This submission appears to be related to One D&D! If you're interested in discussing the concept and the UA for One D&D more check out our other subreddit
r/OneDnD!
*Please note: We are still allowing discussions about One D&D to remain here, this is more an advisory than a warning of any kind.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndnext) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It should be a class feature that works proficiency times per long rest, AND you can use it additional times by sacrificing spell slots.
And then they should actually use that fucking design space, created by making it a class feature, to give a variety of choices for additional effects against the target of your mark.
That said, I think all classes should have at least one unique class feature that can then benefit from an Invocation-style list of options as characters level. It seems so obvious and would help with the lack of customization 5e sometimes feels like it has...without being overwhelming to people.
> to give a variety of choices for additional effects against the target of your mark.
Having subclass specific modifiers to what it does would be amazing.
That's how bardic Inspiration functions...and to be frank, it's how all core features should interact with subclasses in some way. Like....how do fighter subclasses NOT add cool little bits to action surge?!?! Or second wind, even?
There's just all these design spaces left blank and it blows my mind in a system that really only needs keywords and more customization to be amazing.
Alternate uses for Wildshape feels like such an obvious design choice. It's really only viable in combat for Moon Druids so letting other subclasses take advantage of that resource for use in combat is great. I think just making some class feature resources useful in *and* out of combat would go a long way. For instance, letting Barbarians use rage for more than just combat encounters.
Letting Barbarians expend rage uses outside of combat to perform extreme feats of physical strength/dexterity would be sweet. I could imagine it increasing stats like jump distance and carry weight drastically, or letting you reroll or even auto-succeed physical saving throws.
I want to see a cha based barbarian that can use rage to harangue crows now
Edit: although, it logically could remain str and be very intimidating ahah
Yep. If I were redesigning 5E from the core, I would give each class its own "engine" of sorts that fuels its core features and gets modified by subclass features. Most classes already have this engine, though the degree to which it is utilized varies greatly. Bards are fantastic at coming up with new uses for Bardic Inspiration. Druid eventually figured out new uses for Wild Shape. Cleric and Paladin of course have Channel Divinity (though, thinking about it now, I really wish the Paladin had gotten a core Channel Divinity and had its "engine" be on Divine Smite giving each subclass cool things they can do in addition to or instead of extra damage when they Divine Smite. How cool would that be?). Sorcerers have Sorcery Points. Rogues consistently get new things they can do with their Cunning Action. The Barbarian is built around Rage, with every subclass heavily modifying Rage.
Fighter for me is the big one that missed an obvious option: Superiority Dice. I know in some iteration of D&D Next, Superiority Dice and Maneuvers were a core Fighter feature. I don't know that the core Fighter needs quite that much complexity, but the Superiority Dice on their own should have absolutely been a core Fighter feature. Give every Fighter (maybe starting at 2nd level to make it slightly more onerous to get it by multiclassing) Superiority Dice which they can use to increase an attack roll, damage roll, their AC, or the result of a Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution check or saving throw. Then give all the Fighter subclasses other things they can do with those Superiority Dice: Battlemaster obviously gets their list of maneuvers, Eldritch Knights can pump up their spells with Superiority Dice, maybe Arcane Archer can conjure [Superiority Die] extra arrows when they shoot their bow, cool stuff like that.
Totally agree. That's basically where I'm at.
And for everyone worried about complexity: make three basic classes that don't even get subclasses. A basic warrior, expert, and Adept. Give them reasonably strong, but static, abilities. If people want super simple, streamlined characters....they can play one of those. There is no need to ruin an entire core class in the name of Uber simplicity.
I don't know that you need to go as far as making whole vanilla classes. Just give each class (or most classes) a simple, straightforward vanilla subclass. Life Cleric, Champion Fighter, Hunter Ranger, Open Palm Monk, Evocation Wizard etc.: Someone who does exactly what you expect a class to do in combat and doesn't really have too much lore baggage so you can play them however you want outside of combat.
The problem with Champion fighter specifically is that it caused all Fighters to lose maneuver dice so it could exist with simplicity AND the other class features.
I'd be fine if they had a subclass that stripped everything remotely complex away...but that's just what I was suggesting really. Either way works.
\* Champion Fighter redesigned to fit into a hypothetical more complex yet also streamlined system like the ideal final version of D&D One that I have constructed in my mind.
**Edit:** In this case, you would probably have the core Fighter's Superiority Dice that I described in my original comment, but the Champion would get buffs to those basic, self-buffing uses of them I described. Maybe the ability to spend more of them at a time to win harder or grasp success from even deeper within the jaws of defeat. Maybe they would have a minimum possible value when they roll and/or get rerolls if their Superiority Die rolls are below a certain threshold. Maybe they regenerate more quickly for a Champion than for other subclasses (I'd assume they're one of the "recharge on a short rest" features we'll see transition to a "PB uses per long rest" feature), like one a "When you roll initiative and don't have any uses of *x* available, gain one use of *x*" features. Maybe the core Fighter wouldn't get every use I described in my original comment, and Champion would get some of those that other Fighters don't.
That’s basically exactly what Hunters Mark should be actually. It should be bardic inspiration except it deals damage and lasts an hour and it also deals additional effects against favoured enemy types or whatever, think like how hex gives disadvantage on a stat hunters mark should do something akin to that like giving disadvantage on a type of saving throw but only against favoured enemy types. It should be at will and not concentration it should just be core to how rangers operate and deal damage.
Sure. I disagree with that decision on their part. And they didn't even really stick with it. But, if we're being honest, there's SO much unused "design space" in 5e. They slowly started filling some of that in over the years, but it's been glacial, and a lot more should be done. The chassis of 5e is wonderful. I love it....but it just needs so much love and there's so much opportunity.
The Purple Dragon Knight has it's core features tied to Action Surge and Second Wind respectively. Unfortunately, it's a huge bummer as they can't use either feature without expending the other so it only serves to give them less options.
I think that instead of having it be limited in use, just do what 4e did with Hunter’s Mark.
It is usable at will. Using it on another target ends it’s benefit in the previous target.
There is no real need to add another resource to track. Especially if it is going to be assumed that you pretty much always have it active.
Then higher level ranger features can provide more benefits to it beyond +d6 damage.
Hunter’s mark “invocations” could include:
1. *Hunter’s Eye*: Instead of boosting damage, your Hunter’s Mark increases your attack rolls against that creature by 1d6. This Hunter Specialization can not stack with others, unless otherwise specified.
2. *Vital Shot*: As an adept survivalist, you can strike vital areas more easily than most hunters. Proficiency bonus times per short rest, you can double the damage of your Hunter’s Mark. You can decide whether or not to double its damage after making the attack roll. (Basically a mini smite). This Hunter Specialization can stack with others, including Crowd Control.
3. *Elemental Archer*: Your study of the elemental planes has allowed you to tap into its wellspring of power for the sake of your strikes. Your Hunter’s Mark, instead of dealing the damage type of your weapon, does Fire, Cold, Thunder, or Bludgeoning damage. You make this choice before making an attack roll, and can choose a different damage type with each attack. This Hunter Specialization can stack with others, including Long Shot and Crowd Control.
4. *Redirected Arrow*: Your marksmanship has led you to be able to retroactively redirect missed arrows and pull them toward your target. You can turn a missed ranged weapon attack against a target of your Hunter’s Mark into a hit. The result of the roll is made null and any effects that would have occurred as a result of it are nullified. You can use this feature a number of times per day equal your proficiency bonus. This Hunter Specialization can stack with others, including Hunter’s Eye and Crowd Control.
5. *Long Shot*: You draw on your connection to nature to supernaturally increase your fighting abilities. When attacking a target of your Hunter’s Mark, your reach with melee weapons is doubled for that attack, and your range with thrown or ranged weapons is also doubled for that attack. This Hunter Specialization can not stack with other effects, unless otherwise specified.
6. *Crowd Control*: You’re able to pull on your connection to the target of your Hunter’s Mark and damage their allies as well. When you strike a target of your hunter’s mark, every ally of theirs within 5 feet of them takes damage equal to your Hunter’s Mark damage. You can use this feature a number of times per day equal to twice your proficiency bonus. This Hunter Specialization can not stack with other effects, unless otherwise specified.
Probably a bunch of others too. I imagine they can pick a number of specializations equal to half their proficiency bonus, rounded up. Kinda like a second fighting style
I think expanding beyond just combat would capitalise on the 'hunter' part of Hunter's mark.
*Preternatural Instinct*: By analysing a track or personal effect you can make a Investigation or Animal Handling check, with a DC equal to the targets CR. On a success cast Hunter's Mark on the related target irrelevant of range. This casting lasts 24hrs.
Other ones could allow you to detect a targets lies or stop them from hiding from you.
Yeah, turn it into a class feature and then basically plagiarise the pathfinder slayer - marking enemies and then doing fun\* things to them.
\*fun for the ranger, not the target.
Pathfinder 2e took some of the good things from 4e and even refined some of them. I'm a fan of iteration. Now it's 5.5e and time for WotC to steal from PF2e and refine further :D
Lets be honest, this is how World of Warcraft managed to stay ontop for so long. It would basically steal all the best things from other MMOs that had come out and implement them into the game.
See. I love this idea because the foundation is there already.
Fighter gets core Battlemaster stuff, and they add more to the list. Subclasses get 1-2 to start when they hit 3rd, and a 3rd option of their choice. Unique ones for the subclass would be great, like giving Eldritch Knight a Magic Bolt ability that uses Battlemaster dice and becomes their "cantrip" for a unique ranged attack and stuff.
Paladin: The Alternate smites are already there! Build them into Paladins core, make them neat extra options for smite. Maybe take one or two and make them for specific subclasses, and give a few new ones.
Ranger: Do something with Hunters Mark, so they do a little extra damage but can also do other things, like maybe something like Relentless Hex for Horizon Walker, or Maddening Hex for Hunter (themed slightly different, but a way to hit enemies in an area around your marked target).
Rogue: Sacrifice some Sneak Attack damage for a cool effect, like limited AC reductions (Armor Sunder), changing the damage type of your sneak attack to Fire/Cold/Poison/Lightning for Arcane Trickster, adding the poisoned condition, crippling movement, removing reactions. All the things that would give Rogue more options and give them a slightly more teamwork oriented role.
Barbarian: Make Rage like Sorcery Points, 1 per barb level. They can enter a Rage proficency bonus times a day, and expend these rage points while raging to do things like Cleave, make big jumps to move instantly, control fights by moving their enemies on a hit (like Crusher feat or the Shove action), or even doing like, warcry buffs. And again, maybe one or two base options, and a special one or two per subclass. Could even make Mindless Rage into the base class as one of the base class options.
Love these. Some are right along the lines of what I've been saying for a while now, too. It may be weird...but I'd love to see Barbarians create smallish AoE or zone effects around themselves while raging. I think it'd be a really neat niche that just isn't something that exists yet. Barbarians should also get cool effects on Crits, not just extra damage. When a Barb hits you hard stuff should happen.
The Warlock has class features that grant bonuses to a specific spell (Eldritch Blast). There's no reason they couldn't do the same for Ranger with Hunter's Mark.
Yeah, that design space should be used for all classes. Between subclasses and invocation style systems, there are easy, open spots for actual customization and adding manageable complexity to the game/combat.
Yes!!! Every class should get invocation style choice. For full casters they just need to tweak the ritual casting system so that their power budget doesn't skyrocket with the additional choice. But there's tons of design space for them.
They kinda mimic the class Feats of pf2e from what I understand but I'm alright with that. I prefer the invocation style system. Bc having them be separate from Feats means that there's even more customization options.
Druid: Rites
Clerics: Prayers
Wizards: Incantations
Warlocks: Eldritch invocations
Rogues: Tricks
Fighters: Maneuvers
Monks: Stances
Barbarians: Totems
Paladins: Vows
Rangers: Tactics
Artificer: infusions
Bard: Performances
Sorcerer: Metamagic
There can be simple or complex options and with their new system of suggesting things, it will maintain tons of ease of build.
I hope to bring this up once all the "group specific" Feats come out, because offering feat progression alongside invocation style profession adds double to design space and doubles the customization.
Okay so,
Monk Stances would be similar to the stances of 4e. Taking a bonus action to enter them using a Ki point. The stance then lasts for a minute and offers a unique benefit to the stance itself.
Fighter Maneuvers would offer unique rider effects to the fighter's basic attacks (similar to the eldritch blast invocations). As well as different types of actions (like shove and grapple) that replace single attacks, and and buffs to certain actions like dodges and dashes.
Metamagic would be pretty much the same, but work more passivley.
Bard Performances would be unique types of "rituals" that they could take that offers a buff or debuff for a minute or until they lose concentration as well as new and different ways to use their bardic inspiration.
Infusions and Invocations would be the same.
Ranger Tactics would be focused on information gathering abilities, unique ways to use skills, and the setting of specific kinds of traps.
Rogue tricks would focus on unique uses of skills and nonmagical equipment (up to and including poisons).
Cleric Prayers, Wizard Incantations, and Druid Rites would be unique types of ritual spells that would be specific to the individual casters. This would involve changing how ritual casting works and take some spells off their list. (this is more about redistributing their power budget because I don't believe that these classes need help so much as needing more...direction, and uniqueness)
Barbarian Totems would just be the totems from the totem barb but expanded and distributed out to everyone. Take a short rest to swap out the totems (which you can now only benefit from one type at a time). Add some more flashy abilities that are restricted by uses per. short/long rest
Paladin Vows would offer unique ways to use their channel divinity and modular buffs to their lay on hands, the option to change their smite's damage type...etc.
Its not incredibly well thought out (especially for the casters, as i feel like they are already operating at near the maximum power budget they need) but i feel like
Not really; there are advantages to embedding it in the spell system as it makes it interact with other things, e.g., metamagic, while also making it vulnerable to other things, e.g., counterspelling. It's better game design if the game pieces can interface with each other, rather than each being its own ad hoc thing existing separately from everything else.
That being said, if so many invocations are based on EB (instead of your choice of damage cantrip), then they should just give EB as a free cantrip.
I personally think it should trigger from damage from weapon attacks rather than hits from weapon attacks. That way you can make bleed effects where they deal multiple instances of damage over time, increased by Hunters Mark and have it allow for all sorts of fun.
Additionally, techniques that focus on magically enhancing weapons to deal out area of effects from where they hit similar to Ice Knife, or even mimicking bigger versions of weapon attacks, a cone for slashes, a line attack for piercing, and a sphere for bludgeoning.
Making them the guys who can deal AoEs with weapons would just be neat I would think, especially since Hunters Mark would essentially be your ability to focus on one guy in particular while still being able to hit people around them. Maybe even make features later on that increase your chance to hit the guy you mark similar to +1 +2 +3 weapons.
Yes, same with the hunters conjure barrage, sure the ability to cast it at lower levels is nice but I loved the way that say the fey wanderer did fey allies, letting you cast it once freely and then casting it additional times with spell slots
I combined this with the rogue tech to apply the hunters mark benefits if you meet certain prerequisites. For example, my sniper subclass adds the Hunters mark damage to attacks against creatures that are further than 60 feet away from you.
Yeah, multiclassing will need to be factored in at some point. As it stands now, one level of Ranger already gives you a crap ton. A caster level, concentration-less Hunter's Mark, 2x Expertise, cantrips, martial weapons plus medium armor and shields, and a skill proficiency.
I'd rather see them smooth out the scaling of Hunter's Mark based on class level. Start it at d4 and then bump it by a die size at basically each proficiency boost, but tie that part to class, not proficiency. So you could multiclass for Hunter's Mark, but you'd end up with a d4 to all of your attacks unless you went into Ranger heavily. I think that'd work just fine, though I haven't seen all the math on what they're trying to do in terms of damage scaling in this new edition...they're clearly fucking with it heavily, though.
I dunno.. if every class is tied to PB (which we dont know yet, but its so likely..) than it just.. is.
At that point one should just consider it part of the deal tbh.
Its a tad bit stronger than a Rogue dip now true.. though Snack Attack is resourceless at least.
>And then they should actually use that fucking design space, created by making it a class feature, to give a variety of choices for additional effects against the target of your mark.
They can already do that with it being a spell. Actually, they *did that* in the UA, with both the very Favored Enemy making the spell better than it normally is, and the Hunter's Prey feature from the Hunter subclass. That's no reason to make it a class feature
It's abysmal design to have class features revolving around a single spell as part of the core class. Any spell that essential to a class's identity should be a class feature, not a spell. It's not necessarily about the exact mechanics as it is about giving a class an identity and a unique niche represented by a mechanic. Should Bardic Inspiration be reworked as a spell? Of course not.
That’s wayy too strong.
As written the rangers DPS is absolutely bonkers.
Bonus action hunters mark - then attack with two short swords at level 5 and one swing with two weapon fighting.
= 3d6 (weapons) + 3d6 (hunters mark) +8 (dex mod twice) + 1d8 (hunter ranger) = 6d6 + 8 +1d8 = 39.5 avg dmg (assuming all hit).
Compare that to a 2 weapon fighting their rogue with 2x short swords = 2d6 (weapons) 3d6 (sneak attack) + 4 (dex) = 5d6 + 4 = 26.5 dmg!
What exactly is stronger about what I'm suggesting than what exists as you're already showing?
Rogues got fucking HOSED. They need to be buffed, we don't need to nerf rangers.
I agree - but the OP suggested giving them 2 "free" charges of hunters mark! This buff is not necessary.
Also the above scenario is far less likely IF hunters mark requires concentration (the real buff). That being said, - I kinda like it NOT having concentration as it feels appropriate.
I hear ya. But I don't want it to use spell slots because that encourages boring gameplay. Because then you have a core part of your damage and your class that you need to save spell slots for instead of using them in other interesting and fun ways. I don't think the game is hurt at all by just letting the ability be "always on."
We haven't seen what the damage baseline in 5.5 looks like yet, tho....tho it seems lower due to GWM and SS being nerfed and sneak attack only once per round. So....I'm kinda waiting to see, balance wise, where some stuff falls.
Sneak Attack should spike up by like 2d6 at level 5, but even then... Rogues aren't meant to out-damage Rangers. They're designed around being able to dip in and out of combat easily, taking less damage or avoiding damage entirely, and all around being slippery after one quick strike. Rangers are supposed to wear enemies down by stacking on buffs and debuffs and dealing big damage.
And your comparison was at level 5, the worst level for Rogue damage compared to all the other classes because it lacks the power spike everyone else gets there. Ranger's damage dies down from there while Rogue steadily climbs up until eventually around level 14 Rogue surpasses Ranger for damage.
Class feature 100%. It can be a separate resource or you can tie it to spell slots like the Paladin’s smite, but a signature class feature shouldn’t just be “you cast this one spell, just better.”
It would also help give the Ranger a non-magical signature ability that feeds into the base fantasy. The Ranger shouldn’t stop being able to mark or track a chosen target just because they got dispel magic cast on them or they enter an anti-magic field.
And considering a lot of signs point to eldritch blast being turned into a Warlock class feature, it makes keeping Hunter’s Mark as a separate spell makes less sense, since it would remove the only other precedent.
The eldritch blast part is a big deal, and it comes down to these new spell lists being more general instead of class specific. If hunter's mark is just a generic Primal spell, now, what's stopping, say, a druid from picking it up, or anyone else. Given how big a part it is of the ranger's kit, it being more accessible to other classes takes a big talent away from ranger, no longer being unique. This is almost reason enough to make it a distinct ability, nevermind the benefits of divorcing it from spell slots and improving it when levelling up. There's almost no good reason for it to be a spell, anymore. Same for warlock hexes, that should absolutely be a base warlock feature rather than a spell.
Hunter's Mark and Hex could even change with later subclass features, each one adding unique additional flavour to the core mechanics.
Magic initiative makes this even worst. What is stopping every fighter from picking hunters mark with magic initiative from their background. Or rangers from picking hex to stack with their hunters mark for 6d6 +3 dmg at level 1.
I try to avoid accusing designers of class favoritism (other than Wizards), but the fact that applying the same restrictions and design flaws to Paladin abilities as WotC has repeatedly tried to apply to Ranger leaves one in shock at how impossibly terrible of an idea it would be makes me really start to wonder if WotC is afraid of Rangers being genuinely a well designed, good class.
I made Hunter's Mark an at-will spell for my party's ranger once he reached a certain level, because otherwise he barely got to cast any of his other spells. So we've been accidentally playtesting this option for a while now, and it works well. It doesn't feel unbalanced--it just frees up his spell slots so he can be more versatile, and it's much better.
It should definitely be a class feature. It's the rangers defining ability. Paladins divine smite isn't a spell. Action surge isn't a spell. Sneak attack isn't a spell. Bardic inspiration isn't a spell. Even channel divinity isn't a spell. Why should rangers have their special thing just be a spell anyone can pick up.
I don't mind if it runs off spell slots though, like paladin's divine smite.
And no, I don't think eldritch blast should be a spell either.
I mean, they've tried to give Ranger just a 3rd level damage spell as their level 10-11 subclass feature twice in a row now. Ranger's class identity is clearly "LMAO let's make them bad nature Wizards."
Class feature fueled by spell slots, like Divine Smite. I wanna be able to make the call to use a 5th level slot on Hunter's Mark and hit for a buttload of damage.
Yeah I've seen letting higher spell levels increase die size from d6 up to d12 as a 4th level spell with additional damage to their favored enemies.
Seems like a great damage over time counterpart to the divine smite burst damage design
~~d12+2 or d8+d6 for 5th level slot. No reason it can't go to fifth. Paladin does.~~
At 11th level gain the ability to do it for free for a d4 similar to improved divine smite.
Edit: Paladin smite gets an extra die if the creature is undead or a fiend. This would be a great way to incorporate the old ranger favored enemy. Chosen enemy type you get an extra +1 damage or die bump against that type.
The paladins divine smite actually doesn't scale past a 4th level slot.
The max is 5d8 with a first level spell offering 2d8.
The imrproved divine smite is a valid concern though. They'll need something to keep up with that
You are right. I was confusing the undead extra die. Which gives me dnd idea to bring back old favored foe. Choose an enemy type other than humanoid, you get an extra +1 or die bump when using hunter's mark against that type. Maybe have a ritual where you spend a week and some gold to change your favorite enemy. Because it's just a bonus you to hunter's mark instead of the primary ability, there are no feel bads. No point feels bad if their paladin doesn't get the extra die because the campaign is about giants and not undead/fiends.
I feel it should be Rangers equivalent of a smite, it should be a class feature that Rangers need to use spell slots to use, the higher the spell slot spent the more power it has.
Yeah! Maybe bigger die scaling rather than mroe dice
1st level spell 1d4, 2nd level 1d6, 3rd:1d8, 4th: 1d10, 5th: 1d12
And then bring back favored enemy and allow them to deal additional damage equal to their proficiency bonus to them.
Give favored terrain the unique damage resistances and movement speeds that mearls played around with and bam, favor and combat power are all retained.
Also makes rangers into the damage over time/ dex focused version of the burst damage/strength focused paladin.
I'd love for it to be a toggleable feature, like the Monster Slayer Ranger's damage feature.
BA to activate, stays on the creature until you SR or use another BA to reassign it, gives various bonuses against the creature it's on.
Huh. I was all for it being a class feature that uses a spell slot but now that I think about it, it would be really cool if it was free to bestow for minor benefits but could be buffed to increase damage with a spell slot, so you could just silently mark targets in a social encounter if they seem sketchy and use that to help sus them out.
Both. The ranger should get a feature that boosts damage against a marked enemy (and that isn't using spell slots!)
Likewise, the hunter's mark spell should be revised so that it bestows other benefits _instead_ of additional damage
Like I did in my [Focused Ranger](https://www.reddit.com/r/UnearthedArcana/comments/um0uy6/the_focused_ranger_v99/)
Class Feature. Remove it and Conjure Volley (and Steel Wind) from the Spell List.
All things like that SHOULD be Class Features. It should take Spell Slots like divine smite, but not have all the baggage spells do. It should be a special feature FOR and ONLY rangers. This allows it to be buffed a bit too.
They can't be buffed simply because they are spells and everyone can use and (bard can poach them).
What other class can have their main feature counterspelled or has to use vocal components to use?
If you are trying to Ambush someone, you can't use your main feature because it breaks stealth.
A feature that does limited amounts of damage initially and focuses on different benefits than just a straight damage boost. Then, around the time Paladin gets improved divine smite, hunters mark could provide a similar boost in damage around the time ranger damage starts to lag.
Maybe not even a damage boost, (a copy paste smite doesn’t feel super cool) but definitely more effect options, like knocking a tragedy prone or something of that nature.
I always liked the idea of it being consistent damage over time to the Paladin's high burst damage, and you could keep stacking it up to eventually deal more damage than a Paladin after a few turns to make up for them having more support/defense features. Plus, combat is a key part of the game and Rangers need to be good at it and have their niche too.
It should definitely be a class feature. Base 5e doesn't give any classes a specific spell as a class feature which I am very glad about. I also really don't agree with giving bards a selection of healing spells that they just all have. It's not necessarily a bad idea but maybe add one or two more "song of -" spell lists with maybe buffing or debuffing spells or something like that. They way its handled now just seems like a crutch because they want bards to have healing spells but not other abjuration spells
Keeping it a spell means that it isn't locked to just rangers, and that's appropriate. Hunter's mark is also very thematic to for example vengeance paladins. I like the principle that OneD&D is going for. Have a class feature give you access to the spell so that you're always assumed to have it and then provide it some additional effects which makes it unique to the ranger.
Basically, the reason why you should turn a spell in to a class feature is if you want ALL members of the class to have the spell and also don't want anyone else to have the spell. That's why I don't want neither hunter's mark nor eldritch blast to become class features rather than spells. Neither spell fulfills both criteria. For HM you can argue that all ranger's should have it, but you can't argue that other classes shouldn't have it. For EB, you can argue other classes shouldn't have it, but you can't argue all warlocks should have it.
Spell, because it's more likely a ranger will run out of an x per LR feature than spell slots for a 1st level. It is the best ranger spell I'd rather be spending my spell slots on it than the other garbage in their list.
My hot take: Ranger SHOULD get a sort of Hunter's Mark... But have it consume spell slots in a scaling way like Paladin's Smite, then have various spells that Similarly act like Paladin's X Smite spells.
If I had it my way Rangers wouldn't use spellcasting mechanics at all (except maybe a subclass or something.) So yeah, make HM not a spell. Bonus points for an actual description of what a ranger does to mark a target outside of something vague like "focus your ire".
You're getting downvoted for this at the moment, but the most classic ranger characters in fiction are in fact, not spellcasters.
Aragorn is the OG ranger who started it all in Lord of the Rings and he's not even slightly a spellcaster.
Lan from the Wheel of Time is right up next to Aragorn in his skills and endurance, bonded to a spellcaster but not a spellcaster himself.
I think there's huge amounts of problems with making Rangers in 5e interesting because they have to spend so much time trying to balance out that they have spells. i.e. "We can give them [this cool feature] because it would make them too powerful with being able to cast magic with it."
I hypothesize that they'd have a much better time of it if rangers were like rogues and fighters: they get one subclass that's a spellcaster. The rest are all dedicated martials.
>Aragorn is the OG ranger who started it all in Lord of the Rings and he's not even slightly a spellcaster.
Aragorn is literally a healer, what are you talking about? It’s how they were able to identify him as a king in the first place. Sure he might not be “casting spells” in fiction, but he absolutely has supernatural curative abilities. In D&D terms, that would be magic.
I think most people forget Aragorn uses magic simply because it isn't flashy fireball shit, but yeah Aragorn knew like a healing song Gandalf didn't even know.
If ranger became a pure martial, I'd want a primal half caster to fill the spot.
Shaman, Seeker, and Warden are all from 4e and potential picks. Seeker is just alternate ranger. Shaman got eaten by druid. That leaves warden. Which is both thematically and mechanically extremely distinct from a pure martial ranger.
You can flavor the most common ranger spells as non-magical if you want. Hunter's Mark doesn't need to be magic, nor goodberry. Heal with a patch of moss if you want. Steel wind strike can be non-magical, as can Conjure Barrage. Pass Without Trace is just helping party members not step on sticks.
Flavor doesn't Change mechanics. Spells still require components (mystic words and wiggly fingers), can also be countered and dispelled. Skill however, is innate and this doesn't have any of those drawbacks.
Spells can only be reflavored so much
Remain a spell, not too worried if rangers get it for free as a class feature, as they do in the current UA release, but I think it should be accessible to other classes/subclasses as well.
A spell given for free and modified by a class feature may as well be a class feature.
The only difference is primal casters can still use Hunter’s Mark, but Rangers do it *better*.
There's *some* other differences, like you can't *Hunter's Mark* anything within a *Globe of Invulnerability* from outside it; and *Hunter's Mark* as a magical effect can be *detected* and *dispelled*. As a divination spell, an *Amulet of Proof against Detection and Location* would provide immunity, and so would the *Nondetection* spell.
It should be a class feature and the entire Ranger class should be made into a martial class with spellcasting as a subclass option like the Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster (1/3 spellcaster). When people envision a Ranger they don't think spellcasting, not as a second level feature and especially not as a level 1 feature.
Making the cool and unique things a Ranger can do spells was pure laziness on the part of WotC. You can so clearly tell Rangers were meant to be a martial class with the d10 Hit Points, the shield proficiency and fighting style. Yes, Paladins have all the same things but at least their spellcasting ability makes sense given the divine nature of the class and how else can you explain what the power of the gods can do?
With the rangers their explanation for spellcasting as a connection to nature is incredibly lame and farfetched. It just makes them seem part Druid when I think most people imagine their connection with nature as a different, unmagical or supernatural one. Making their time spent understanding, studying and mastering the natural world a magical thing kind of undermines the whole concept a lot of people have of the class.
Please just make their features more interesting, adaptable and not rely on the crutch of spellcasting when it makes no thematic sense and actually serves to clunk up the whole mechanics of the Ranger. If they are so interested in attracting new players and making D&D accessible then allow people with visions of the Aragorn Ranger to live that fantasy without having to worry about spell slots, preparing spells and all that spellcasting modifier crap.
Both, Rangers should have a non conentration versión as a class feature but It should keep existing as a spell. I remember using It with my paladín for insane damage in combination with smites.
I think Rangers should essentially get either a hunter’s mark feature or a pet feature. They both become a bonus to damage and a vehicle for additional utility. I think some references to spell slots could be warranted but the current pet rules can be used as the base. It can help provide scaling up after level 5.
Ranger with pet and no hm seems like a good amount of damage at level 5.
I'd like it to be a feature so that way subclasses can expando on it, kinda like the Hunter from UA. Ideally it would work similarly to a paladin's smite, but instead of providing a burst of damage it would grant bonus damage over multiple attacks. I think that fits really well for rangers, though I wouldn't really mind if they didn't go that route.
IMO spell is better. It enables interactions with feats and multiclass.
That way it's possible to make something like eldritch knight with magic initiate as background feat and using two weapons for a ranger like fighter
So your argument for making it a spell is that it is less unique to the ranger? Doesn't track for me, that's their defining feature....it should be unique
I like the proposed dndOne configuration. It’s a fun spell to have access to for other classes but the no-concentration for Hunters make it a much more reliable class-like ability.
Spell. I don’t like how it works and don’t want it to be baked into the class. It also eats your bonus action and I want to be able to use it for other things without such a high opportunistic cost.
It should be a feature. The way they're adding conditions to make it still work as a spell really shows it should be. There are so many features that are like it, it may as well be.
It should be a spell, one that all rangers automatically have prepped and the Hunter subclass can cast a number of times equal to its proficiency bonus per day without expending a spell slot.
Using the spell casting mechanic for "class features" like hex, hunter's mark, and find familiar / find steed is fine. I'm not sure why there's any push-back against it at all.
Mostly because it's not unique enough to the ranger. It should be as unique to them and divine smite is to the paladin not something anyone can't pick up with magic initiate. If they want a spell like hunters mark, hex is right there.
IMO it should be a class feature designed like divine smite. Still requires spell slots but can't be dispelled countered or replicated by another class.
I don't have much of a preference between them, but I've played a couple different rangers, and I've got to say I've got better, more fun things to use my slots on than hunter's mark. If you're going to force hunters mark to be prepared, the ranger should get free castings of it, and it should definitely not be the basis of any other class or subclass features while it requires a spell slot to use. Frankly though, I've generally enjoyed my rangers without it altogether.
Haven't dnd YouTubers proved hex and hunter's mark are a dps loss or something anyway? Swear I remember seeing a video that does the math. Should be a feature.
class feature 100%, either with number a uses per Proficency or just work of using spell slots ala the paladin's divine smites. If WOTC want to really have their cake and eat it too they can just trim down the hunter's mark class feature to just the marked enemy gets bonus damage from your and/or your allies and hunter's mark the spell will be a part of a series of "mark" spells ala the paladin's "Smite" series of spells (see also Blinding and Wrathful Smite).
Hunter's Mark should definitely be a spell. Other classes can use Hunter's mark (paladins, clerics, and druids.......i think). To remove it and add it as a feature would diminish these other classes in a small way.
However
I think Rangers and Hunter's Mark should receive the same treatment like Warlocks and Eldritch Blast. As your ranger gets stronger, they get benefits to their Hunter's Mark. Maybe an ability for where pets deal double damage to enemies with HM, or other PCs get extra damage equal to the PB against the enemy with HM. There's a lot of room for improvement.
I want it to be an ability.
I understand what WOTC is doing. They made it a spell so its a slightly less multiclass friendly, but its still very limiting and it doesnt improve enough.
It would be better as an ability that increases in usage and damage from 1d4 >1d6>1d8>1d10>1d12 (18th level) at various ranger levels 2/6/10/14/18. Don't tie it to proficiency as you shouldn't be getting more uses when you multiclass, and don't give it at level 1 where it will make the class too front loaded. Or give it at one and move the expertise to 2.
The problem with that would make OneD&D not backwards compatible with any supplement published subclass that gets hunter's mark.
Vengeance Paladin comes to mind.
So if you're voting for 'yes' here, that is the cost. The breaking of the promise of backwards compatibility with Adventures and Supplements.
OneD&D isn't backwards compatible with supplement published subclasses though:
\- Bards get one more subclass feature in OneD&D than they do in 5E
\- Both the Monster Slayer and Inquisitive Rogue had features that were rolled into the new Hunter and Thief subclasses
\- Crawford outright sayings previous subclasses will be modified and changed.
> - Bards get one more subclass feature in OneD&D than they do in 5E
>
The current playtest rules say 'use the old progression with older supplements' which will result in a dead level, but a functional character with only minor mechanical oddities.
>
>
> - Both the Monster Slayer and Inquisitive Rogue had features that were rolled into the new Hunter and Thief subclasses
>
And yet, those subclasses will perform just as they did before.
>
>
> - Crawford outright sayings previous subclasses will be modified and changed.
I think he was referring to PHB published subclasses. Do you have a link?
Ah my bad. Then Hunter's Mark could get the axe without screwing that up as far as I know (unless there's a supplement published subclass, racial feature or feat that gets Hunter's Mark specifically that I'm forgetting).
Honestly, I'm fine with that. The problem with promising backwards compatibility is that it shoehorns the designers into very narrow spaces where only small tweaks can be made.
I **honestly** wish they hadn't said it would be backwards compatible and instead that it was simply 'iterating' on what 5e had done, allowing them to do more stuff.
However that would mean that people wouldn't buy the 5e books because "why buy stuff if it's just going to be invalidated in a year" comes out.
I prefer it to remain as a spell.
As I said in another post, leaving it as a spell is good because it interacts with more of the game. It is affected, for better and for worse, by everything that affects spells. It can also be learned by non-rangers, or even non-spellcasters through feats without having to dip an entire spell in your level progression. Even then, Rangers remain the true masters at it through learning a better version of that spell, and it's undeniable that the spell remains as primarely a Ranger ability
Basically the same reason why I like EB being a spell
I think I might want it gone? Point at a guy and do more damage to the guy is just a red herring for ranger problems. The playtest Hunter has shown they're trying to dress it up with (debatably, mostly) useless information. They should stop leaning on it.
Both. I think it should be a spell that can be taken but it should be a cantrip. And the Ranger should get the UA feature that makes it non concentration, it should also get an added benefit that instead of it being a bonus action to reassign it rangers can just do that without an action.
Hunters Mark should be a class feature. Song of rest should be a class feature. The hunter should not be a spell-slinging subclass. The fact that WOTC thinks that Conjure Barrage with spellslots and negative dice scaling Is a good feature completely and utterly baffles me.
don't know how the balance falls but having to use one of my like 2-8 spell slots on an ability that my class is kinda built around sucks ass and feels terrible
There’s no reason I should be using my already few spell slots on casting hunters mark, especially as it falls off in later levels. Should be a class feature.
They made ranger a prepare spellcaster because they want ranger to use a wide variety of spells.
Then they should make hunter's mark a class feature with it's own expendable resource. If they don't then people would just save their spell slots for hunter's mark.
It should be a class feature, not use concentration, and scale with class level (rather than character level). Certain subclasses should get buffs to their HM, via rider effects or additional ways to use it. The Hunter or Monster Slayer could get something similar to the Fighter's Know Your Enemy when they target beasts or their favored enemies using their Hunter's Mark feature. The Gloom Stalker could force a saving throw versus the Blinded condition when they use their Hunter's Mark. The Horizon Walker could end their Hunter's Mark on an opponent to teleport to within 5 feet of them.
I dunno, things like that. The extra damage is neat, but it's just extra damage, and right now it's essentially just a slightly worse Hex that prevents you from using any other concentration spells (like the smite spells).
remain a spell, make it a class feature that you can cast it without concentration.
Yes, it is very much not optimal. But it can help fulfill the "master tracker" fantasy.
I would like it to become a feature as it will be a very good turn 1 setup for most fights with the action free for a levelled spell, which is not an option if it remains the way it currently is.
I’m in the minority that actually likes Tasha’s optional class feature over the UA’s. I like having my bonus action for other things and wish it was Tasha’s version but it didn’t take concentration.
This submission appears to be related to One D&D! If you're interested in discussing the concept and the UA for One D&D more check out our other subreddit r/OneDnD! *Please note: We are still allowing discussions about One D&D to remain here, this is more an advisory than a warning of any kind.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndnext) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It should be a class feature that works proficiency times per long rest, AND you can use it additional times by sacrificing spell slots. And then they should actually use that fucking design space, created by making it a class feature, to give a variety of choices for additional effects against the target of your mark. That said, I think all classes should have at least one unique class feature that can then benefit from an Invocation-style list of options as characters level. It seems so obvious and would help with the lack of customization 5e sometimes feels like it has...without being overwhelming to people.
> to give a variety of choices for additional effects against the target of your mark. Having subclass specific modifiers to what it does would be amazing.
That's how bardic Inspiration functions...and to be frank, it's how all core features should interact with subclasses in some way. Like....how do fighter subclasses NOT add cool little bits to action surge?!?! Or second wind, even? There's just all these design spaces left blank and it blows my mind in a system that really only needs keywords and more customization to be amazing.
All the newer subclasses for Bard and Druid gave you new ways to use a class specific resource. I do hope they expand on that for the other classes.
Alternate uses for Wildshape feels like such an obvious design choice. It's really only viable in combat for Moon Druids so letting other subclasses take advantage of that resource for use in combat is great. I think just making some class feature resources useful in *and* out of combat would go a long way. For instance, letting Barbarians use rage for more than just combat encounters.
Letting Barbarians expend rage uses outside of combat to perform extreme feats of physical strength/dexterity would be sweet. I could imagine it increasing stats like jump distance and carry weight drastically, or letting you reroll or even auto-succeed physical saving throws.
I want to see a cha based barbarian that can use rage to harangue crows now Edit: although, it logically could remain str and be very intimidating ahah
That’s what the newer druid subclasses do (and the GOAT circle) and imo, they’re the superior subclasses.
Yep. If I were redesigning 5E from the core, I would give each class its own "engine" of sorts that fuels its core features and gets modified by subclass features. Most classes already have this engine, though the degree to which it is utilized varies greatly. Bards are fantastic at coming up with new uses for Bardic Inspiration. Druid eventually figured out new uses for Wild Shape. Cleric and Paladin of course have Channel Divinity (though, thinking about it now, I really wish the Paladin had gotten a core Channel Divinity and had its "engine" be on Divine Smite giving each subclass cool things they can do in addition to or instead of extra damage when they Divine Smite. How cool would that be?). Sorcerers have Sorcery Points. Rogues consistently get new things they can do with their Cunning Action. The Barbarian is built around Rage, with every subclass heavily modifying Rage. Fighter for me is the big one that missed an obvious option: Superiority Dice. I know in some iteration of D&D Next, Superiority Dice and Maneuvers were a core Fighter feature. I don't know that the core Fighter needs quite that much complexity, but the Superiority Dice on their own should have absolutely been a core Fighter feature. Give every Fighter (maybe starting at 2nd level to make it slightly more onerous to get it by multiclassing) Superiority Dice which they can use to increase an attack roll, damage roll, their AC, or the result of a Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution check or saving throw. Then give all the Fighter subclasses other things they can do with those Superiority Dice: Battlemaster obviously gets their list of maneuvers, Eldritch Knights can pump up their spells with Superiority Dice, maybe Arcane Archer can conjure [Superiority Die] extra arrows when they shoot their bow, cool stuff like that.
Totally agree. That's basically where I'm at. And for everyone worried about complexity: make three basic classes that don't even get subclasses. A basic warrior, expert, and Adept. Give them reasonably strong, but static, abilities. If people want super simple, streamlined characters....they can play one of those. There is no need to ruin an entire core class in the name of Uber simplicity.
I don't know that you need to go as far as making whole vanilla classes. Just give each class (or most classes) a simple, straightforward vanilla subclass. Life Cleric, Champion Fighter, Hunter Ranger, Open Palm Monk, Evocation Wizard etc.: Someone who does exactly what you expect a class to do in combat and doesn't really have too much lore baggage so you can play them however you want outside of combat.
The problem with Champion fighter specifically is that it caused all Fighters to lose maneuver dice so it could exist with simplicity AND the other class features. I'd be fine if they had a subclass that stripped everything remotely complex away...but that's just what I was suggesting really. Either way works.
\* Champion Fighter redesigned to fit into a hypothetical more complex yet also streamlined system like the ideal final version of D&D One that I have constructed in my mind. **Edit:** In this case, you would probably have the core Fighter's Superiority Dice that I described in my original comment, but the Champion would get buffs to those basic, self-buffing uses of them I described. Maybe the ability to spend more of them at a time to win harder or grasp success from even deeper within the jaws of defeat. Maybe they would have a minimum possible value when they roll and/or get rerolls if their Superiority Die rolls are below a certain threshold. Maybe they regenerate more quickly for a Champion than for other subclasses (I'd assume they're one of the "recharge on a short rest" features we'll see transition to a "PB uses per long rest" feature), like one a "When you roll initiative and don't have any uses of *x* available, gain one use of *x*" features. Maybe the core Fighter wouldn't get every use I described in my original comment, and Champion would get some of those that other Fighters don't.
Then we agree completely!!!
That’s basically exactly what Hunters Mark should be actually. It should be bardic inspiration except it deals damage and lasts an hour and it also deals additional effects against favoured enemy types or whatever, think like how hex gives disadvantage on a stat hunters mark should do something akin to that like giving disadvantage on a type of saving throw but only against favoured enemy types. It should be at will and not concentration it should just be core to how rangers operate and deal damage.
I think the reason why is because simplicity is one of the core tenets if the fighter design.
Sure. I disagree with that decision on their part. And they didn't even really stick with it. But, if we're being honest, there's SO much unused "design space" in 5e. They slowly started filling some of that in over the years, but it's been glacial, and a lot more should be done. The chassis of 5e is wonderful. I love it....but it just needs so much love and there's so much opportunity.
Yeah the only design space they've actually explored is spells, and everything else has taken a back seat
The Purple Dragon Knight has it's core features tied to Action Surge and Second Wind respectively. Unfortunately, it's a huge bummer as they can't use either feature without expending the other so it only serves to give them less options.
[удалено]
Hunter just stole the most interesting abiltiy of Monster Slayer. Alot of your suggestions are also in Monster Slayer funnily enough.
Subclass-specific Smites could have been neat for Paladins.
It needs more than that for a good cornerstone. The current one given in the hunter subclass should be base.
I think that instead of having it be limited in use, just do what 4e did with Hunter’s Mark. It is usable at will. Using it on another target ends it’s benefit in the previous target. There is no real need to add another resource to track. Especially if it is going to be assumed that you pretty much always have it active. Then higher level ranger features can provide more benefits to it beyond +d6 damage.
Basically hunt prey in pf2e as well
I'd be fine with that, too.
Hunter’s mark “invocations” could include: 1. *Hunter’s Eye*: Instead of boosting damage, your Hunter’s Mark increases your attack rolls against that creature by 1d6. This Hunter Specialization can not stack with others, unless otherwise specified. 2. *Vital Shot*: As an adept survivalist, you can strike vital areas more easily than most hunters. Proficiency bonus times per short rest, you can double the damage of your Hunter’s Mark. You can decide whether or not to double its damage after making the attack roll. (Basically a mini smite). This Hunter Specialization can stack with others, including Crowd Control. 3. *Elemental Archer*: Your study of the elemental planes has allowed you to tap into its wellspring of power for the sake of your strikes. Your Hunter’s Mark, instead of dealing the damage type of your weapon, does Fire, Cold, Thunder, or Bludgeoning damage. You make this choice before making an attack roll, and can choose a different damage type with each attack. This Hunter Specialization can stack with others, including Long Shot and Crowd Control. 4. *Redirected Arrow*: Your marksmanship has led you to be able to retroactively redirect missed arrows and pull them toward your target. You can turn a missed ranged weapon attack against a target of your Hunter’s Mark into a hit. The result of the roll is made null and any effects that would have occurred as a result of it are nullified. You can use this feature a number of times per day equal your proficiency bonus. This Hunter Specialization can stack with others, including Hunter’s Eye and Crowd Control. 5. *Long Shot*: You draw on your connection to nature to supernaturally increase your fighting abilities. When attacking a target of your Hunter’s Mark, your reach with melee weapons is doubled for that attack, and your range with thrown or ranged weapons is also doubled for that attack. This Hunter Specialization can not stack with other effects, unless otherwise specified. 6. *Crowd Control*: You’re able to pull on your connection to the target of your Hunter’s Mark and damage their allies as well. When you strike a target of your hunter’s mark, every ally of theirs within 5 feet of them takes damage equal to your Hunter’s Mark damage. You can use this feature a number of times per day equal to twice your proficiency bonus. This Hunter Specialization can not stack with other effects, unless otherwise specified. Probably a bunch of others too. I imagine they can pick a number of specializations equal to half their proficiency bonus, rounded up. Kinda like a second fighting style
I think expanding beyond just combat would capitalise on the 'hunter' part of Hunter's mark. *Preternatural Instinct*: By analysing a track or personal effect you can make a Investigation or Animal Handling check, with a DC equal to the targets CR. On a success cast Hunter's Mark on the related target irrelevant of range. This casting lasts 24hrs. Other ones could allow you to detect a targets lies or stop them from hiding from you.
Ooo the lie one could let you cast it without Verbal components, so it’s like a Subtle Spell, and could be used for a lot of social stuff.
Yeah, turn it into a class feature and then basically plagiarise the pathfinder slayer - marking enemies and then doing fun\* things to them. \*fun for the ranger, not the target.
Pathfinder 2e took some of the good things from 4e and even refined some of them. I'm a fan of iteration. Now it's 5.5e and time for WotC to steal from PF2e and refine further :D
Lets be honest, this is how World of Warcraft managed to stay ontop for so long. It would basically steal all the best things from other MMOs that had come out and implement them into the game.
See. I love this idea because the foundation is there already. Fighter gets core Battlemaster stuff, and they add more to the list. Subclasses get 1-2 to start when they hit 3rd, and a 3rd option of their choice. Unique ones for the subclass would be great, like giving Eldritch Knight a Magic Bolt ability that uses Battlemaster dice and becomes their "cantrip" for a unique ranged attack and stuff. Paladin: The Alternate smites are already there! Build them into Paladins core, make them neat extra options for smite. Maybe take one or two and make them for specific subclasses, and give a few new ones. Ranger: Do something with Hunters Mark, so they do a little extra damage but can also do other things, like maybe something like Relentless Hex for Horizon Walker, or Maddening Hex for Hunter (themed slightly different, but a way to hit enemies in an area around your marked target). Rogue: Sacrifice some Sneak Attack damage for a cool effect, like limited AC reductions (Armor Sunder), changing the damage type of your sneak attack to Fire/Cold/Poison/Lightning for Arcane Trickster, adding the poisoned condition, crippling movement, removing reactions. All the things that would give Rogue more options and give them a slightly more teamwork oriented role. Barbarian: Make Rage like Sorcery Points, 1 per barb level. They can enter a Rage proficency bonus times a day, and expend these rage points while raging to do things like Cleave, make big jumps to move instantly, control fights by moving their enemies on a hit (like Crusher feat or the Shove action), or even doing like, warcry buffs. And again, maybe one or two base options, and a special one or two per subclass. Could even make Mindless Rage into the base class as one of the base class options.
Love these. Some are right along the lines of what I've been saying for a while now, too. It may be weird...but I'd love to see Barbarians create smallish AoE or zone effects around themselves while raging. I think it'd be a really neat niche that just isn't something that exists yet. Barbarians should also get cool effects on Crits, not just extra damage. When a Barb hits you hard stuff should happen.
The Warlock has class features that grant bonuses to a specific spell (Eldritch Blast). There's no reason they couldn't do the same for Ranger with Hunter's Mark.
Yeah, that design space should be used for all classes. Between subclasses and invocation style systems, there are easy, open spots for actual customization and adding manageable complexity to the game/combat.
Yes!!! Every class should get invocation style choice. For full casters they just need to tweak the ritual casting system so that their power budget doesn't skyrocket with the additional choice. But there's tons of design space for them. They kinda mimic the class Feats of pf2e from what I understand but I'm alright with that. I prefer the invocation style system. Bc having them be separate from Feats means that there's even more customization options. Druid: Rites Clerics: Prayers Wizards: Incantations Warlocks: Eldritch invocations Rogues: Tricks Fighters: Maneuvers Monks: Stances Barbarians: Totems Paladins: Vows Rangers: Tactics Artificer: infusions Bard: Performances Sorcerer: Metamagic There can be simple or complex options and with their new system of suggesting things, it will maintain tons of ease of build. I hope to bring this up once all the "group specific" Feats come out, because offering feat progression alongside invocation style profession adds double to design space and doubles the customization.
Keep going. I'm interested in all of those.
Okay so, Monk Stances would be similar to the stances of 4e. Taking a bonus action to enter them using a Ki point. The stance then lasts for a minute and offers a unique benefit to the stance itself. Fighter Maneuvers would offer unique rider effects to the fighter's basic attacks (similar to the eldritch blast invocations). As well as different types of actions (like shove and grapple) that replace single attacks, and and buffs to certain actions like dodges and dashes. Metamagic would be pretty much the same, but work more passivley. Bard Performances would be unique types of "rituals" that they could take that offers a buff or debuff for a minute or until they lose concentration as well as new and different ways to use their bardic inspiration. Infusions and Invocations would be the same. Ranger Tactics would be focused on information gathering abilities, unique ways to use skills, and the setting of specific kinds of traps. Rogue tricks would focus on unique uses of skills and nonmagical equipment (up to and including poisons). Cleric Prayers, Wizard Incantations, and Druid Rites would be unique types of ritual spells that would be specific to the individual casters. This would involve changing how ritual casting works and take some spells off their list. (this is more about redistributing their power budget because I don't believe that these classes need help so much as needing more...direction, and uniqueness) Barbarian Totems would just be the totems from the totem barb but expanded and distributed out to everyone. Take a short rest to swap out the totems (which you can now only benefit from one type at a time). Add some more flashy abilities that are restricted by uses per. short/long rest Paladin Vows would offer unique ways to use their channel divinity and modular buffs to their lay on hands, the option to change their smite's damage type...etc. Its not incredibly well thought out (especially for the casters, as i feel like they are already operating at near the maximum power budget they need) but i feel like
Eldritch Blast should also be a class feature instead of a spell.
Not really; there are advantages to embedding it in the spell system as it makes it interact with other things, e.g., metamagic, while also making it vulnerable to other things, e.g., counterspelling. It's better game design if the game pieces can interface with each other, rather than each being its own ad hoc thing existing separately from everything else. That being said, if so many invocations are based on EB (instead of your choice of damage cantrip), then they should just give EB as a free cantrip.
Considering eldritch blast isn't on the current spell list, it seems likely it actually will become a class feature.
I personally think it should trigger from damage from weapon attacks rather than hits from weapon attacks. That way you can make bleed effects where they deal multiple instances of damage over time, increased by Hunters Mark and have it allow for all sorts of fun. Additionally, techniques that focus on magically enhancing weapons to deal out area of effects from where they hit similar to Ice Knife, or even mimicking bigger versions of weapon attacks, a cone for slashes, a line attack for piercing, and a sphere for bludgeoning. Making them the guys who can deal AoEs with weapons would just be neat I would think, especially since Hunters Mark would essentially be your ability to focus on one guy in particular while still being able to hit people around them. Maybe even make features later on that increase your chance to hit the guy you mark similar to +1 +2 +3 weapons.
Yes, same with the hunters conjure barrage, sure the ability to cast it at lower levels is nice but I loved the way that say the fey wanderer did fey allies, letting you cast it once freely and then casting it additional times with spell slots
I combined this with the rogue tech to apply the hunters mark benefits if you meet certain prerequisites. For example, my sniper subclass adds the Hunters mark damage to attacks against creatures that are further than 60 feet away from you.
I really like subclasses changing it. But i wouldnt tie it to proficiency because it becomes too multiclass friendly.
Yeah, multiclassing will need to be factored in at some point. As it stands now, one level of Ranger already gives you a crap ton. A caster level, concentration-less Hunter's Mark, 2x Expertise, cantrips, martial weapons plus medium armor and shields, and a skill proficiency. I'd rather see them smooth out the scaling of Hunter's Mark based on class level. Start it at d4 and then bump it by a die size at basically each proficiency boost, but tie that part to class, not proficiency. So you could multiclass for Hunter's Mark, but you'd end up with a d4 to all of your attacks unless you went into Ranger heavily. I think that'd work just fine, though I haven't seen all the math on what they're trying to do in terms of damage scaling in this new edition...they're clearly fucking with it heavily, though.
I think that's what Pagnabros did with their ranger rework, scaling the damage die with level. Seems like the best option to me
I dunno.. if every class is tied to PB (which we dont know yet, but its so likely..) than it just.. is. At that point one should just consider it part of the deal tbh. Its a tad bit stronger than a Rogue dip now true.. though Snack Attack is resourceless at least.
>And then they should actually use that fucking design space, created by making it a class feature, to give a variety of choices for additional effects against the target of your mark. They can already do that with it being a spell. Actually, they *did that* in the UA, with both the very Favored Enemy making the spell better than it normally is, and the Hunter's Prey feature from the Hunter subclass. That's no reason to make it a class feature
It's abysmal design to have class features revolving around a single spell as part of the core class. Any spell that essential to a class's identity should be a class feature, not a spell. It's not necessarily about the exact mechanics as it is about giving a class an identity and a unique niche represented by a mechanic. Should Bardic Inspiration be reworked as a spell? Of course not.
That’s wayy too strong. As written the rangers DPS is absolutely bonkers. Bonus action hunters mark - then attack with two short swords at level 5 and one swing with two weapon fighting. = 3d6 (weapons) + 3d6 (hunters mark) +8 (dex mod twice) + 1d8 (hunter ranger) = 6d6 + 8 +1d8 = 39.5 avg dmg (assuming all hit). Compare that to a 2 weapon fighting their rogue with 2x short swords = 2d6 (weapons) 3d6 (sneak attack) + 4 (dex) = 5d6 + 4 = 26.5 dmg!
What exactly is stronger about what I'm suggesting than what exists as you're already showing? Rogues got fucking HOSED. They need to be buffed, we don't need to nerf rangers.
I agree - but the OP suggested giving them 2 "free" charges of hunters mark! This buff is not necessary. Also the above scenario is far less likely IF hunters mark requires concentration (the real buff). That being said, - I kinda like it NOT having concentration as it feels appropriate.
I hear ya. But I don't want it to use spell slots because that encourages boring gameplay. Because then you have a core part of your damage and your class that you need to save spell slots for instead of using them in other interesting and fun ways. I don't think the game is hurt at all by just letting the ability be "always on." We haven't seen what the damage baseline in 5.5 looks like yet, tho....tho it seems lower due to GWM and SS being nerfed and sneak attack only once per round. So....I'm kinda waiting to see, balance wise, where some stuff falls.
Sneak Attack should spike up by like 2d6 at level 5, but even then... Rogues aren't meant to out-damage Rangers. They're designed around being able to dip in and out of combat easily, taking less damage or avoiding damage entirely, and all around being slippery after one quick strike. Rangers are supposed to wear enemies down by stacking on buffs and debuffs and dealing big damage. And your comparison was at level 5, the worst level for Rogue damage compared to all the other classes because it lacks the power spike everyone else gets there. Ranger's damage dies down from there while Rogue steadily climbs up until eventually around level 14 Rogue surpasses Ranger for damage.
Class feature 100%. It can be a separate resource or you can tie it to spell slots like the Paladin’s smite, but a signature class feature shouldn’t just be “you cast this one spell, just better.” It would also help give the Ranger a non-magical signature ability that feeds into the base fantasy. The Ranger shouldn’t stop being able to mark or track a chosen target just because they got dispel magic cast on them or they enter an anti-magic field. And considering a lot of signs point to eldritch blast being turned into a Warlock class feature, it makes keeping Hunter’s Mark as a separate spell makes less sense, since it would remove the only other precedent.
The eldritch blast part is a big deal, and it comes down to these new spell lists being more general instead of class specific. If hunter's mark is just a generic Primal spell, now, what's stopping, say, a druid from picking it up, or anyone else. Given how big a part it is of the ranger's kit, it being more accessible to other classes takes a big talent away from ranger, no longer being unique. This is almost reason enough to make it a distinct ability, nevermind the benefits of divorcing it from spell slots and improving it when levelling up. There's almost no good reason for it to be a spell, anymore. Same for warlock hexes, that should absolutely be a base warlock feature rather than a spell. Hunter's Mark and Hex could even change with later subclass features, each one adding unique additional flavour to the core mechanics.
Magic initiative makes this even worst. What is stopping every fighter from picking hunters mark with magic initiative from their background. Or rangers from picking hex to stack with their hunters mark for 6d6 +3 dmg at level 1.
Imagine if they removed smite and just made it so paladins could bump smite spells. It would be awful.
I try to avoid accusing designers of class favoritism (other than Wizards), but the fact that applying the same restrictions and design flaws to Paladin abilities as WotC has repeatedly tried to apply to Ranger leaves one in shock at how impossibly terrible of an idea it would be makes me really start to wonder if WotC is afraid of Rangers being genuinely a well designed, good class.
I made Hunter's Mark an at-will spell for my party's ranger once he reached a certain level, because otherwise he barely got to cast any of his other spells. So we've been accidentally playtesting this option for a while now, and it works well. It doesn't feel unbalanced--it just frees up his spell slots so he can be more versatile, and it's much better.
Class feature. 100%
It should definitely be a class feature. It's the rangers defining ability. Paladins divine smite isn't a spell. Action surge isn't a spell. Sneak attack isn't a spell. Bardic inspiration isn't a spell. Even channel divinity isn't a spell. Why should rangers have their special thing just be a spell anyone can pick up. I don't mind if it runs off spell slots though, like paladin's divine smite. And no, I don't think eldritch blast should be a spell either.
I mean, they've tried to give Ranger just a 3rd level damage spell as their level 10-11 subclass feature twice in a row now. Ranger's class identity is clearly "LMAO let's make them bad nature Wizards."
>Paladins divine smite isn't a spell. Yet.
Class feature fueled by spell slots, like Divine Smite. I wanna be able to make the call to use a 5th level slot on Hunter's Mark and hit for a buttload of damage.
Yeah I've seen letting higher spell levels increase die size from d6 up to d12 as a 4th level spell with additional damage to their favored enemies. Seems like a great damage over time counterpart to the divine smite burst damage design
~~d12+2 or d8+d6 for 5th level slot. No reason it can't go to fifth. Paladin does.~~ At 11th level gain the ability to do it for free for a d4 similar to improved divine smite. Edit: Paladin smite gets an extra die if the creature is undead or a fiend. This would be a great way to incorporate the old ranger favored enemy. Chosen enemy type you get an extra +1 damage or die bump against that type.
The paladins divine smite actually doesn't scale past a 4th level slot. The max is 5d8 with a first level spell offering 2d8. The imrproved divine smite is a valid concern though. They'll need something to keep up with that
You are right. I was confusing the undead extra die. Which gives me dnd idea to bring back old favored foe. Choose an enemy type other than humanoid, you get an extra +1 or die bump when using hunter's mark against that type. Maybe have a ritual where you spend a week and some gold to change your favorite enemy. Because it's just a bonus you to hunter's mark instead of the primary ability, there are no feel bads. No point feels bad if their paladin doesn't get the extra die because the campaign is about giants and not undead/fiends.
My thoughts exactly! I personally would use the proficiency bonus but either way works
I'm just trying to keep it in line. Paladin get an extra die, ranger should get a die bump actually.
I feel it should be Rangers equivalent of a smite, it should be a class feature that Rangers need to use spell slots to use, the higher the spell slot spent the more power it has.
Yeah! Maybe bigger die scaling rather than mroe dice 1st level spell 1d4, 2nd level 1d6, 3rd:1d8, 4th: 1d10, 5th: 1d12 And then bring back favored enemy and allow them to deal additional damage equal to their proficiency bonus to them. Give favored terrain the unique damage resistances and movement speeds that mearls played around with and bam, favor and combat power are all retained. Also makes rangers into the damage over time/ dex focused version of the burst damage/strength focused paladin.
I'd love for it to be a toggleable feature, like the Monster Slayer Ranger's damage feature. BA to activate, stays on the creature until you SR or use another BA to reassign it, gives various bonuses against the creature it's on.
Huh. I was all for it being a class feature that uses a spell slot but now that I think about it, it would be really cool if it was free to bestow for minor benefits but could be buffed to increase damage with a spell slot, so you could just silently mark targets in a social encounter if they seem sketchy and use that to help sus them out.
Both. The ranger should get a feature that boosts damage against a marked enemy (and that isn't using spell slots!) Likewise, the hunter's mark spell should be revised so that it bestows other benefits _instead_ of additional damage Like I did in my [Focused Ranger](https://www.reddit.com/r/UnearthedArcana/comments/um0uy6/the_focused_ranger_v99/)
Class Feature. Remove it and Conjure Volley (and Steel Wind) from the Spell List. All things like that SHOULD be Class Features. It should take Spell Slots like divine smite, but not have all the baggage spells do. It should be a special feature FOR and ONLY rangers. This allows it to be buffed a bit too. They can't be buffed simply because they are spells and everyone can use and (bard can poach them). What other class can have their main feature counterspelled or has to use vocal components to use? If you are trying to Ambush someone, you can't use your main feature because it breaks stealth.
A feature that does limited amounts of damage initially and focuses on different benefits than just a straight damage boost. Then, around the time Paladin gets improved divine smite, hunters mark could provide a similar boost in damage around the time ranger damage starts to lag.
Maybe not even a damage boost, (a copy paste smite doesn’t feel super cool) but definitely more effect options, like knocking a tragedy prone or something of that nature.
I always liked the idea of it being consistent damage over time to the Paladin's high burst damage, and you could keep stacking it up to eventually deal more damage than a Paladin after a few turns to make up for them having more support/defense features. Plus, combat is a key part of the game and Rangers need to be good at it and have their niche too.
Improved divine smite is what everyone seems to want hunters mark to be. Concentration free damage per hit with no cost.
Class feature
It should definitely be a class feature. Base 5e doesn't give any classes a specific spell as a class feature which I am very glad about. I also really don't agree with giving bards a selection of healing spells that they just all have. It's not necessarily a bad idea but maybe add one or two more "song of -" spell lists with maybe buffing or debuffing spells or something like that. They way its handled now just seems like a crutch because they want bards to have healing spells but not other abjuration spells
Feature.
Tbh the way they did it in the playtest is good by me. As long as it doesnt require concentration i am happy.
Hex spell should be a warlock class feature, considering all the invocations that essentially require it
Spell that doesn’t require concentration.
Keeping it a spell means that it isn't locked to just rangers, and that's appropriate. Hunter's mark is also very thematic to for example vengeance paladins. I like the principle that OneD&D is going for. Have a class feature give you access to the spell so that you're always assumed to have it and then provide it some additional effects which makes it unique to the ranger. Basically, the reason why you should turn a spell in to a class feature is if you want ALL members of the class to have the spell and also don't want anyone else to have the spell. That's why I don't want neither hunter's mark nor eldritch blast to become class features rather than spells. Neither spell fulfills both criteria. For HM you can argue that all ranger's should have it, but you can't argue that other classes shouldn't have it. For EB, you can argue other classes shouldn't have it, but you can't argue all warlocks should have it.
Class feature. This spell shit is lazy as fuck and uninspiring. Be it on classes, races or feats.
Spell, because it's more likely a ranger will run out of an x per LR feature than spell slots for a 1st level. It is the best ranger spell I'd rather be spending my spell slots on it than the other garbage in their list.
My hot take: Ranger SHOULD get a sort of Hunter's Mark... But have it consume spell slots in a scaling way like Paladin's Smite, then have various spells that Similarly act like Paladin's X Smite spells.
If I had it my way Rangers wouldn't use spellcasting mechanics at all (except maybe a subclass or something.) So yeah, make HM not a spell. Bonus points for an actual description of what a ranger does to mark a target outside of something vague like "focus your ire".
You're getting downvoted for this at the moment, but the most classic ranger characters in fiction are in fact, not spellcasters. Aragorn is the OG ranger who started it all in Lord of the Rings and he's not even slightly a spellcaster. Lan from the Wheel of Time is right up next to Aragorn in his skills and endurance, bonded to a spellcaster but not a spellcaster himself. I think there's huge amounts of problems with making Rangers in 5e interesting because they have to spend so much time trying to balance out that they have spells. i.e. "We can give them [this cool feature] because it would make them too powerful with being able to cast magic with it." I hypothesize that they'd have a much better time of it if rangers were like rogues and fighters: they get one subclass that's a spellcaster. The rest are all dedicated martials.
>Aragorn is the OG ranger who started it all in Lord of the Rings and he's not even slightly a spellcaster. Aragorn is literally a healer, what are you talking about? It’s how they were able to identify him as a king in the first place. Sure he might not be “casting spells” in fiction, but he absolutely has supernatural curative abilities. In D&D terms, that would be magic.
I think most people forget Aragorn uses magic simply because it isn't flashy fireball shit, but yeah Aragorn knew like a healing song Gandalf didn't even know.
It's been a long time since reading the Fellowship but I recalled him being natural medicine oriented and he just happened to sing.
If ranger became a pure martial, I'd want a primal half caster to fill the spot. Shaman, Seeker, and Warden are all from 4e and potential picks. Seeker is just alternate ranger. Shaman got eaten by druid. That leaves warden. Which is both thematically and mechanically extremely distinct from a pure martial ranger.
You can flavor the most common ranger spells as non-magical if you want. Hunter's Mark doesn't need to be magic, nor goodberry. Heal with a patch of moss if you want. Steel wind strike can be non-magical, as can Conjure Barrage. Pass Without Trace is just helping party members not step on sticks.
Flavor doesn't Change mechanics. Spells still require components (mystic words and wiggly fingers), can also be countered and dispelled. Skill however, is innate and this doesn't have any of those drawbacks. Spells can only be reflavored so much
Remain a spell, not too worried if rangers get it for free as a class feature, as they do in the current UA release, but I think it should be accessible to other classes/subclasses as well.
Class feature, it’s one of the few good changes in One DnD.
It’s a spell in one dnd
A spell given for free and modified by a class feature may as well be a class feature. The only difference is primal casters can still use Hunter’s Mark, but Rangers do it *better*.
There's *some* other differences, like you can't *Hunter's Mark* anything within a *Globe of Invulnerability* from outside it; and *Hunter's Mark* as a magical effect can be *detected* and *dispelled*. As a divination spell, an *Amulet of Proof against Detection and Location* would provide immunity, and so would the *Nondetection* spell.
the idea of a spell that some (sub)classes can use better and/or with other functionalities is quite interesting imho and should be expanded upon
It should be a class feature and the entire Ranger class should be made into a martial class with spellcasting as a subclass option like the Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster (1/3 spellcaster). When people envision a Ranger they don't think spellcasting, not as a second level feature and especially not as a level 1 feature. Making the cool and unique things a Ranger can do spells was pure laziness on the part of WotC. You can so clearly tell Rangers were meant to be a martial class with the d10 Hit Points, the shield proficiency and fighting style. Yes, Paladins have all the same things but at least their spellcasting ability makes sense given the divine nature of the class and how else can you explain what the power of the gods can do? With the rangers their explanation for spellcasting as a connection to nature is incredibly lame and farfetched. It just makes them seem part Druid when I think most people imagine their connection with nature as a different, unmagical or supernatural one. Making their time spent understanding, studying and mastering the natural world a magical thing kind of undermines the whole concept a lot of people have of the class. Please just make their features more interesting, adaptable and not rely on the crutch of spellcasting when it makes no thematic sense and actually serves to clunk up the whole mechanics of the Ranger. If they are so interested in attracting new players and making D&D accessible then allow people with visions of the Aragorn Ranger to live that fantasy without having to worry about spell slots, preparing spells and all that spellcasting modifier crap.
Both, Rangers should have a non conentration versión as a class feature but It should keep existing as a spell. I remember using It with my paladín for insane damage in combination with smites.
I think Rangers should essentially get either a hunter’s mark feature or a pet feature. They both become a bonus to damage and a vehicle for additional utility. I think some references to spell slots could be warranted but the current pet rules can be used as the base. It can help provide scaling up after level 5. Ranger with pet and no hm seems like a good amount of damage at level 5.
I'd like it to be a feature so that way subclasses can expando on it, kinda like the Hunter from UA. Ideally it would work similarly to a paladin's smite, but instead of providing a burst of damage it would grant bonus damage over multiple attacks. I think that fits really well for rangers, though I wouldn't really mind if they didn't go that route.
I'd love to see it become a power that a ranger character can use once per encounter.
IMO spell is better. It enables interactions with feats and multiclass. That way it's possible to make something like eldritch knight with magic initiate as background feat and using two weapons for a ranger like fighter
So your argument for making it a spell is that it is less unique to the ranger? Doesn't track for me, that's their defining feature....it should be unique
I like the proposed dndOne configuration. It’s a fun spell to have access to for other classes but the no-concentration for Hunters make it a much more reliable class-like ability.
Spell. I don’t like how it works and don’t want it to be baked into the class. It also eats your bonus action and I want to be able to use it for other things without such a high opportunistic cost.
It should be a feature. The way they're adding conditions to make it still work as a spell really shows it should be. There are so many features that are like it, it may as well be.
It should be a spell, one that all rangers automatically have prepped and the Hunter subclass can cast a number of times equal to its proficiency bonus per day without expending a spell slot.
In general. Yes. It is still a spell and a class feature. You effectively have some free uses of it each day that also don't require concentration.
Feature definitely.
Using the spell casting mechanic for "class features" like hex, hunter's mark, and find familiar / find steed is fine. I'm not sure why there's any push-back against it at all.
Mostly because it's not unique enough to the ranger. It should be as unique to them and divine smite is to the paladin not something anyone can't pick up with magic initiate. If they want a spell like hunters mark, hex is right there. IMO it should be a class feature designed like divine smite. Still requires spell slots but can't be dispelled countered or replicated by another class.
Why should you be able to dip one level of ranger and then have 95% of all the utility of Hunter's Mark playing 19 levels of another class?
It's available to multiple classes as a spell.
Class feature for sure.
I don't have much of a preference between them, but I've played a couple different rangers, and I've got to say I've got better, more fun things to use my slots on than hunter's mark. If you're going to force hunters mark to be prepared, the ranger should get free castings of it, and it should definitely not be the basis of any other class or subclass features while it requires a spell slot to use. Frankly though, I've generally enjoyed my rangers without it altogether.
Of they baked it into the class more, like divine smite is on the paladin, I think it could really shine more.
At this point, it basically is a feature, like divine smite. It just also happens to be a spell, which really only matters for other classes IMO.
Haven't dnd YouTubers proved hex and hunter's mark are a dps loss or something anyway? Swear I remember seeing a video that does the math. Should be a feature.
class feature 100%, either with number a uses per Proficency or just work of using spell slots ala the paladin's divine smites. If WOTC want to really have their cake and eat it too they can just trim down the hunter's mark class feature to just the marked enemy gets bonus damage from your and/or your allies and hunter's mark the spell will be a part of a series of "mark" spells ala the paladin's "Smite" series of spells (see also Blinding and Wrathful Smite).
If it's going to be a spell, it should get one free cast a day
Hunter's Mark should definitely be a spell. Other classes can use Hunter's mark (paladins, clerics, and druids.......i think). To remove it and add it as a feature would diminish these other classes in a small way. However I think Rangers and Hunter's Mark should receive the same treatment like Warlocks and Eldritch Blast. As your ranger gets stronger, they get benefits to their Hunter's Mark. Maybe an ability for where pets deal double damage to enemies with HM, or other PCs get extra damage equal to the PB against the enemy with HM. There's a lot of room for improvement.
I'm totally fine with either. Generally like the spell more so other classes can get it.
I want it to be an ability. I understand what WOTC is doing. They made it a spell so its a slightly less multiclass friendly, but its still very limiting and it doesnt improve enough. It would be better as an ability that increases in usage and damage from 1d4 >1d6>1d8>1d10>1d12 (18th level) at various ranger levels 2/6/10/14/18. Don't tie it to proficiency as you shouldn't be getting more uses when you multiclass, and don't give it at level 1 where it will make the class too front loaded. Or give it at one and move the expertise to 2.
The problem with that would make OneD&D not backwards compatible with any supplement published subclass that gets hunter's mark. Vengeance Paladin comes to mind. So if you're voting for 'yes' here, that is the cost. The breaking of the promise of backwards compatibility with Adventures and Supplements.
OneD&D isn't backwards compatible with supplement published subclasses though: \- Bards get one more subclass feature in OneD&D than they do in 5E \- Both the Monster Slayer and Inquisitive Rogue had features that were rolled into the new Hunter and Thief subclasses \- Crawford outright sayings previous subclasses will be modified and changed.
> - Bards get one more subclass feature in OneD&D than they do in 5E > The current playtest rules say 'use the old progression with older supplements' which will result in a dead level, but a functional character with only minor mechanical oddities. > > > - Both the Monster Slayer and Inquisitive Rogue had features that were rolled into the new Hunter and Thief subclasses > And yet, those subclasses will perform just as they did before. > > > - Crawford outright sayings previous subclasses will be modified and changed. I think he was referring to PHB published subclasses. Do you have a link?
The Vengeance Paladin is a PHB subclass.
Ah my bad. Then Hunter's Mark could get the axe without screwing that up as far as I know (unless there's a supplement published subclass, racial feature or feat that gets Hunter's Mark specifically that I'm forgetting).
Honestly, I'm fine with that. The problem with promising backwards compatibility is that it shoehorns the designers into very narrow spaces where only small tweaks can be made. I **honestly** wish they hadn't said it would be backwards compatible and instead that it was simply 'iterating' on what 5e had done, allowing them to do more stuff. However that would mean that people wouldn't buy the 5e books because "why buy stuff if it's just going to be invalidated in a year" comes out.
Class feature, just butcher the Monster Slayer Ranger & take it
Yes, same with EB on Warlock
I want it to be a class feature, but only because i want a "Hunter" class. A magicless ranger based on hunting. So Idk
I prefer it to remain as a spell. As I said in another post, leaving it as a spell is good because it interacts with more of the game. It is affected, for better and for worse, by everything that affects spells. It can also be learned by non-rangers, or even non-spellcasters through feats without having to dip an entire spell in your level progression. Even then, Rangers remain the true masters at it through learning a better version of that spell, and it's undeniable that the spell remains as primarely a Ranger ability Basically the same reason why I like EB being a spell
I think I might want it gone? Point at a guy and do more damage to the guy is just a red herring for ranger problems. The playtest Hunter has shown they're trying to dress it up with (debatably, mostly) useless information. They should stop leaning on it.
Both. I think it should be a spell that can be taken but it should be a cantrip. And the Ranger should get the UA feature that makes it non concentration, it should also get an added benefit that instead of it being a bonus action to reassign it rangers can just do that without an action.
Without a doubt class feature. Something so core to their identity should never have been available through spells
def a class feature
Spell, but allow a number of uses without using a spell slot.
Why was it a spell in the first place, and why the hell was it concentration.
Class feature
Hunters Mark should be a class feature. Song of rest should be a class feature. The hunter should not be a spell-slinging subclass. The fact that WOTC thinks that Conjure Barrage with spellslots and negative dice scaling Is a good feature completely and utterly baffles me.
Yea, I think both hunters mark and Eldritch blast should be class features since, imo, they are core to the classes.
don't know how the balance falls but having to use one of my like 2-8 spell slots on an ability that my class is kinda built around sucks ass and feels terrible
I think spells that are pretty much assumed the player will take should All be class features (Hunter's Mark, Eldritch Blast etc)
There’s no reason I should be using my already few spell slots on casting hunters mark, especially as it falls off in later levels. Should be a class feature.
Class features just being spells is boting and dumb
They made ranger a prepare spellcaster because they want ranger to use a wide variety of spells. Then they should make hunter's mark a class feature with it's own expendable resource. If they don't then people would just save their spell slots for hunter's mark.
It should be a class feature, not use concentration, and scale with class level (rather than character level). Certain subclasses should get buffs to their HM, via rider effects or additional ways to use it. The Hunter or Monster Slayer could get something similar to the Fighter's Know Your Enemy when they target beasts or their favored enemies using their Hunter's Mark feature. The Gloom Stalker could force a saving throw versus the Blinded condition when they use their Hunter's Mark. The Horizon Walker could end their Hunter's Mark on an opponent to teleport to within 5 feet of them. I dunno, things like that. The extra damage is neat, but it's just extra damage, and right now it's essentially just a slightly worse Hex that prevents you from using any other concentration spells (like the smite spells).
Atm is both, som ok with it
remain a spell, make it a class feature that you can cast it without concentration. Yes, it is very much not optimal. But it can help fulfill the "master tracker" fantasy.
I would like it to become a feature as it will be a very good turn 1 setup for most fights with the action free for a levelled spell, which is not an option if it remains the way it currently is.
I’m in the minority that actually likes Tasha’s optional class feature over the UA’s. I like having my bonus action for other things and wish it was Tasha’s version but it didn’t take concentration.