Easy Martial Character "fixes" with houseruling

[Grynning]

So, there's a fair amount of agreement that Fighters and Rangers, and to a lesser degree Barbarians, Rogues and Monks, are a bit underwhelming in this edition. Paladins are the only beatstick class they got right in this one IMO. I'm home sick from work again so I thought I'd throw together some house rules for them to make the others bit more fun and powerful feeling.

Starting with Fighter and Ranger, since they're the ones I think need the most help. These are very simple fixes using the existing rules as a model, so these won't necessarily solve the "roll a d20 and hit it" problem, but I think they bring the power level up to match the others.



General: The Champion archetype is deleted, and its abilities are simply fighter abilities now, gained by every member of the class. The Remarkable Athlete ability now adds 10 ft to the distance you can jump rather than your strength modifier.

Battlemaster:
You gain proficiency in Charisma Saving throws at level 3
15th level ability gains you a die whenever you roll initiative, up to your maximum (i.e. you don't have to be out of dice).

Eldritch Knight:
Can pick from the Transmutation school when selecting spells as well as Abjuration and Evocation. You gain proficiency in Intelligence saving throws at level 3
War Magic: Changed to "When you take the attack action, you can replace one attack with a cantrip you know"
Improved War magic: Same as above but with any spell. I know this is powerful, but it gives them a real reason to cast and fight in the same turn.

General: Foe Slayer is gained at 13th level. At 20th level it improves to add to both the attack and damage rolls against your favored enemies.

Hunter: Gains two of the available abilities, rather than one, at levels 3, 7 and 15. Gains an additional favored enemy at level 15.
New abilities:
Level 3: Hamstring - when you hit a creature with a weapon attack, their speed is reduced by 10 feet until the start of your next turn. You can use the ability only once per turn.
Level 7: Danger Sense - as the lvl 2 Barbarian class feature
Level 15: (untitled) - When a creature misses you with a melee attack, you can use your reaction to move half your speed.

Beast Master:
Level 1 beast companions can be up to Large size. The exceptional training ability is gained at level 3 instead of at level 7. You add Speak with Animals to your spells known; if you already know it, you can add another Ranger spell of 1st level to your spells known. Your proficiency bonus is also added to the save DC of effects your beast may create through its attacks.
Bestial Fury: Now gained at level 7. Changed - Instead of letting you make two beast attacks with the attack action, you can now use your bonus action to command your beast to attack. This means you can make two attacks yourself and one with the beast, or two with the beast and one yourself (still have to burn your bonus action, so no dual wielding, but w/e).
At 11th level, you get two options:You can choose a new beast companion of up to Large size with a challenge rating of up to 1/2, or you can add +2 to your existing companions Strength or Dexterity, and +1 to all of its other ability scores.
At level 15, when you gain share spells, you also add any two Druid or Ranger spells with a range of self to your spells known. You must have spell slots of the appropriate levels available as usual.

Quickies for the other classes:

Barbarian: I actually quite like the class as written, but it's bunk they don't get a fighting style. They should get one at some point, probably choosing between Great Weapon, Two-Weapon, Dueling, and Defense.

Rogue: Arcane Trickster can choose from Conjuration as well as Illusion and Enchantment when picking spells.

Monk: Perfect Self changed to regain 4 ki points whenever you roll initiative, up to your maximum.

[Grynning]

Any comments on these? Would the Eldritch Knight changes make it substantially better than Battle Master?
Also any suggestions on other types of fixes would be cool.

[Dienekes]

Maybe a bit strong just adding Champs abilities to it.

As for the EK

Maybe replace 2 attacks for spells above cantrips? Or if you're willing to get more complicated scale which spells can be cast as a single attack up as you level.

Also, write down an actual spell list for the class might be nice.

[Chaosvii7]

On the Barbarian changes: I think it's a fair houserule to allow the bonus Rage damage to apply whenever you make a weapon attack instead of just a strength attack, and then instead of taking dueling, go for Archery. I've never heard of a Barbarian fighting with just a rapier, but I've heard of plenty of Bowbarians in my lifetime. Cragtop Archer was a niche, but it was a good one.

Ranger? I think their niche might actually be well protected and fine. The only thing I wish they added was a trapsmith archetype. I don't mind the changes to Foe Slayer, but if you want to give a choice of any two then I think more options is necessary - at least five, if not six options per feature.

Fighter is here and there; I don't think Eldritch Knight needs a massive rework, but a more loose interpretation of RAW and RAI for War Magic is necessary, one that would bring it in line with your newer version. The potential is there, but people are sticklers for RAI. I think if anybody wants to roll one up at my table I'll gladly let them use cantrips and spells in place of an attack during their full attack actions. Deleting the Champion archetype wouldn't be too much of an upset, but it would certainly warrant a new archetype to replace it. I just don't like the extended crit of the Champion Archetype, it's really lackluster and it feels like the meat of the class' features should be there, but critting an extra 5-10% of the time(Before advantage) doesn't feel like it's a spectacular feature.

I saw in the Battlemaster rework thread that they were making a new set of maneuvers that, instead of being static, got better as you leveled. I think that's something that could really make the archetype pop, as well as make Martial Adept a lot more attractive on paper to melee specialists that aren't Fighters.

[Grynning]

I get what you're saying about barbarians mechanically, but from a fluff standpoint, I think that the "bowbarian" archetype could easily be filled with a fighter or ranger in 5E (with the outlander background). Adding rage damage to a bow shot doesn't quite make sense to me. I liked them having access to dueling because Viking berserkers, Zulu warriors, etc, all used shields, and barbarians are proficient with shields, so why not support their use a little more?

What do people think of the Beast Master changes? I think some kind of houseruling is necessary just to make it playable, let alone as good as a straight fighter.
As far as hunter goes, I think the the existing options are good but just a bit underwhelming, and that archetype is another choice for people who don't want to have to do a ton of analysis in combat since most of the abilities are passive. I think you're right that you could add another choice or two at the various levels, but right now I think I'd have to crib from other classes too much to come up with them. Maybe after I have a couple weeks to think about some new ones I could add that in.

[Scirocco]

I like the improvements to Beastmaster. As *the* pet class, a beastmaster should at least have access to larger critters. Don't know what they were thinking there with removing bears of all things from the equation.

As is a druid can use the Awaken spell to get a stronger animal "companion" than the beastmaster's at level 9 or so.

[Demonic Spoon]

What do people think of the Beast Master changes? I think some kind of houseruling is necessary just to make it playable, let alone as good as a straight fighter.


I dunno. By the time the fighter has more attacks than the ranger, the ranger will have most of his fancy animal companion features. When you consider that the beastmaster adds his proficiency bonus to damn near everything his companion does, the companion can be really strong (and the companion also has abilities which give you some cool utility like the boar's knockdown).

I don't think that the beastmaster is too weak. For thematic reasons, I wish higher level beastmasters had the option of choosing bigger/badder animal companions (though with reduced proficiency bonuses or something to compensate).


I like the improvements to Beastmaster. As *the* pet class, a beastmaster should at least have access to larger critters. Don't know what they were thinking there with removing bears of all things from the equation.


They were thinking it would be overpowering given the proficiency scaling, and it's true that it would be a difficult problem to solve. If you aren't very careful about what kinds of things a ranger's companion can do/be, you might end up with a 3.5-ish situation where the fighter is overshadowed by the minions of other classes.

[Person_Man]

My thoughts:

Melee classes get more Ability Score Increases or Feats in place of other class abilities. Ability Score Increases and Feats do not scale. They are exactly as powerful and useful at level 1 (Human Bonus Feat) as they are at level 19. So getting a couple more Ability Score Increases at mid-high levels is generally less useful then getting an actual class abilities (especially high level spells).

10th level Bards can access 5th level Paladin and Ranger spells, a few of which are pretty awesome, and shouldn't be gained by another class at level 10.

Mage Armor, Foresight, Animate Dead, and various other spells don't require Concentration. An easy fix is to just require Concentration for all spells with a duration, and then give Paladins and Rangers proficiency with Constitution Saves at mid-levels.

Ranger should be able to change Favored Enemy and Terrain with a Long Rest. (Or just make them universal always on abilities). I would also just make Hunter the strait up Ranged Combat niche; bonus to hit with Ranged Weapons, attacking adjacent with one doesn't impose Disadvantage, you ignore anything that's less then total cover, ranged attack can reduce an enemy's movement (arrow to the knee!), Arrow Storm, etc. Then create a 3rd Archetype for TWF.

[Grynning]

They were thinking it would be overpowering given the proficiency scaling, and it's true that it would be a difficult problem to solve. If you aren't very careful about what kinds of things a ranger's companion can do/be, you might end up with a 3.5-ish situation where the fighter is overshadowed by the minions of other classes.

I know what they were thinking, but they went too far the other way, particularly in light of the fact that none of the other "companion" effects are limited in this way (conjure and animate dead spells, mainly). The beast master in the book is very weak, numerically. The base damage and stats of the animal companions is far less than the average PC's (even with the proficiency bonus added in) so you're generally just better off using your actions to attack yourself. The utility of special attacks like the boar's or the wolf goes way down as you level because their save DC's are the one thing you *don't* get to add the proficiency to (actually, i should add that in to my redux, will edit). My fix is designed to give them back some of the action economy they lost between 3.5 and this without giving them more attacks than the fighter (since that is the fighter's "thing" in this edition).

Edit: added a couple off the cuff ideas for Hunter abilities to the first post. Didn't want to design a whole new archetype at the moment but I think the things I added are ok.

[BW022]

I don't think 5E has been out long enough that people can determine that martial types are in fact in need of houseruling the classes themselves.

For me, the "fix" to balancing things shouldn't start with changing the rules. The best fixes are simply adding varied and interesting challenges.

Rangers can easily be made to shine simply by having a lot of outdoor encounters, extended scouting missions, etc. For fighters, a one-on-one duel with a hobgoblin chieftain to pass through his territory. For a barbarian, needing to dive down into a murky cold swamp to release the lever to open the doorway.

Martial types can easily be made to shine against intelligent enemies or more varied conditions in which there isn't a spell to get you out of. Lots of little combats without time to rest easily means that martial types become more effective as casters run out of spells. A long overnight march, intelligent enemies who attack in the middle of the night, violent weather which prevents resting, fights in fog, counter spells, bar brawls, using minor illusions to waste big spells, towns were spell casting is banned, elves don't permit fireballs in their forests, etc. all mean martial abilities are more powerful.

You don't have to overdo it, but simply giving a few sessions where the PCs are in situations where spell casting won't get them out of it... puts the emphasis back on martial types.

[Grynning]

Different types of challenges are fine, but that's not the purpose here. Also, many of the martial characters have resource management that now depends on them having access to short rests, so they are not explicitly better at "endurance runs" as you are describing. You're also talking about low-fiat, role-play challenges, when I'm talking about pure mechanical ability.
I've been playing this edition for over 8 months now (very little has changed since the playtest), so I have a pretty good idea as to what abilities are useful and which ones aren't. These are just houserules I'm working on for a game down down the road (right now I'm running two different Tyranny of Dragons games completely by-the-book) where I want the martial characters to have better parity with spellcasting classes and with each other than they currently do. Doesn't mean I don't know how to "challenge" players outside of combat.

[Demonic Spoon]

I know what they were thinking, but they went too far the other way, particularly in light of the fact that none of the other "companion" effects are limited in this way (conjure and animate dead spells, mainly). The beast master in the book is very weak, numerically. The base damage and stats of the animal companions is far less than the average PC's (even with the proficiency bonus added in) so you're generally just better off using your actions to attack yourself. The utility of special attacks like the boar's or the wolf goes way down as you level because their save DC's are the one thing you *don't* get to add the proficiency to (actually, i should add that in to my redux, will edit). My fix is designed to give them back some of the action economy they lost between 3.5 and this without giving them more attacks than the fighter (since that is the fighter's "thing" in this edition).


They do? Look at the charge effect of the boar. That's way more damage than a 3rd-level martial character's attack is going to do, not even counting the special effects. At higher levels the special effects become less good (though not useless due to bounded accuracy), but at higher levels you give up less for having your companion attack. With regards to animate dead - isn't that mostly useful as a damage dealer? Skeletons are great and all (and even possibly overpowered in huge numbers), but they don't have anything resembling staying power.

Furthermore, I don't think animal companions should numerically match a PC. A beastmaster's subclass feature should not be "is another full party member". The ranger is a martial class, I would expect that it would be attacking pretty often regardless of its companion.

[Grynning]

They do? Look at the charge effect of the boar. That's way more damage than a 3rd-level martial character's attack is going to do, not even counting the special effects.
In what world is the boar's charge better than a martial character's attack? Let's assume level 3 here. The boar does, at most, 1d6+1d6+1 (str) +2 (proficiency), plus the knockdown, and that's only on its first attack, the rest of the time he's hitting at 1d6+3. The Ranger himself can do 1d8+1d6+Dex (probably +3) with a longbow and Hunter's Mark, or more if he dual wields, or if he took the Hunter archetype and is getting the d8 from Colossus Slayer or the extra attack from Horde-breaker.
A great weapon Battle Master Fighter can be doing 2d6+3 (assuming 16 str) with every single hit, adding an additional d8 when she uses a maneuver. That's with no feats or fighting style or anything factored in.

[MagnusExultatio]

15th level ability gains you a die whenever you roll initiative, up to your maximum (i.e. you don't have to be out of dice).

Why not have old Relentless, instead of this admission that fighters being able to use non-magical abilities is a bad thing?

Old Relentless, by the way, gives you back two superiority dice every round you begin with zero.

[Yagyujubei]

Two things I think should be added to Arcane Trickster are:

Along with the capstone ability to steal a magic spell that has just been cast on you and recast it, another ability which "steals" spell effects basically acting like a strong dispell without being in a spell slot.

and some aspects of Daggerspell mage: mainly the ability to apply touch attack spells to your daggers on sneak attacks, and an ability that would allow you to do extra dmg with your daggers by sacrificing a spell casting (say +1d4 or 1d6 per spell level of the slot you used) maybe thats too much like smite though.

[Sir_Leorik]

So, there's a fair amount of agreement that Fighters and Rangers, and to a lesser degree Barbarians, Rogues and Monks, are a bit underwhelming in this edition.

I don't remember agreeing to that. :smallyuk:

[obryn]

I don't remember agreeing to that. :smallyuk:
Then the thread is for people who do. :)

I'm unhappy about the loss of flexibility and special effects for martial characters, myself. These are clear and obvious in the system as-is. Balance is a separate question, but related.

[Vhaluus]

I'd be wary of allowing cantrips as attacks for the fighter. The build that springs to mind is 18 fighter/2 warlock.

Each round using 3x Eldritch blast with Agonizing blast for 12d10+60 damage at range, usable infinite times per day. On top of that has access to the darkness+devils sight so that all those attacks are made at advantage.

[Sir_Leorik]

Then the thread is for people who do. :)

I'm unhappy about the loss of flexibility and special effects for martial characters, myself. These are clear and obvious in the system as-is. Balance is a separate question, but related.

Fighters get more frequent ability score improvements, which means they can take feats more frequently. On top of that, the Battle Master and Eldritch Knight can be customized to your heart's content. (The Champion I will concede can not be customized. It was intended as the "vanilla" fighter option.)

The Monk has three very distinct and customizable options. Barbarians can choose multiple options if they select Path of the Totem Warrior. Rogues are customized by selecting various options, such as Expertise.

All of these class can select spellcasting options. Rangers are spellcasters.

If someone wants to modify a class with a houserule, no skin off my nose. Just don't declare that everyone "agrees" the class is broken in the first place.

[Grynning]

I'd be wary of allowing cantrips as attacks for the fighter. The build that springs to mind is 18 fighter/2 warlock.

Each round using 3x Eldritch blast with Agonizing blast for 12d10+60 damage at range, usable infinite times per day. On top of that has access to the darkness+devils sight so that all those attacks are made at advantage.

My intent was that you can replace one of your attacks with the spell/cantrip. The rest have to be attacks.

Also I didn't say everyone agrees...I said there's a fair amount of agreement, and by that I meant among people on this forum who are experienced with previous editions and feel that there are continuing balance issues in the presence of high-fiat magic. If you're not among those people, that's cool, play the classes as written.

[Demonic Spoon]

In what world is the boar's charge better than a martial character's attack? Let's assume level 3 here. The boar does, at most, 1d6+1d6+1 (str) +2 (proficiency), plus the knockdown, and that's only on its first attack, the rest of the time he's hitting at 1d6+3. The Ranger himself can do 1d8+1d6+Dex (probably +3) with a longbow and Hunter's Mark, or more if he dual wields, or if he took the Hunter archetype and is getting the d8 from Colossus Slayer or the extra attack from Horde-breaker.
A great weapon Battle Master Fighter can be doing 2d6+3 (assuming 16 str) with every single hit, adding an additional d8 when she uses a maneuver. That's with no feats or fighting style or anything factored in.

Fair enough point.

What if you just took the simpler option and say that once the ranger gives an order, the companion keeps following said order?

[Grynning]

Fair enough point.

What if you just took the simpler option and say that once the ranger gives an order, the companion keeps following said order?

That breaks action economy in subsequent rounds, which is exactly why they structured it how they did in the first place. Now, this is not really overpowered given how the spell-based summons work, and would probably be fine, but it does effectively give the ranger another character to control which could slow down the game. My fix is trying to preserve the original mechanics of the beast basically being a special attack the ranger can use, but moves the attack to a bonus action, like an off-hand attack or monk's unarmed strike/flurry of blows etc so that it's as good as those options, maybe a little better. But given the archetype gets practically nothing beyond the beast, it's ok if it's a tiny bit higher damage since it still won't have the combat flexibility of a monk, battlemaster fighter, or spellcaster.

[obryn]

Fighters get more frequent ability score improvements, which means they can take feats more frequently. On top of that, the Battle Master and Eldritch Knight can be customized to your heart's content. (The Champion I will concede can not be customized. It was intended as the "vanilla" fighter option.)
The Battlemaster's not nearly versatile enough, though, and the Eldritch Knight isn't any kind of substitute. I'm not looking for spellcasters, and leveraging the spell system to get any kind of versatility for martial characters is lazy and unimaginative.

With the Battlemaster, the lack of scaled abilities is a major drawback. Your die size gets larger as you level, but effects that are balanced at level 1 are still being tossed around at level 9 and at level 19. This would be like a Wizard picking more 1st level spells when they hit 17th level. This is a pale shadow of both 3e's Bo9S classes and 4e martial classes.

I understand the stuff about feats and ability score increases, but they don't accomplish the goal of more tactically interesting options and more potent special effects.

I think monks actually look pretty good, with the potential stun-spamming issue I mentioned above.

[Xetheral]

I like the improvements to Beastmaster. As *the* pet class, a beastmaster should at least have access to larger critters. Don't know what they were thinking there with removing bears of all things from the equation.

Even if Rangers had access to bears, what would be the use? It seems to me that Beast Master rangers wouldn't be able to order their pets to use Multiattack, since it isn't on the list of allowed commands on page 93. I'd be inclined to just allow Multiattack to work with the Attack action, except that then multiclassed Druids with access to Extra Attack can make four attacks a round without even touching their bonus action.

[Grynning]

I agree that melee characters don't scale that well...they could have easily come up with more powerful maneuvers that did extra damage and effects that just had level pre-requisites (like the Warlock invocations) and done the same thing for Rangers for their Hunter abilities. I'm kind of tempted to work up a whole maneuver system that all martial characters can pick from and have alternate versions of the classes that use that instead...oh wait, yeah, that was called Tome of Battle. I was really hoping we wouldn't have to wait for something like that again.

[obryn]

I get the sense with both Rangers and Fighters, at least, that the main focus was on balancing subclasses against one another rather than examining them holistically compared to the other classes in the game.


I agree that melee characters don't scale that well...they could have easily come up with more powerful maneuvers that did extra damage and effects that just had level pre-requisites (like the Warlock invocations) and done the same thing for Rangers for their Hunter abilities. I'm kind of tempted to work up a whole maneuver system that all martial characters can pick from and have alternate versions of the classes that use that instead...oh wait, yeah, that was called Tome of Battle. I was really hoping we wouldn't have to wait for something like that again.
Yep, the Warlock is a good example of a class which gates off more powerful options for higher level. So a Fighter could (in theory) pick up more potent Stuns, Blinds, area attacks, no-save attacks, etc. once they hit higher levels.

[TheOOB]

Deleting the Champion archtype is a terrible idea, and goes completely against a key focus point of 5e, that it's there for every level of skill and and engagement. The Champion provides an important archtype to the game, it's a class for a casual or disengaged player, that is someone who doesn't want to make important decisions. The Battlemaster and Eldritch Knight not only require you to make choices about the abilities you learn, but also important choices every round of combat. Not so with the Champion. With the Champion you do pretty much one thing, walk up to people and hit them. While this play style is not for every or even most players, it's desirable to have this play style as an option, further is thought be a little underwhelming(though perhaps not to the extent that the Champion is) so no player ever feels they have to play such a "boring" archtype in order to feel powerful.

I'm not convinced there is a significant problem with the martial classes. While the casters may be more powerful, they have disadvantages in this edition, and can't do everything, so I feel every class will be useful to the party.

My biggest problem is with the Ranger, who I just feel like without the archtype abilities doesn't feel like a whole class. It's not a terrible or even a bad class, but I feel it needs either stronger archtypes, or to have to extra abilities on the base chasis.

[Grynning]

Deleting the Champion archtype is a terrible idea, and goes completely against a key focus point of 5e, that it's there for every level of skill and and engagement. The Champion provides an important archtype to the game, it's a class for a casual or disengaged player, that is someone who doesn't want to make important decisions.

My players are neither casual or disengaged. Also, I don't think the casual option has to be bad, which the champion currently kind of is. Improved crit is not a real class feature, in my opinion, and Remarkable Athlete is a joke. The only cool thing they get is Survivor, and that ability is limited enough that I think every fighter could have access to it, which I why I said for an advanced style of game with better martial characters, you could just give those abilities to all fighters and it would not be unbalancing. Again, the reason I put "houserules" in the title is that I'm saying this is not meant for every table, but rather it's meant for people who want better martial options than those available. I obviously don't have any authority or power to re-write the edition and force everyone to play this way.

I will also say that if you want a "Casual" option, I think that much like 3.5, the Barbarian is a better choice. It gives the players a resource (Rages) that don't require a lot of thought, the other class features are meaningful, and it doesn't require a lot of optimization to be good. The casual player will at least feel like they have cool stuff to do when they do get into the game (which most people do at least once or twice a session). The Champion fighter is just plain boring and will make someone who is disengaged even more so.

[TheOOB]

Considering some of the casual players I've seen, Barbarian requires too many choices for some people. Choices like "do I rage now or save it", "Do i take advantage on my attack roll or not" ect all can slow down the game.

I'd agree the Champion is underpowered, but notice how reluctant 5e is to give out numerical bonuses to characters, then take the Archtype that's about giving bonuses instead of abilities. If they did something even so simple as +2 atk and dmg at one point, people would feel like to play a strong fighter they have to play Champion instead of one that is more interesting to play. However someone who is disengaged will likely not notice their character is less effective, and might be happy they don't get the spotlight.

Once again, the Champion should be better than it is now, but I'd rather have the current Champion than one to even hints at outshining the other archtypes.

[LordVonDerp]

On the Barbarian changes: I think it's a fair houserule to allow the bonus Rage damage to apply whenever you make a weapon attack instead of just a strength attack, and then instead of taking dueling, go for Archery. I've never heard of a Barbarian fighting with just a rapier, but I've heard of plenty of Bowbarians in my lifetime. Cragtop Archer was a niche, but it was a good one.
.

Dueling is for shield users who want more damage. Get rid of the defense style instead, barbarians get more AC while naked then they do in any kind of armor.

[Grynning]

Yeah Archery would make more sense than Defense from a fluff context I guess.

[HammerCrush]

I know what they were thinking, but they went too far the other way, particularly in light of the fact that none of the other "companion" effects are limited in this way (conjure and animate dead spells, mainly). The beast master in the book is very weak, numerically. The base damage and stats of the animal companions is far less than the average PC's (even with the proficiency bonus added in) so you're generally just better off using your actions to attack yourself...

Acctualy, at lower levels, the Attack and damage of your beast is usualy HIGHER than yours, thanks to the proficiency bonus. Take the Wolf, for exemple. It attacks with 2d4+4 (+2 from Str +2 from your proficiency bonus) AND have advantage in attack rolls if at least one of its allies is in 5 ft of the creature attacked. Unless your Ranger uses an 1d10 weapon (average 5.5 dmg), in with case he cannot (without feats) use TWF. So is a pretty solid attack.

[Grynning]

Only at 1st level, when the ranger doesn't have hunter's mark. Also you're acting like the ranger doesn't have a +3 attribute bonus to damage.

[LordVonDerp]

Only at 1st level, when the ranger doesn't have hunter's mark. Also you're acting like the ranger doesn't have a +3 attribute bonus to damage.

Hunters mark is a concentration spell.

[Grynning]

And rangers don't have a lot of other spells to concentrate on, and it moves to a new target whenever you kill the previous one. In a big fight it's generally your best choice, just like Warlock's Hex.

[LordVonDerp]

And rangers don't have a lot of other spells to concentrate on, and it moves to a new target whenever you kill the previous one. In a big fight it's generally your best choice, just like Warlock's Hex.

Rangers don't get proficiency in con saves. So good luck keeping hunter's mark up.