

[@Squiiidd]

They were the worst class in the game until Tasha's lol

[@ShadestheMothman]

@@Squiiiddmonk

[@skeepodoop5197]

@@Squiiidd can you seriously say that the class that got thorn growth, conjure animals, and other druid spells, not to mention GLOOMSTALKER was not good, while the MARTIAL class that can only attack once/turn (rogue) was?

[@skeepodoop5197]

@@ShadestheMothman Monk isn't really that bad if you give them a crossbow/gun.

[@ShadestheMothman]

@@skeepodoop5197 but ranger is still worse?

[@treed6038]

The Beastmaster needs to be able to get multiple beasts. Imagine the movie, he had ferrets who could steal things, an eagle who could scout for him, and a panther who could help in combat. How much cooler would a Beastmaster Ranger be if hr or she could have multiple beasts they could employ based upon the situation at hand. Maybe they can't fight as well as a fighter, or sneak as well as a thief, or cast spells as well as a cleric or wizard, but they can do all these things well and would be a welcome addition to most parties. This would actually help with the usefulness buff granted by the extra expertise. The current one-beast only, and its only purpose is as a combat pet, and it still requires using a bonus action to employ, makes it a VERY anemic class.

[@brokenmeats5928]

I love ALL DnD Shorts videos!

[@keeperoflenneth]

Easy Fix, give the level 20 feature in place of "you cant lose conc. on HM", Brew it so It's no longer concentration, it's just core, and for a capstone -- having to reduce the target to 0 Is already limiting enough in a wider combat and gravy for bosses, then lastly create something like "Wisdom of the Wild" gain expertise in survival (or another skill if you already have it) and +2 maybe +4 to WIS and Max WIS. At least that's what i'm gonna try janking into my Foundry. I'm not putting my players through another decade of inadequacy. Not lookin' for a hill to die on, but wouldn't mind some community feedback too if anybody actually reads this ;)

[@TrixyTrixter]

sounds better, Personally just cutting all the HM garbage (outside of the free casts at level 1-2) out and putting in actual features. Also, HM losses concentration requirement if cast by a ranger of 7th level or higher as part of the spell.

[@ServbotNumba40]

Ranger's Mark applies as a reaction to when you land a hit, or when a marked target falls in combat. 7th level ability that allows rangers mark to be applied without concentration or allows a ranger to concentrate on 2 spells if one is rangers mark.

[@mikecarson7769]

yes, certainly will need a few tweaks, possibly considering: 1) at level 11 (or another level?), concentration-free hunter's mark, proficiency times per day; 2) gloomstalker's fear effect depends on the visions in the target's mind, not on physical sight of the gloomstalker

[@mycatistypingthis5450]

5.5 designers: "Do you remember what bounded accuracy is?" "No, but I do know how to slap expertise and other flat bonusses on things."

[@dagamerboi]

they should make hunter's mark swap a reaction, makes more sense as it is in reaction to the marked's death, and frees up bonus action for multiclass or beast companion

[@Joik2]

Just realized you’re the guy that voiced that Dr Who channel sometimes. Awesome

[@SirStanleytheStumbler]

I would almost consider making Hunters mark non concentration but removing the ability for it to transfer so that it doesn't go on forever all the time.

[@almisami]

That would be one way to do it, but then ranger would kind of suck at anything that isn't a bbeg... or chew through spell slots like crazy. I've been playtesting a ''Predator's Mark'' class feature. Any creature you've hit with an attack is hunter's marked for +1d6, and you can only have one active mark at a time. Gained at level 3. It's really not broken. Stops people from level dipping. Level 12 could be that whatever is marked can be tracked and sensed even if it turns invisible. Level 17 gives you a supernatural awareness of where that creature is, even across planes. You can also have 2 active marks (you choose which one gets erased when a new one is applied.) At level 20, you can have an unlimited number of active marks at a time.

[@SirStanleytheStumbler]

@@almisami don't forget the free castings gained.

[@giantbat4290]

A rework for hunters mark could be that it’s concentration can be ignored a certain amount of times per long rest and is changed to a reaction rather than a bonus action for changing it between targets.

[@swarleymanlagranbombilla9575]

It should also be said that in the playtest they have changed the way Hex works for Warlocks, wich is a very similar spell to Hunter's Mark. It is very likely that the same changes we saw with Hex would apply here and if that's true then the spell is now worse than what it was in 2014. Hex now doens't add a D6 to every attack, only to one attack each turn. So if you're a 11th level warlock and attack with 3 beams of Eldrich Blast you only get 1d6 extra damage from Hex. But now the amount of D6 increases when upcasted. So casting the spell with a level 5 spellslot would mean that the spell deals 5D6 extra damage as long as a single beam of EB hits the target. That's more and easier to apply damage than the old version, but you're still using one of your level 5 slots that you could have used to banish, control or summon a monster. If they've changed the way HM works to be like the new Hex, that would mean that they do not only expect you to use HM, but to upcast it to keep it relevant. This is abyssmaly bad: First, the free castings of a spell alwasy cast the lowest level version of said spell. As such, the free castings of HM that the Ranger gets would always be level one. Again, that would be a single extra d6 of damage for their whole career, being a d10 at 20th level. It wouldn't get better with more attacks nor would you be able to use it as a higher level spell for free. Second, if you do upcast it in order to keep it relevant you're not only wasting a potentially better use of said spellslot just as the Warlock, but you're not even getting the same benefit as him, as you're a Ranger and your spell progression is cult by half. A level 5 warlock who upcast Hex gets 3d6 of extra damage thanks to using a level 3 spell. A level 5 Ranger only gets 2d6 upcasting HM. The difference only increases as the levels go up.

[@Gaming_Antics]

There’s a lot of things Wizards of the Coast are doing to celebrate DnD anniversary, one of which is office US post office stamps coming out on August 2nd, 20 Dungeons and Dragons stamps.

[@chicken_person]

It's always bugged me that rangers seem to focus so heavily on Hunter's Mark, excluding all other concentration spells and taking up your bonus action a significant amount of the time. And now it looks like they're making that worse, making you choose between using core class features tied of Hunter's Mark or using spells and subclass features for some reason. Similarly, so many spells only work on ranged (and not thrown weapon either) builds, since they specify ranged weapons, and in 2014 5e the Archery fighting style is so much better than most others.

[@billedens4749]

My Fix for the Rangers Favored Terrain. Natural Explorer Also at 1st level, you are particularly familiar with one type of natural environment and are adept at traveling and surviving in such regions. Choose one type of favored terrain: arctic, coast, desert, forest, grassland, mountain, swamp, the Underdark, Undersea, or Urban. While in your favored terrain Animal Handling, Investigation, Nature, Perception, Stealth, and Survival checks are made at advantage. While traveling for an hour or more in your favored terrain, you gain the following benefits: - Difficult terrain doesn’t slow your group’s travel. - Your group can’t become lost except by magical means. - Even when you are engaged in another activity while traveling (such as foraging, navigating, or tracking), you remain alert to danger. - If you are traveling alone, you can move stealthily at a normal pace. - When you forage, you find twice as much food as you normally would. - While tracking other creatures, you also learn their exact number, their sizes, and how long ago they passed through the area. At 6th level while in your favored terrain you cannot be surprised while you are conscious, and you gain advantage on initiative roles. In addition, you may choose second favored terrain. You must have spent at least 24 hours traveling through the terrain that is selected. At 10th level you have learned to use your favored terrain to your advantage in combat. While in your favored terrain you always have the advantage of half cover and you gain +2 to hit on your attack roles. In addition, you may choose a third favored terrain. You must have spent at least 24 hours traveling through the terrain that is selected. Capstone ability. All terrains are considered your favored terrains

[@misterdayne2792]

I had NO idea that Sorcerous Burst existed, and it changes EVERYTHING when it comes to cantrip choices for sorcerers. Not only is it 120 ft, as good as Firebolt, it also deals d8's as damage, second only to Firebolt and Poison Spray (which we dont talk about), but it also comes with its very own Transputed Spell metamagic?? And it can potentially "explode" with damage? Yes please! Besides, at first I thought those changes could make up for it maybe using d6's for damage, but I guess the chance for chain reaction goes up as well...

[@AurianArchive]

The ad had me thinking of Project Brupeg and "We're a couple of Kiwis living in Australia"

[@jamesmattila-hine1133]

I had a thought if at level 5 you gave the ranger an ability that Hunters Mark no longer requires concentration and you can cast it as a free action times equal to your proficiency modifier. I think that would allow the theme they're going with while allowing the class to work

[@syvajarvi2289]

The 5e fighter at its core is the AD&D ranger with the AD&D UA attack features for the number of attacks scaling in level. I looked at my books from back in the day today and started producing a video on the history of the ranger class through 3.5e. Some 5e rogue subclasses also have a heavy influence from the ranger class so when people compare fighter, rogue, and ranger, it’s easy to see the similarities and the not that the ranger is not the martial we have always known since the class gets a mish mash of fighter and rogue features as well as the Druidic spell casting. It’s not until 4e, that the ranger becomes a half caster as we know it today. Rangers couldn’t cast spells until lvl 8 until after e3.5 and as a class it’s always been MAD so it’s not easy to optimize in a traditional sense. The one thing they could have kept from the UA was baking cantrips into the class, same with paladins…. It would have made more sense and given it the feel it needed. The arguments for the ranger becoming a subclass of fighter again (it was a sub class in 1 and 2e) isn’t lost on me. I think the ranger in 5e is very different than it use to be in earlier editions and most people don’t know how to play it effectively since it’s not the same class with a different play style than what it use to have. Frankly, I don’t feel trapped into using hunters mark even if the spell kit doesn’t have any less BA and concentration spells on the list, other than the hunter and beast master…. It doesn’t look like the gloom stalker and Fey wanderer are shoe horned into having to use it with their sub class features. As it stands, the features that are effected by HM come at a high enough level that I already use Guardian of nature before those features come on line and the only thing it does is gets me to choose if I want to mark a target as a BA for a free use or turn into a feral beast or a great tree for a 4th level spell slot depending on if I’m a martial or ranged build.

[@williambradford6575]

I playtested the Hunter Ranger during UA and it was a beast. Y'all assuming they didn't update the Hunter's Mark spell but if they did when you upcast it as a level 20 Ranger you can concentrate for 24 hours, your concentration can't be broken, you get advantage on any creature you are targeting, and you deal an extra 3d10 damage once per round. In combat your only other option that might be better is Conjure Woodland Beings but that only lasts 10 minutes. For sustained damage output this is a great option especially now that you can use your other spells for burst damage

[@newmanwolfry1630]

This sounds to me like all the ranger needs now is a feature somewhere at levels 6 through 9 that allows them to cast Hunter's Mark at the start of initiative or cast/move it as part of the Attack Action, and for it to no longer take up concentration. (Locked past lvl 5 specifically so it doesn't break multiclassing)

[@walkerdark6012]

The designers may be afraid of too many “one level dips”. Maybe at 5th level, the need to concentrate on Hunter’s Mark goes away.

[@mandocomando9444]

As someone who WANTS to play ranger, I don’t want more hunters mark, I want a better favored enemy. Plus the favored foe optional feature from Tasha’s was just better then hunters mark (if your dm is cool with double concentration if not it still has its uses). What I want is: Favored enemy lv 1 Advantage on tracking and knowledge checks Lv5-6 Add wisdom modifier to the damage of attacks against favored enemies Lv 10 Advantage on attacks against favored enemies Lv 14-15 Improved critical against favored enemies, 19s but maybe also 18s Lv 20 Add proficiency bonus to the damage against favored enemies, remove invisibility/hidden/etc Basically when I, fighting my favored foe I want to dominate, like the paladin against undead or fiends but against enemies I choose. I don’t know how it would balance with multiple favored enemies, maybe if you buff the attacks you should only get 1 instead of 3 but that’s fine I want a specialization not crappy hunter’s mark as a class feature. At the end of the day we only use hunter’s mark because rangers DON’T GET GOOD SPELLS. What they need is an updated spell list, and I’ll reserve judgement until we see the full list but so far it sounds like they haven’t caught that they were just correcting Druid spells and there’s overlap in the lists.

[@justnojustn3036]

I like this idea. No other class has to do so much to access their class features. Honestly if they just made it so tha you don't have to Concentrate on hunters mark. I would be fine with it.

[@TrixyTrixter]

I like this idea a lot more, I would probably make it slightly less powerful but also allow the ranger to swap one foe at the end of a long rest when they have information available to study a new enemy, like a library or something. More like Studied Mark.

[@alexmiller1800]

It’s worth noting that in the playtests, both Hunter’s Mark and Hex were changed to only apply damage on the first hit in combat but they scale by 1d6 when upcast. Hunter’s Mark also deals Force damage now instead of weapon damage. On paper, this makes the Ranger better as Hunter’s Mark will deal more damage as it scales with spell slots rather than attacks. The concentration issue is still a massive problem and is terrible game design, but Hunter’s Mark is at least competitive in terms of raw damage. My biggest concern then is those free casts of Hunter’s Mark, because we do not know if those free casts default to the highest available spell slot level you can cast or if they only count as a 1st level Hunter’s Mark. If it is the latter (and I suspect it will be), then those free casts of Hunter’s Mark will be made pointless by 5th level. If you actually use the free castings, you will be dealing less damage than a 2014 Ranger at level 5, as they would get 1d6 on each attack. Hunter’s Mark needs to be upcast to stay remotely competitive.

[@arianall]

With they gave the option for them to have a pact style of playstyle at start you choose between, hunters mark/zephyr strike/ensnaring strike and that is what becomes a core of you through this class and have features based on what picked earlier

[@chaserandalow8548]

In the UA playtests, they tested hunter's mark not needing concentration but deemed it too OP. However I feel they really just slapped the no need for concentration on it without thinking of how to properly balance it, as the playtest version got the "does not require concentration" at *level 2* and on a version that did it's damage every hit instead of once a turn (yeah no surprise that was busted). If they just give the "no concentration on hunter's mark" feature to ranger's anywhere between levels 9-13 it would be a lot more fair and prevent multi-classes from abusing it too much. If they are really so concerned about it being that busted, maybe have it still be concentration but after getting it's improvement you can spend two of the free usages *OR* spend a free usage in addition to a spell slot in order to cast a version of it that doesn't require concentration (thus naturally limited in use by the amount of free uses to prevent it's abuse).

[@AMRosa10]

I think that a better option to Hunter's Mark is Zephyr Strike, especially at low levels where you don't have multiple attacks per round. You get advantage on one attack per turn. You get 1d8 extra damage. You get 30 additional feet of movement and your movement doesn't generate opportunity attacks. And while it is only 1 minute, what combats last more than 10 rounds and when do you usually need to actually track a target in the way most groups actually play.

[@andrewsuurmeyer9717]

Give each ranger subclass unique abilities with a certain number of uses (equal to PB, or X amount per long rest) instead of relying on spell slots. Or make hunters mark a non-concentration spell. Either or both options would greatly increase ranger playability in game. There you go WOTC, solved Ranger in under 5 minutes.

[@robertabblebaum7813]

I think for me the biggest issue is one of flavor. They did call it out in the official presentation as well. The Ranger isn't just about hunting. It's about roving. Being independent and having survival skills that you've honed over time to be able to get out of dangerous situations. They really just need to go all the way back to the drawing board with this one.

[@RobKinneySouthpaw]

A good higher level class feature for the ranger say at level 13, would be for it to no longer require concentration. For the 17th one, the damage scales to say a D12 and once per turn you can just move it as part of your attack action, not requiring a bonus action. Still. Still m id but allows your Hunter smart to be relevant without foregoing your other tools, and give you an action economy bump

[@alainsmoors4956]

The solution is to make hunters mark like favored foe from the optional rules. It gives a scaling damage dice that does not require concentration. Add some buffs like the advantage to attack rolls and an effect you can choose instead of the no concentration check by damage (since it has no concentration) and boom a good effect and you can buff your attacks with some spells like some smites or things like that.

[@RoninXDarknight]

Hunter's Mark fixes: Rangers don't have to concentrate on it. Rangers can cast it as part of taking the attack action. Rangers can move it to a different target for free if the original target dies. Level 20 feature...change it so your entire party can benefit from the extra damage. Gloomstalker, modify the terrify status for them so that it procs so long as the ranger is within 60 feet of the terrified creature.

[@TheSecondFlock]

I think the simplest homebrew here is to make it so Hunter's Mark doesnt need concentration at level 13, instead of "damage not breaking it". It's higher level but it is still the first of the hunters mark upgrades so it doesnt invalidate those.

[@V-vision]

Ignoring whether or not you like the polymorph change, I'd argue that it has undeniably lost some flavor since you'll be slightly less like the creatures you polymorph into

[@ZotharReborn]

It's the 2014 warlock problem with Eldritch blast. Except this isn't even a cantrip, it's a level one spell that honestly isn't worth using past level 9 or so. There have been rumors that it now scales with the spell slot you cast it at, gaining an additional d6 per two spell slots higher. But that does not make it even close to worth it for the ranger. The biggest insult injury is how they continually said this is a brand new class, when honestly half of all the features are just stuff brought from Tasha's and the other half are so reliant on the spell that it feels bad.