Horizon Stalker Ranger: To haste or not to haste?

[Captain Bob]

I'm just about to roll up a new archer, and I'm digging what the horizon walker offers. That said, I'd have 14 con without proficiency in the save...am I asking for self-murder here if I use haste often?

[Specter]

In range? Not so much, if you can position yourself nicely.

In melee? Yeah, forget it.

Also be very afraid of dispel magic.

[rbstr]

As an archer?
I think you're OK. But do be aware that you need to be w/in 30ft to tag an enemy with the Planar Warrior thing. Complicates kiting a little bit. When you hit level 11 Distant Strike will give you 30 or 40ft. of extra movement though.

If you want to melee you'll probably want warcaster or resilient con, depending on build.

[Citan]

In range? Not so much, if you can position yourself nicely.

In melee? Yeah, forget it.

Also be very afraid of dispel magic.
Perfect summary. +10 : )

[Captain Bob]

So supplementary question - is it even worth using given that you don't end up netting attacks until round 3? With the chance of just losing an entire turn of attacks?

[JellyPooga]

If the order goes;

- initiative, Haste, attack

Then, yeah, it mat not be worth it. If, however, it goes;

- Haste, Stealth, Initiative, Attack

You're on to a winner.

That said, bear in mind that Haste takes effect immediately, giving you an additional action the round you cast it, so it pays off in your next round when you attack twice (for three attacks compared to two if you don't cast it).

[Captain Bob]

Right, I figured much the same in terms of preparatory casting. But really hasted round 2 just catches you up for missing an attack round one. It's just hard to reconcile with the thought of losing mobility and two more attacks if you get touched, particularly on a class that's lacking in good saves. Having a nice dex save doesn't really amount to **** when you don't have evasion and end up failing your con save because you only have +2.

[Aett_Thorn]

Right, I figured much the same in terms of preparatory casting. But really hasted round 2 just catches you up for missing an attack round one. It's just hard to reconcile with the thought of losing mobility and two more attacks if you get touched, particularly on a class that's lacking in good saves. Having a nice dex save doesn't really amount to **** when you don't have evasion and end up failing your con save because you only have +2.

Why, exactly, are you missing an attack on round 1? Why wouldn't you Haste round 1?

[Captain Bob]

Casting the spell costs your action. You gain one hasted action on the spot, which only allows you to make "...one weapon attack only..." - costing you your extra attack from a 'true' attack action.

[Aett_Thorn]

Casting the spell costs your action. You gain one hasted action on the spot, which only allows you to make "...one weapon attack only..." - costing you your extra attack from a 'true' attack action.

Ah, okay, I misread you. I thought that you were saying that you were CASTING Haste on Round 2, which threw me.

[rigolgm]

I play a melee dwarf Horizon Walker called Rig-Hol Brambleburrow. I fretted for a while about the balance between the Planar Warrior ability and the Hunter's Mark and Haste spells. Being a Horizon Walker puts a lot of demand on your concentration and bonus actions.

In my view Haste is worth it but mainly because I have the feat that makes my CON save proficient. Otherwise there is excessive risk of losing your concentration (when attacked) and suffering Haste's 'miss a turn' type penalty.

With my proficient CON save, good CON and the Horizon Walker's tendency (especially after level 11) to focus on groups of weak enemies, I should be passing almost all concentration tests at higher levels. I think the same would be roughly true if I was instead focused on ranged attacks not melee, because even a ranged Horizon Walker usually needs to loiter near enemies to use their Planar Warrior ability.

And I think I'd use Haste in preference to Hunter's Mark (or similar) in almost every situation (you can't do both). Haste only loses you some of your attacks (often only one) in the turn it's cast, as the rules are clear that you can still move, cast Haste, use your bonus action to cast Planar Warrior and then immediately get a free attack from Haste in the same turn.

My character multiclassed one level into Rogue at the start, so he has a small once/turn Sneak Attack bonus damage. It stacks with his once/turn Planar Warrior bonus damage. Together they usually mean only one of his attacks each turn is particularly powerful. That's another reason why having only one attack on the turn I cast Haste is only a small problem (as long as it hits! :), especially if I wasn't going to be able to trigger Distant Strike that turn anyway. I checked and both Sneak Attack and Planar Warrior are fully compatible with the free Haste attack.

So I don't think Haste is only good if you can cast it before a fight. You can still do good damage on the turn you cast it. It doesn't rely on ambush or lucky initiative.

Rangers have some other weapon attack spells but I do think the decision between Hunter's Mark and Haste is a key one. By simple math, Hunter's Mark is very unlikely to let you do more damage than Haste, even if you're just hitting the same opponent each turn. Hunter's Mark lets you be more aggressive in the first turn of combat, which is good, and it won't leave you penalised if you lose concentration ... but apart from that you should be getting more from your extra attack.

Haste's +2AC is also going to help you retain your concentration by avoiding being hit. You can still consider casting it on an ally instead of yourself if they can pack a bigger punch with their one extra attack from Haste.

It goes without saying that Hunter's Mark is much less costly than Haste when it comes to spell slots (and makes you better at tracking an enemy). But Rangers get plenty of spell slots, so that shouldn't be an issue.

[Sage Tellah]

You know what a hasted ranger is good for? Throwing nets.

You probably have sharpshooter or crossbow expert letting you ignore their constant disadvantage, a great ranged attack roll to get it to hit, and haste giving you an entire extra action means you can dedicate a single attack instead of an entire action to throwing it. Inflicting conditions purely on an attack roll instead of a save of any sort is awesome, and what's even better is a victim can't get rid of it by just waiting for a new save. An action needs to be dedicated. even if it is virtually guaranteed they'll escape. Nets are super cheap to buy too, so try some net abuse with your haste shenanigans. Makes it so worth it.

And if you're a melee ranger... Haste just won't be as good, I'm afraid.

[Specter]

You know what a hasted ranger is good for? Throwing nets.

You probably have sharpshooter or crossbow expert letting you ignore their constant disadvantage, a great ranged attack roll to get it to hit, and haste giving you an entire extra action means you can dedicate a single attack instead of an entire action to throwing it. Inflicting conditions purely on an attack roll instead of a save of any sort is awesome, and what's even better is a victim can't get rid of it by just waiting for a new save. An action needs to be dedicated. even if it is virtually guaranteed they'll escape. Nets are super cheap to buy too, so try some net abuse with your haste shenanigans. Makes it so worth it.

And if you're a melee ranger... Haste just won't be as good, I'm afraid.

Good call.

Also don't forget the +2 to AC and adv. on dex saves, sometimes you'll want to cast it just for those.

[rigolgm]

The net idea is strong (because throwing a net uses-up all your attacks in an action, so is ideal for the one bonus attack).

However remember that the rulebook says you can only draw or stow a weapon for free, whereas doing both is an action. So you'll be using-up other actions if you want to throw a second net while also wielding a shield, bow or such like.

So throwing the net is probably something you'd just do once in a combat, unless you're keeping that hand free just for nets (which seems unlikely?)

(Though I'm told designer Mike Mearls said on Twitter he was more relaxed about both drawing and stowing weapons in the same turn for free.)

[Sage Tellah]

Taking a hand off or placing a hand on a weapon is totally free, and nets aren't two handed, so it's easy if you're already holding a two-handed weapon, such as a longbow. Just remove a hand from your weapon, draw and throw your net, then replace your hand on the weapon, ready to attack. Easy.

[rigolgm]

Blimey - you're right. The rules are clear that the two-handed property of weapons only counts when doing an attack action with it.

Don't think it helps my rapier/shield ranger, but useful for others.