What's the problem with Hunter's Mark?

[Necrosnoop110]

Sorry to make a thread of just this but I thought it was beyond just a RAW question and I did search but I couldn't seem find a clear answer. What is the deal with all the hate/dislike/disappointment I keep seeing heaped upon the spell Hunter's Mark (https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/hunters-mark)?

Thanks,
Necro

[PhantomSoul]

It's just that the Spell feels like a trick option; it's treated like a Spell Tax (and therefore also Spell Slot tax, on a Half Caster). In other words, it's like Hex in that it's so good that it feels required (and, for the Ranger, proposed to be necessary for sufficiency). The usual wish isn't that it stop existing per se, but that it instead became a regular Class Feature since that's essentially what it's seen as.

[stoutstien]

I think the biggest hang up is the additional damage is the same type as your weapon so if you are having problems with resistance or immunity its seems twice as bad. Then the additional rider on it is less impactful than the hex. Finally you have the action economy problem. So it's not necessarily it's a bad spell just as far as all the bonus action spells that increase damage it's coming in last.

[PhantomSoul]

I think the biggest hang up is the additional damage is the same type as your weapon so if you are having problems with resistance or immunity its seems twice as bad. Then the additional rider on it is less impactful than the hex. Finally you have the action economy problem. So it's not necessarily it's a bad spell just as far as all the bonus action spells that increase damage it's coming in last.

Yeah, definitely not competing with Hex effectively despite being the Ranger's "equivalent" (and that hurts extra when the PHB Ranger is... not exactly seen as being on the same footing, let's say)

[RSP]

My only real issue with it is it’s inferior to Hex.

Hex affects spell and weapon attacks, while HM only affects weapon attacks.

Hex gives Disadvantage to a chosen Ability Score’s associated Ability Checks, which has tons of in-combat and out-of-combat uses. HM gives Advantage on Perception and Survival checks (which, while flavorful, isn’t as good as Hex - which can essentially do the same thing and more by just selecting Dex as the Disadvantage score, meaning the Target’s Stealth checks to avoid detection are Disadvantaged, rather than having Advantage to detect them).

[Rukelnikov]

I think the biggest hang up is the additional damage is the same type as your weapon so if you are having problems with resistance or immunity its seems twice as bad. Then the additional rider on it is less impactful than the hex. Finally you have the action economy problem. So it's not necessarily it's a bad spell just as far as all the bonus action spells that increase damage it's coming in last.

There's not many of those, and, even then, its not last.

Divine Favor - 1d4 (1 minute max)
Hex - 1d6 (1 hour max 1st level)
Hunter's Mark - 1d6 (1 hour max 1st level)

That's basically it. Then there are Searing/Thunderous/Wrathful Smite and Ensnaring strike which are BA but not really the same effect even when they deal damage.

Sure there are higher level spells with similar effects that are better, but they are also higher level.

[Aalbatr0ss]

Hunter’s mark is a tool in a toolbox, but it’s thought of as a primary class feature for some reason. It’s good if you’re fighting beefy enemies where you’ll be attacking the same thing for at least 3 rounds.

Fog cloud, faerie fire, entangle, are often better options. If you have it going into every fight you’ll probably do ok, but yes, it’s not as good as hex.

If you ding everything in the game that a low level warlock could probably do better, you should probably just play a warlock. But playing a ranger has the added benefit of knowing you’re not playing D&D on easy mode.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Hunter's Mark only has verbal spell components, while Hex runs the gambit. Depending on how your table runs, this difference between the spells may be noticeable.

In a "The Party has been Captured and must escape Scenario",
a naked Ranger can still cast Hunter's Mark, a naked Warlock would be unable to cast the Hex spell.

I had a friend that would cast Hunter's Mark on a partymate, and then go out scouting alone, while the group was adventuring in a magical swamp......as the DM, I thought this was a clever use of the spell.

It did save the Ranger from getting lost, a few times.

[tiornys]

From an optimization standpoint, Hunter's Mark is viewed as bad because it conflicts with and is worse than bonus action attacks, and also because it eats your concentration. At low levels if you don't yet have a reliable bonus action attack, it's... ok. Once you have higher level spells you have better ways to use your concentration, and you should ("should" from an optimizers standpoint) also have Crossbow Expert or some other reliable bonus action attack which means this actually costs you in overall damage unless it can stay on a single target long enough for you to get enough attacks off to balance the lost bonus action attack.

(re: Hex, it's better but not that much better, and is often overrated. It's decent at low levels but rapidly falls off as you get access to better concentration spells.)

[stoutstien]

There's not many of those, and, even then, its not last.

Divine Favor - 1d4 (1 minute max)
Hex - 1d6 (1 hour max 1st level)
Hunter's Mark - 1d6 (1 hour max 1st level)

That's basically it. Then there are Searing/Thunderous/Wrathful Smite and Ensnaring strike which are BA but not really the same effect even when they deal damage.

Sure there are higher level spells with similar effects that are better, but they are also higher level.


I'd take DF over hunters mark every time. The duration is mostly a waste in my eyes because locking concentration up for the possibly of a tiny amount of extra damage between encounters that may not even fall in that time frame is a waste.
The ~1 damage difference is made up with much better damage type and no lose actions when switching targets.

**None of them are good spells IMO.**

[Rukelnikov]

I'd take DF over hunters mark every time. The duration is mostly a waste in my eyes because locking concentration up for the possibly of a tiny amount of extra damage between encounters that may not even fall in that time frame is a waste.
The ~1 damage difference is made up with much better damage type and no lose actions when switching targets.

**None of them are good spells IMO.**

I'd take hunter's mark, I think that's a good design if both are viable.

[Segev]

It's big problems stem from requiring concentration and requiring a bonus action to cast and move around. The bonus action cost wouldn't be so bad if two weapon fighting were not explicitly supposed to be a thing Rangers do, or the damage boost from one round of hunter's mark without an offhand attack made up for the lack of the offhand attack. (Remember, it also costs a spell slot.)

This is compounded by the fact that rangers are "spells known" casters for some strange reason, and know fewer spells than a sorcerer, meaning that merely knowing hunter's mark is a big opportunity cost. It has to be worth not just the bonus action casting time, not just the spell slot, and not just the concentration cost, but also the spell known slot.

Add all that up, and it just feels very expensive for what little you get. Especially compared to what you can get by building without it in mind.


If you change any of a number of things, it can become pretty nice. Maybe just letting you make an off-hand attack as part of an attack action on the round in which you cast it, for example.

[Thunderous Mojo]

While I am not enamored of Hunter's Mark as a spell, the Bonus Action activation cost, happens only once.

If one has successfully crept up, unnoticed, upon a foe..then the activation of the spell might occur pre-combat.

Hunter's Mark also has a 90' range. One is likely not getting an opportunity to use melee attacks at a 90' range. A Light, Thrown Weapon has a 60' range and a d6 damage.

Bow shots, however.....

[stoutstien]

While I am not enamored of Hunter's Mark as a spell, the Bonus Action activation cost, happens only once.

If one has successfully crept up, unnoticed, upon a foe..then the activation of the spell might occur pre-combat.

Hunter's Mark also has a 90' range. One is likely not getting an opportunity to use melee attacks at a 90' range. A Light, Thrown Weapon has a 60' range and a d6 damage.

You have to use a bonus action every time you want to switch targets and it has a verbal component so initially casting it is not something that wouldn't regularly be considered stealthy. If you're going to blow a spell slot this matter you might as well use it staring strike and at least have a chance of something more then a few d6s. For most parties having a restrained Target is going to lead to a lot more damage than hunters Mark ever will.

[tiornys]

While I am not enamored of Hunter's Mark as a spell, the Bonus Action activation cost, happens only once.

If one has successfully crept up, unnoticed, upon a foe..then the activation of the spell might occur pre-combat.

Hunter's Mark also has a 90' range. One is likely not getting an opportunity to use melee attacks at a 90' range. A Light, Thrown Weapon has a 60' range and a d6 damage.

Bow shots, however.....
Once per enemy you use it against. Most enemies go down in a round or two, which means you'll often need to use bonus actions moving it to another enemy.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Ensnaring Strike is a good spell, much better than Hunter's Mark.

How to best use Hunter's Mark, is right in the name...like a Hunter.
If I spied "Big Game" which in D&D terms could be something like a brontosaurus, Hunter's Mark would be perfect for that situation.

Real Hunters kite at range, when killing in a limited number of blow/shots is not an option.

Adventuring isn't about Hunting...but when it is, Hunter's Mark is not bad, especially given it is a 1st level spell. One should drop concentrating on a 1st level spell as needed.

As always, how one runs a game, impacts how useful something is.

[Damon_Tor]

At my table Hunter's Mark can be cast and reapplied without using an action if the target is a favored enemy. Several ranger spells work better in some way against a favored enemy (or while in favored terrain). Rangers can add a new favored enemy by spending an hour (can occur during a rest) studying a corpse and passing a successful wis check with a DC equal to 20+ the creature's CR.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I think I've been the only one to run a Ranger in our group for significant (9) levels before multiclassing out and Hunter's Mark was decent. It's an efficient use of a slot in that you can often keep it up for several encounters and get a lot of damage out of a single 1st level slot. This is important for a 1/2 caster if you don't have a 5 min adventuring day; if you do have a 5 min adventuring day it's absolutely bad, especially when you compare to Paladin and the Nova ability of Divine Smite. It works well with SS, though I didn't bother with XBE for the obvious clash with the BA. I suppose this does kind of railroad you into more limited weapon selection, but I like the image of a bowman over Xbow anyway so this wasn't an issue for me.
Once I had 3rd level slots and wanted to nova, I could if I could manage to get the drop on enemies by pre-casting Lightning Arrow, shooting once, using BA for Hunter's Mark, then use remaining attacks. Though, in fairness, this need for successful stealth, etc. to make this work due to concentration is probably some of the issue here. The other spell I liked to have up for a stealthy playstyle was Pass Without Trace, and yes that's another concentration spell.
I finally bailed out at 9th level because the next features coming down the track (particularly the 4th level spells) were either weak or needed (more) concentration. This was Pre Tashas, so some other features have been improved, but I can't say the 4th level spell list looks any better to me than it did when I made that decision. I do think Ranger continues to work at tier 1 and 2 partly because of HM, but at high levels, once slots are more plentiful, the concentration conflict between HM and other Ranger spells is problematic. HM sets a 'base' for expected damage and once it's 'off' you feel like your sacrificing something to use other abilities. I don't think it's bad, just that the Ranger specifically starts to have too many other options that conflict.

[CTurbo]

I don't hate Hunter's Mark, but I do have some qualms about it.

1. I think it should have been a class feature instead of a spell. The Ranger base class is considered weak, and this would have helped. I also don't care for the fact that it's available to other classes at times.

2. If it has to be a spell, it should have dealt a different "magical" damage type.

3. It should not have been a concentration spell. Again, since it's concentration, there are so many other Ranger spells that you can't cast while using it.

4. If it has to be a spell, AND has to use your concentration, it should have been better. At higher levels, it's mostly useless. The scaling should have upped damage and duration IMO.

[KyleG]

The tashas optional feature had so much potential but to lock it behind THREE walls, Concentration, proficiency uses and once per turn damage seems excessive. I know they removed the BA too but they also reduced the damage die.

Hunters Mark - 1d6, All attacks, Concentration, Spell Slot cast, BA activation/move, 1 hour
Favoured Foe - 1d4, 1 attack, Concentration, Proficiency uses, first target, 1 minute

Just spitballing
Hunters Foe - 1d4, All attacks, Proficiency uses, first target, 1 hour
or
Hunters Foe 2.0 - 1d6, 1 Attack, No resource, BA activation/Move, until BA move?

[HPisBS]

Afaict, the reason that HM / Favored Foe have all the demerits that they have is because not including them would make them ripe for multiclassing abuse.

- Therefore, I've always wanted a higher level Ranger feature to remove at least one of those demerits - preferably concentration. That way, HM / FF would be more worthwhile for Rangers, but other classes wouldn't get a nearly free damage buff for a mere 1 or 2 level dip. Idk which level would be most appropriate, but I lean towards lvl 9 (it's the 1st lvl that doesn't grant a new feature, and it's when a Ranger gets good enough at magic to start cast 3rd lvl spells, so it seems reasonable for that to also be when Rangers get good enough at casting HM to do it w/out concentration.)

[Damon_Tor]

1. I think it should have been a class feature instead of a spell. The Ranger base class is considered weak, and this would have helped. I also don't care for the fact that it's available to other classes at times.

This was part of the reasoning behind my house rule. By buffing certain ranger spells based on favored enemy and/or favored terrain, it made those spells better, but only for rangers themselves, not to others who poach them by various means.

[Pex]

My only real issue with it is it’s inferior to Hex.

Hex affects spell and weapon attacks, while HM only affects weapon attacks.

Hex gives Disadvantage to a chosen Ability Score’s associated Ability Checks, which has tons of in-combat and out-of-combat uses. HM gives Advantage on Perception and Survival checks (which, while flavorful, isn’t as good as Hex - which can essentially do the same thing and more by just selecting Dex as the Disadvantage score, meaning the Target’s Stealth checks to avoid detection are Disadvantaged, rather than having Advantage to detect them).

Heh. I remember in game traveling a cave complex we came across a sleeping ogre in a cavern. I cast Hex on it targeting WI, so disadvantage on Perception checks when we stealth around it. Never woke up even when we had to fight goblins in the next cavern, noise echoing down the corridor. Awesome.

[Wildstag]

It should have been merged with Favored Enemy instead of turned into an alternate ability (Favored Foe). Every other martial class gets a floating die that can be used with attack routines. Fighters get extra Extra Attack. Rogues get Sneak Attack. Paladins have Smite. Monks have increasing monk weapon damage die. Barbarians get Rage, which is effectively the same as a scaling die on each attack.

Rangers have nothing. Hunter's Mark, with all it's spell/spell-slot tax, could have been made into a non-concentration effect that just gave a damage die to weapon attacks. I suspect this issue is also why all the post-PHB subclasses got free damage die on one hit per round.

[Frogreaver]

Hunters mark works great - When you are using a longbow.

It sucks in melee because of concentration.

It doubly sucks for TWF because most of the time it’s not actually better to use than your bonus action attack on top of concentration issues.

[Aalbatr0ss]

Hunters mark works great - When you are using a longbow.

It sucks in melee because of concentration.

It doubly sucks for TWF because most of the time it’s not actually better to use than your bonus action attack on top of concentration issues.

If you are in melee doing TWF and you are dropping an an opponent every round, you probably shouldn't be using hunter's mark. Is there any other spell in the game that people criticize because it can't be used in every situation?

[RSP]

If you are in melee doing TWF and you are dropping an an opponent every round, you probably shouldn't be using hunter's mark. Is there any other spell in the game that people criticize because it can't be used in every situation?

Interestingly, +1d6 damage is about even with TWF without the fighting style

Edit: and probably about even with the FS if the character also has Extra Attack.

[stoutstien]

If you are in melee doing TWF and you are dropping an an opponent every round, you probably shouldn't be using hunter's mark. Is there any other spell in the game that people criticize because it can't be used in every situation?

You only need to drop one target per combat for the action conflict to break even and the twf bonus action attack is free.

[Segev]

At my table Hunter's Mark can be cast and reapplied without using an action if the target is a favored enemy. Several ranger spells work better in some way against a favored enemy (or while in favored terrain). Rangers can add a new favored enemy by spending an hour (can occur during a rest) studying a corpse and passing a successful wis check with a DC equal to 20+ the creature's CR.

I am a fan of making Ranger spells work better when you have a favored enemy they're applying to.

"If you have a favored enemy, this spell only requires concentration when the mark is on a creature that is not one of your favored enemies," for instance. Maybe as well, "When you cast this on a favored enemy or move your mark to that enemy, you may make a weapon attack against that enemy."

[KorvinStarmast]

Hunter’s mark is a tool in a toolbox Yes.

Fog cloud, faerie fire, entangle, are often better options. ^ Someone here has actually played a Ranger. :smallsmile: +1.

If you ding everything in the game that a low level warlock could probably do better, you should probably just play a warlock. But playing a ranger has the added benefit of knowing you’re not playing D&D on easy mode. And your PC (usually) won't get lost nor starve ...

[JonBeowulf]

I can't help but think there are a lot of folks who don't know what the spell is for. Yeah, it stinks when it's stealing your BA in a TWF build -- that's why you shouldn't choose HM when building a TWF ranger. You take it for S&B or ranged builds. I guess you could use it with a TWF build on a wall-of-meat target, but I'd argue that applying conditions would be more useful than an extra d6 weapon damage.

If you decide that you want it on your TWF ranger for the tracking feature, then don't complain about the BA cost 'cause you didn't grab the spell for the damage bump in the first place.

It's not the spell's fault if you choose to apply it in the wrong situation. Like most spells, it's good at what it does when used correctly.

[stoutstien]

I can't help but think there are a lot of folks who don't know what the spell is for. Yeah, it stinks when it's stealing your BA in a TWF build -- that's why you shouldn't choose HM when building a TWF ranger. You take it for S&B or ranged builds. I guess you could use it with a TWF build on a wall-of-meat target, but I'd argue that applying conditions would be more useful than an extra d6 weapon damage.

If you decide that you want it on your TWF ranger for the tracking feature, then don't complain about the BA cost 'cause you didn't grab the spell for the damage bump in the first place.

It's not the spell's fault if you choose to apply it in the wrong situation. Like most spells, it's good at what it does when used correctly.

I think most people understand what it's for but they also realize that it's not good at it.

[Aalbatr0ss]

I can't help but think there are a lot of folks who don't know what the spell is for. Yeah, it stinks when it's stealing your BA in a TWF build -- that's why you shouldn't choose HM when building a TWF ranger. You take it for S&B or ranged builds. I guess you could use it with a TWF build on a wall-of-meat target, but I'd argue that applying conditions would be more useful than an extra d6 weapon damage.

If you decide that you want it on your TWF ranger for the tracking feature, then don't complain about the BA cost 'cause you didn't grab the spell for the damage bump in the first place.

It's not the spell's fault if you choose to apply it in the wrong situation. Like most spells, it's good at what it does when used correctly.

One thing that I sometimes forget is the actual “quarry tracking” portion of the spell. Sometimes enemies you want to question or kill can get away.

If you’re trying to let an enemy escape and track it back to it’s base, this is a fantastic spell regardless of the DPR effect. It's an actual divination spell, not just a damage buff. It’s hard to quantify in DPR, but this can be a good tactic. You can hit the leader once at the start of a fight and know you have advantage tracking them so long as you keep up concentration.

The spell is called “Hunter’s Mark”, not “Extra D6”

[Chronos]

I used to think that Ensnaring Strike was better than Hunter's Mark, until I played my ranger for a while. The problem with Ensnaring Strike is that there's a conflict in whom to target with it: The restrained condition is most effective against an enemy with no or weak ranged options, so you can keep your distance and kill them with your own ranged attacks. But melee enemies tend to be very strong, and hence likely to save against it. The enemies least likely to save against it are spellcasters, but they're barely hindered at all by being restrained. Hunter's Mark, by contrast, just works.

And yes, it's suboptimal for two-weapon fighting. Two-weapon fighting, in general, is suboptimal. My ranger used a bow, so I wasn't doing damage with my bonus action anyway.

Was it always the best use of my concentration? Of course not. Sometimes the situation was right for Ensnaring Strike, despite the drawbacks I mentioned above. Sometimes I wanted to use Spike Growth or Wind Wall. I didn't have Fog Cloud, but that could also sometimes be the right tool for the job. But that's how it works out with any concentration spell, on any class: You have to pick which one is right for the situation, and it won't always be the same one.

[stoutstien]

One thing that I sometimes forget is the actual “quarry tracking” portion of the spell. Sometimes enemies you want to question or kill can get away.

If you’re trying to let an enemy escape and track it back to it’s base, this is a fantastic spell regardless of the DPR effect. It's an actual divination spell, not just a damage buff. It’s hard to quantify in DPR, but this can be a good tactic. You can hit the leader once at the start of a fight and know you have advantage tracking them so long as you keep up concentration.

The spell is called “Hunter’s Mark”, not “Extra D6”

I think a lot is this is something a Sane dm would let a ranger do without spending a spell slot and concentration.

[Aalbatr0ss]

I think a lot is this is something a Sane dm would let a ranger do without spending a spell slot and concentration.

It just gives you advantage on the checks. Yes. Whether that matters or not depends on your DM.

[stoutstien]

It just gives you advantage on the checks. Yes. Whether that matters or not depends on your DM.
In some ways it's actually worse. Advantage is the cheapest and most readily available form of check augmentation.
Then you have mind spike. Sure it has a save attached to it but it also gives you a much better benefit when it comes to finding someone.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

There's not too much in this thread about the value of the spell as part of a dip for a martial character. While my experience was with a primary Ranger, there are plenty of suggestions online about 3 levels of Ranger (often Gloomstalker) that seem quite reasonable. The concentration issue is eliminated, since you only have 3 slots per day, and a spell that lasts an hour is great in this situation. Of course the bonus action issue remains so you're still pretty limited in builds/ fighting styles that aren't bonus action heavy (usually longbow/ sharpshooter).
Getting HM on top of 11 levels of Fighter is absolutely not a bad option. Of course the difficulty here and with any dip is you're competing with Warlock dips and Hex, and I don't think the main point of difference is in the 2 spells, but in the efficiency with which Warlocks get slots at early levels vs Ranger. If Rangers picked up HM at 1 per short rest at level 1 and 2 per short rest at level 2 there'd be a whole lot more people dipping Ranger.

[Frogreaver]

There's not too much in this thread about the value of the spell as part of a dip for a martial character. While my experience was with a primary Ranger, there are plenty of suggestions online about 3 levels of Ranger (often Gloomstalker) that seem quite reasonable. The concentration issue is eliminated, since you only have 3 slots per day, and a spell that lasts an hour is great in this situation. Of course the bonus action issue remains so you're still pretty limited in builds/ fighting styles that aren't bonus action heavy (usually longbow/ sharpshooter).
Getting HM on top of 11 levels of Fighter is absolutely not a bad option. Of course the difficulty here and with any dip is you're competing with Warlock dips and Hex, and I don't think the main point of difference is in the 2 spells, but in the efficiency with which Warlocks get slots at early levels vs Ranger. If Rangers picked up HM at 1 per short rest at level 1 and 2 per short rest at level 2 there'd be a whole lot more people dipping Ranger.

100% agreed!

[Willie the Duck]

Sorry to make a thread of just this but I thought it was beyond just a RAW question and I did search but I couldn't seem find a clear answer. What is the deal with all the hate/dislike/disappointment I keep seeing heaped upon the spell Hunter's Mark (https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/hunters-mark)?
I think the reason is that the spell isn't that universally great, but some feel that the spell is in some way a ranger stealth class feature*, and as such ought to be good in more situations. Since the devs don't speak much to whys, we can't really glean how much the devs feel that this is the case, but the free HM's in the Tasha playtest do lightly suggest it as a possibility. It probably is in part an attempt to draw symmetry with a paladin's smites (as in there should be a way to use ranger spell slots to directly and reliably enhance one's combat prowess, else why am I not playing a paladin?). Regardless, given that the thing gives a tracking bonus, it at least suggests that the devs might have considered it an iconic ranger spell. That makes it kinda strange for it to actively compete with 2wf (another iconic ranger style, at least since late 1e/2e). Also that it requires concentration, which means that if you are casting it, you aren't casting all sorts of other interesting ranger spells.
*By which I mean similar to what Eldritch Blast is for warlocks, or at the very least what Find Familiar is for wizards

There's never going to be universal agreement on any of this, and none of it is a 'clearly' case (and there are plenty of sub-par or situational spells), but I think most of the dislike of the spell circles around these reasons.

Oh, and my opinion: If I were designing 5e back in 2013 or so, I would either have given rangers their own smite-analog to mirror paladins, or eliminated the paladin basic smite mechanic (relying instead on the many smite-spells in their repertoire) and made a/some more-clearly-labelled iconic ranger spells (that did no conflict with iconic ranger playstyles). Tasha's has mostly repaired rangers for 5e, but in an inelegant clunky way that could have been resolved by one more pass through the development process.


There's not too much in this thread about the value of the spell as part of a dip for a martial character.
Oh, I think the complaints about the spell are very specifically about it as a ranger spell. My L12 Hexblood eldritch knight (who also has shadow-touched and fey-touched for significant increased spell arsenal) does amazing things with HM and 3-4 attacks.

[Leon]

There is no inherent problem with the Spell, just a player problem. Some have to much expectation of what it is/can do and some too little and the rest can use it just fine as they need to.

Ive been playing a Core Ranger mostly as a TWF style (often start at ranged and then switch to melee) and its been a great asset in my repertoire. Used right its like hitting a thing three times with a finesse Great sword. Occasionally i'll lose concentration on it but par for the course with any spell that's like that, more likely to drop concentration so I can cast Spike growth.

On ranger spells in general: Ensnaring strike has been a dud choice and has failed to be of any use whenever it has been used. Spike Growth however is the MVP of my spells. Cure Wounds is cure wounds, good to have.

On the "If I was designing this" bandwagon: Favored enemy with a Damage bonus = Proficiency Bonus with a minor bonus to Tracking/Knowing about them, Beast-masters control pet with a Bonus action.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I think the reason is that the spell isn't that universally great, but some feel that the spell is in some way a ranger stealth class feature*, and as such ought to be good in more situations. Since the devs don't speak much to whys, we can't really glean how much the devs feel that this is the case, but the free HM's in the Tasha playtest do lightly suggest it as a possibility. It probably is in part an attempt to draw symmetry with a paladin's smites (as in there should be a way to use ranger spell slots to directly and reliably enhance one's combat prowess, else why am I not playing a paladin?). Regardless, given that the thing gives a tracking bonus, it at least suggests that the devs might have considered it an iconic ranger spell. That makes it kinda strange for it to actively compete with 2wf (another iconic ranger style, at least since late 1e/2e). Also that it requires concentration, which means that if you are casting it, you aren't casting all sorts of other interesting ranger spells.
*By which I mean similar to what Eldritch Blast is for warlocks, or at the very least what Find Familiar is for wizards

There's never going to be universal agreement on any of this, and none of it is a 'clearly' case (and there are plenty of sub-par or situational spells), but I think most of the dislike of the spell circles around these reasons.

Oh, and my opinion: If I were designing 5e back in 2013 or so, I would either have given rangers their own smite-analog to mirror paladins, or eliminated the paladin basic smite mechanic (relying instead on the many smite-spells in their repertoire) and made a/some more-clearly-labelled iconic ranger spells (that did no conflict with iconic ranger playstyles). Tasha's has mostly repaired rangers for 5e, but in an inelegant clunky way that could have been resolved by one more pass through the development process.


Oh, I think the complaints about the spell are very specifically about it as a ranger spell. My L12 Hexblood eldritch knight (who also has shadow-touched and fey-touched for significant increased spell arsenal) does amazing things with HM and 3-4 attacks.

You're absolutely right about some of the issues with this spell being connected to Ranger as a class, and perhaps other available spells. When I think about an EK and more attacks (50% more damage with this spell at 11th level), fewer slots, and other slots that burn up quickly (Shield), then HM starts to look better.
I think the other way to view this re: Ranger is to reverse the perspective. What if the problem isn't with HM, but with the fact that higher level Ranger spells designed to augment damage also need concentration? So, what if you could cast concentration free Lightning Arrow and just keep HM up? That's basically the issue you're faced with as you level up Ranger. At some point you get enough concentration based spell slots for your group's adventuring day, and it's at about that point that many people multiclass out.

[JackPhoenix]

I think the biggest hang up is the additional damage is the same type as your weapon so if you are having problems with resistance or immunity its seems twice as bad. Then the additional rider on it is less impactful than the hex. Finally you have the action economy problem. So it's not necessarily it's a bad spell just as far as all the bonus action spells that increase damage it's coming in last.

On the other hand, few things resist magical P/B/S damage, and with most of the things that do (swarms being a notable exception), you can switch to a different type of weapon. You don't have that option with Hex, and plenty of enemies resist necrotic.

[Necrosnoop110]

One thing that I sometimes forget is the actual “quarry tracking” portion of the spell. Sometimes enemies you want to question or kill can get away.

If you’re trying to let an enemy escape and track it back to it’s base, this is a fantastic spell regardless of the DPR effect. It's an actual divination spell, not just a damage buff. It’s hard to quantify in DPR, but this can be a good tactic. You can hit the leader once at the start of a fight and know you have advantage tracking them so long as you keep up concentration.

The spell is called “Hunter’s Mark”, not “Extra D6”

Mindblown. Thanks for the excellent comment. Totally changed my perspective.

[Witty Username]

I think the biggest hang up is the additional damage is the same type as your weapon so if you are having problems with resistance or immunity its seems twice as bad. Then the additional rider on it is less impactful than the hex. Finally you have the action economy problem. So it's not necessarily it's a bad spell just as far as all the bonus action spells that increase damage it's coming in last.

Isn't magic weapon damage one of the better types though? Immunity/resistance to necrotic damage is pretty frequent.

[stoutstien]

Isn't magic weapon damage one of the better types though? Immunity/resistance to necrotic damage is pretty frequent.

It's only magical if your weapon is.

[MoiMagnus]

On top of what everyone said, I'd add that since Tasha, Ranger can trade "Favored Enemy" for "Favored Foe", and that annoyingly you can't stack Hunter's Mark with Favored Foe as they both cost Concentration.

Admittedly, it's probably more problem of Tasha's feature.

[JackPhoenix]

It's only magical if your weapon is.

The extra damage is from a spell. It's always magical.

[stoutstien]

The extra damage is from a spell. It's always magical.
Both ruling are far game which is the issue. The damage is facilitated by the spell but it explicitly says it's coming from the weapon attack as "extra" damage. Same with using it with no damage weapon attacks like a net.

I thinks it's silly and against RAI and RTMS but as printed it's one of the hang ups that can cause the spell to be seen in a worse light. Add it to the massive list of things that need edited.

[Chronos]

I think we've long established that the devs' claim that "you don't need magic items" was a lie, at least as far as weapons are concerned. Whether they admit it or not, the game was balanced around the assumption that martials would, by some point, be getting magic weapons, even if they're +0 magic weapons, and a martial without any magic weapons is screwed anyway, through no fault of Hunter's Mark.

[tokek]

I don't dislike Hunter's Mark yet post-Tasha's I am playing a Ranger (now 13th level) without ever having the spell.

Since Tasha's I think we should view it as an upgrade to Favored Foe that you might want for certain builds. Both have the same fundamentals of bonus damage but Hunters Mark does differ. Specifically both require Concentration and often you have better uses for that (Fog Cloud, Conjure Animals, the options are there across the level range)

Hunters mark works on all your attacks but if you have a build that maximises number of attacks (crossbow expert, two weapon fighter) then it conflicts with the bonus action economy of those builds. It also conflicts with the BA economy of some of the sub-classes (e.g. commanding your Drake) which holds it back. So to a large extent if you don't want a frustrating Ranger build you have to decide where your BA is most likely to be used and where you might want to use your Concentration. Hunters Mark is a viable place to utilise both but it long since ceased being the only viable Ranger build. Players who mistakenly read the common online advice that Hunters Mark == Ranger then find it a frustrating and disappointing experience.

I will make one comment on the damage type, I think in most conventional campaigns it will not be a serious issue. If the target resists normal weapons then depending on the magic item level of the campaign your ranger will either have a magic weapon or will have an allied caster with Magic Weapon spell - either way that makes the damage it does one of the least resisted in the game once you get to levels where this is likely to be a frequent problem. If your DM is constantly throwing weapon resistant/immune monsters at a party and they don't have the means to respond with magic weapons then all marital characters will just feel awful and honestly that's not a table I would continue to play at for long. (Magic ammunition will suffice, walloping ammo is a common item and transforms all of your damage to magical, unbreakable arrows are infinitely reusable so long as you don't run away and leave them etc)

[KorvinStarmast]

On the "If I was designing this" bandwagon: Favored enemy with a Damage bonus = Proficiency Bonus with a minor bonus to Tracking/Knowing about them, Beast-masters control pet with a Bonus action.
Likewise.

Mindblown. Thanks for the excellent comment. Totally changed my perspective. That feature of hunters mark cropped up now and again in the games I played, particularly in ToA as we wandered the jungles of Chult. Beyond that it really shines if the DM runs his monsters as intelligent ones (uses morale check or something similar) when it gets to "I am getting my butt kicked, outta here" which is a non video game style of play that used to be a standard piece of the game. There are still some DMs that do this, and there are some published adventures who lean into "lives to fight another day" as something NPC/Monsters do since they are thinking sentient beings.

[Aalbatr0ss]

I don't dislike Hunter's Mark yet post-Tasha's I am playing a Ranger (now 13th level) without ever having the spell.



This is what I'm seeing at my tables. Our Swarmkeeper 8 / Bard 2 has never touched it. In other game our Fey wanderer 8 has never used it (She may have learned, then swapped it. Not sure)

Neither of these even have a particularly busy bonus action. They're just doing other stuff with their very limited spells known.

When I played a ranger I'd probably cast it about once per adventuring day. But it was hardly crucial to the build.

[tokek]

I think we've long established that the devs' claim that "you don't need magic items" was a lie, at least as far as weapons are concerned. Whether they admit it or not, the game was balanced around the assumption that martials would, by some point, be getting magic weapons, even if they're +0 magic weapons, and a martial without any magic weapons is screwed anyway, through no fault of Hunter's Mark.

If you don't put monsters resistant or immune to normal weapons in your game then you can indeed play a balanced game without magic items. I suspect that it would be a rather flat and uninteresting game but you could indeed do it. Bounded accuracy means that with suitable encounter design the core mechanics of the game do not go wrong if you don't have magic weapons.

What is questionable is having no magic weapons while you commonly use weapon resistant monsters. That would be poor encounter design for that game.

[Lolzyking]

There's not many of those, and, even then, its not last.

Divine Favor - 1d4 (1 minute max)
Hex - 1d6 (1 hour max 1st level)
Hunter's Mark - 1d6 (1 hour max 1st level)

That's basically it. Then there are Searing/Thunderous/Wrathful Smite and Ensnaring strike which are BA but not really the same effect even when they deal damage.

Sure there are higher level spells with similar effects that are better, but they are also higher level.

Actually divine favor is better than hunters mark, hm requires a bonus action to move after a kill, favor is one and done

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Actually divine favor is better than hunters mark, hm requires a bonus action to move after a kill, favor is one and done

Build dependent. For longbow user with SS bonus action can largely be unused otherwise. Then there's the spell duration.

[Witty Username]

Hex does have the, advantage?, of being on a worse spell list. Warlock has significant problems with impact with there base list at levels 1 and 2. Ranger especially post Tasha's, has some good options, which makes people feel more taxed by Hunter's Mark because they perceive that they need it for damage (which is not really accurate but what can you do).

[Rerem115]

It's already been said in bits and pieces here, but as someone who's played a ranger of one kind or another since 5e came out, I'll try to consolidate them all in one post.

-Bonus Action economy. Just the base class wants you to Dash, or Hide, or maybe make an attack with an off-hand weapon, or use Shieldmaster, or use CBE, or PAM... If you multiclass - especially to Rogue - that also applies pressure. Even if you don't dip two levels for Cunning Action, you can't ignore your subclass! Beast Master, Drakewarden, Horizon Walker, and Monster Slayer all regularly make use of your Bonus Action, too. Right off the bat, it means that roughly half of all Ranger Conclaves are pushed away from using their class's signature spell.

-Concentration. Rangers lack native proficiency in Constitution saves, which means that there's a very high chance of your Concentration dropping if you get hit. This punishes TWF Rangers the most, since they have the lowest AC while wanting to stay in melee range - on top of really wanting Hunter's Mark, since they make the most attacks. This also means it's hard to make the most of upcasting Hunter's Mark, since all it takes is a single point of damage to undo one of your precious 3rd+ level slots

Beyond that, almost every other combat spell requires Concentration; if you have Hunter's Mark active, you're not using Zephyr Strike, Ensnaring Strike, Fog Cloud, Lightning Arrow, Faerie Fire, Entangle, Protection from Evil and Good...

-Spells known. Base Ranger offers 11 spells known over the course of your career. 11. And that's at 20th level! Sure, your subclass choice can help out, as can some of the Tasha's variant rules, or background, or race, but that's still a pretty dismal amount of magical tools in your toolbox. Given all the points from above, do you really want to be using one of your few spells known on Hunter's Mark?

-Utility. Rangers are ironically the class that gets the least out of the tracking portion of the spell; Advantage is relatively easy to generate, and if you're in a campaign that actually makes use of Favored Enemy, you might not even need any outside assistance at all!

All of that said, Hunter's Mark is still a fine spell, and it still has its niche. If you're a longbow wielding Hunter, Gloom Stalker, Fey Wanderer, or Swarmkeeper, you can make good use of the damage it offers, take the tracking when you can, and ignore most of the downsides. A S&B build of those classes with Constitution saves is in roughly the same position.

Zephyr Strike is still probably my favorite spell to use, though. :smallbiggrin:

[Segev]

Seriously, though, why are rangers a "spells known" class, when paladins and druids are prepared casters?

[Witty Username]

Seriously, though, why are rangers a "spells known" class, when paladins and druids are prepared casters?

Crawford has claimed it was intentional, something about paladin needing to be able to change loadout between damage, support and tank with ranger being more focused in one specialization from the get go.
Just add it to the reasons Crawford should be listened to but not obeyed.

[Leon]

C
Just add it to the reasons Crawford should be listened to but not obeyed.

Crawford shouldn't be listened to really at all.

[Aalbatr0ss]

Seriously, though, why are rangers a "spells known" class, when paladins and druids are prepared casters?

Some ranger spells are so situational I believe they’re probably just never used because of this. You only know 4 spells by 6th level. Who is actually taking Locate Object or Enhance Ability (which can be a good spell) when it locks up 1 of their 4 spells? I bet more than half of L6 rangers have the same 4 spells prepped.

Wizards got a Tasha’s feature where they could change out 1 cantrip a day. It would be nice if rangers could at least swap one known spell a day. They’re supposed to be a versatile class with a focus on exploration.

[Segev]

Some ranger spells are so situational I believe they’re probably just never used because of this. You only know 4 spells by 6th level. Who is actually taking Locate Object or Enhance Ability (which can be a good spell) when it locks up 1 of their 4 spells? I bet more than half of L6 rangers have the same 4 spells prepped.

Wizards got a Tasha’s feature where they could change out 1 cantrip a day. It would be nice if rangers could at least swap one known spell a day. They’re supposed to be a versatile class with a focus on exploration.

I mean, would it break anything (even flavor-wise) for them to have the exact same number of prepared spells as a Paladin, and just be a prepared caster?

[KorvinStarmast]

Seriously, though, why are rangers a "spells known" class, when paladins and druids are prepared casters? The devs went brain dead that day in the critical design review. That's my story and I's sticking to it.

Wizards got a Tasha’s feature where they could change out 1 cantrip a day. It would be nice if rangers could at least swap one known spell a day. They’re supposed to be a versatile class with a focus on exploration. +1

I mean, would it break anything (even flavor-wise) for them to have the exact same number of prepared spells as a Paladin, and just be a prepared caster? No, it would not.

[Chronos]

When I played a ranger, I didn't feel like the low number of spells known was a problem. Sure, there were other spells I would have liked sometimes, but there weren't a lot of spells, nor did I often feel the need for one I didn't have. That's a reasonable balance point, I think.

But I agree that it's puzzling that they're known rather than prepared, especially with so many spells on the list being so situational.

[PhantomSoul]

Crawford shouldn't be listened to really at all.

The real Sage Advice!

(Blue just for plausible deniability :P)


Wizards got a Tasha’s feature where they could change out 1 cantrip a day. It would be nice if rangers could at least swap one known spell a day. They’re supposed to be a versatile class with a focus on exploration.

I think that might even be the best way to do it, excellent (and preferable to me over actual prepared casting, but that's another story...)

[MeimuHakurei]

It's an awful spell option with barely any damage worth mentioning when you could hit harder with Crossbow Expert or more effectively impact the battle with e.g. Entangle, Fog Cloud, Spike Growth or Conjure Animals.

[Silpharon]

I used to think that Ensnaring Strike was better than Hunter's Mark, until I played my ranger for a while. The problem with Ensnaring Strike is that there's a conflict in whom to target with it: The restrained condition is most effective against an enemy with no or weak ranged options, so you can keep your distance and kill them with your own ranged attacks. But melee enemies tend to be very strong, and hence likely to save against it. The enemies least likely to save against it are spellcasters, but they're barely hindered at all by being restrained. Hunter's Mark, by contrast, just works.

And yes, it's suboptimal for two-weapon fighting. Two-weapon fighting, in general, is suboptimal. My ranger used a bow, so I wasn't doing damage with my bonus action anyway.

Was it always the best use of my concentration? Of course not. Sometimes the situation was right for Ensnaring Strike, despite the drawbacks I mentioned above. Sometimes I wanted to use Spike Growth or Wind Wall. I didn't have Fog Cloud, but that could also sometimes be the right tool for the job. But that's how it works out with any concentration spell, on any class: You have to pick which one is right for the situation, and it won't always be the same one.

Great insight, Chronos!

I am planning to use HM for my Gloom Staker + Assassin build. It'll be my go-to concentration spell for dungeon clearing.The idea is to start the fight by surprising a foe with a verbal taunt (HM bonus action), then follow it up with three attacks that auto-crit on hit with auto-advantage. If it's one BBEG and my three attacks hit, HM gives me 6d6 extra damage. After the fight keep crawling the dungeon, marking a new foe each time we start a fight. I could easily see getting 4 encounters out of 1 cast... 24d6 ain't too shabby.

That said, would I use it for sporadic encounters? Probably not. Bless (via Fey Touched or otherwise) is generally better. Or Swift Quiver late game. Or Summon Fey. Or... you get the point.

HM is situationally great for longer term damage boosting and/or tracking a creature.

[Khrysaes]

I am gonna leave these here:

Hunter's mark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-12dA7JPKo4

Hex:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwINRY1eD7M&t

[Aalbatr0ss]

It's an awful spell option with barely any damage worth mentioning when you could hit harder with Crossbow Expert or more effectively impact the battle with e.g. Entangle, Fog Cloud, Spike Growth or Conjure Animals.

It’s a level 1 spell. Before 5th you only have 2-3 spells a day. When you’re dungeon crawling at low level it’s a solid damage boost, potentially for several encounters. If you’re going to knock it because it’s not the best choice for a late tier 2 build with crossbow expert, just keep in mind it’s a first level spell.

If you’ve spent a feat on CBE, that doesn’t make the spell awful.

[JellyPooga]

It’s a level 1 spell. Before 5th you only have 2-3 spells a day. When you’re dungeon crawling at low level it’s a solid damage boost, potentially for several encounters. If you’re going to knock it because it’s not the best choice for a late tier 2 build with crossbow expert, just keep in mind it’s a first level spell.

If you’ve spent a feat on CBE, that doesn’t make the spell awful.

It's still pretty bad, even without comparing it to CBE. Just compare it to two other Ranger spells it's directly competing with; Ensnaring Strike and Hail of Thorns.

Ensnaring Strike deals 1d6 damage for up to 10 rounds and Restrains the target for the duration. Yes, it has the problem that's been mentioned in this thread that the optimal target is the most resistant to it. It's worth bearing in mind, though, that in Tier 1 and early Tier 2 the prevalence of enemy magic users spamming "Save vs." spells is typically pretty low and Restrained imposes disadvantage on all attack rolls while simultaneously granting Advantage to all attack rolls against them; that's a mighty powerful effect and even setting aside the direct damage ES deals, the damage potential of the condition itself is difficult to calculate, but likely significant.

Then let's look at the likely duration. Ok, so it has about a 50/50 chance of sticking in the first place, assuming you hit, which isn't great but isn't terrible either (based on common, <Large, melee focused Tier 1 foes having Str no higher than around 16). But if it does stick, then you have to factor in that, interestingly, to end the effect the target (or an ally) has to spend an Action (valuable in itself) to make a Strength Ability Check (not a Save). If they choose to attack (with disadvantage) they're automatically taking a second helping of damage as well as choosing to remain Restrained. If they choose to try and end the effect (likely another 50/50, assuming you aren't pulling shenanigans to affect the roll, e.g. inflicting Poisoned on them), they lose an Action. Hell, there's a decent chance of them losing their Action and failing to end the effect. All of this makes the duration somewhat hard to estimate, but I think it's safe to say that under decent-to-average conditions, you're likely to be getting around 3d6 direct damage out of this lvl.1 spell...which doesn't sound like a lot (but is decent enough).

Compare it to Hunters Mark, though, which you might get two encounters worth of use out of (three if those encounters are short or particularly close together), each of which is going to last around 4-6 rounds, which after considering other actions you might want to be performing in those combats, gives you maybe 10-12 attacks across that time (noting that Extra Attack isn't online yet and leaving aside the likes of CBE because it directly competes with the elements in question)? I'm spit-balling the numbers here, but assuming a decent hit rate of around 60%-70%, under ideal circumstances Hunters Mark is only realistically dealing 6d6-8d6 damage. "Wow", you might be thinking "that's double Ensnaring Strike...or more!". Yes. Yes it is. But it fails to consider that it's all it is doing (largely speaking; the bonus to Perception and Survival checks is situationally niche at best), while Ensnaring Strike has a killer condition it imposes and is a much better spell for teamwork. Ensnaring Strike is damage plus control (stops movement, penalises Actions) plus buff (advantage to hit them) plus debuff (disadvantage to their attacks). It's not even a close comparison.

For a closer comparison, let's look at Hail of Thorns: This is much simpler. 1d10 damage (save for half) to the target plus anyone within 5ft. Again, like Ensnaring Strike, it's gotta hit first, but you get a whole minute to do so, so let's assume it does. Unlike Ensnaring Strike, the time it takes to hit doesn't impact the actual effect, so again, this is an easier comparison. So. I've postulated that Hunters Mark is probably dealing around 6d6-8d6 damage (total) under average-ish conditions. That's around 25 damage on average. For Hail of Thorns to match this, we need 5 targets to fail their saves against an average damage roll. Simple enough. Looks like Hunters Mark wins again, because getting 5 targets to clump up at just the right time and for them all to fail their save and get a decent-ish damage roll feels like a very convenient state of affairs to contrive to get it all to align...

...but...damage now is almost always better than damage later
...and guaranteed damage is better than damage that isn't
...and when the circumstance is right, Hunters Mark isn't really getting much better, but Hail of Thorns is potentially getting a lot better.

The important thing to bear in mind is that every instance of Hunters Mark at peak performance (again reinforcing that in Tier 1 with all other things being equal and non-competing, means 1 attack per round) is 3.5 damage, while Hail of Thorns is dealing 2 damage per instance when it's at "trough" performance (or whatever the opposite of peak performance is). Compound this with the fact that you're only using Hail of Thorns at the opportune moment as opposed to Hunters Mark which is typically being used speculatively and/or being squeezed for maximum output once cast and the comparison becomes a little less clear. Under perfect circumstances, Hail of Thorns is dealing 9d10 damage (~48). Minimum is 1d10/2 (~2). Which makes the Mean damage for Hail of Thorns roughly (48+2)/2 =25...which is funnily enough roughly what I estimated for the total additional damage Hunters Mark deals :smallwink:

[Segev]

Honestly, JellyPooga, your analysis simply highlights that Ranger spells are horribly weak across the board, to me. Hail of thorns takes ideal clumping of targets to make it worthwhile, and multiple actions (bonus and at least one action to attack) to get its one-off damage, which is underwhelming for any level 1 spell unless you can get that optimal grouping of enemies. So you can either hold your shot - not attacking at all - if you miss the first one, until you get that optimal grouping, or you're just getting a small amount of extra damage. Ensnaring strike has a similar multi-action problem, and then adds in that it is save-for-nothing with Advantage on the save granted for merely being Large when larger creatures already have the higher bonus to this save, making the optimal target generally a mook if you want it to stick. But single-target disables for mooks are almost not worth using, either, and if the mook is threatening enough that you're doing more than nickle-and-diming the enemy dpr down, it probably can hurt you even while restrained.

Hunter's mark isn't really getting better by comparison, though at least its multi-action cost is one where more attacks means more effect. That's actually probably its biggest sin: it should be a spell that makes TWF and even XBE good fighting styles/feats, because it makes every attack stronger. But its bonus action cost to cast and move eats so far into those extra attacks that it takes two more hits to make up for the damage lost to casting/moving it, at a minimum!

Hunter's mark would be about where it should be as a first level spell if you could make a weapon attack against the creature to which you apply the mark as part of the bonus action used to cast or move the spell. (Other ranger spells that increase damage per attack, such as flame arrows, or which give bonus attacks, such as swift quiver, should lose their Concentration requirements, too.)

Ensnaring strike would be okay if it did a bonus 1d6 damage on the hit, save or no save, and didn't grant Large or larger creatures advantage on the saving throw. Still not great, due to its best targets being still the ones least likely to be stuck in it, though. Alternatively, ensnaring strike needs to have a bit of an AoE, restraining targets adjacent to the main one. If ensnaring strike allowed you to force the Strength saving throw on the weapon attack's target and all enemies adjacent to it, and restrained all those that failed, it might actually be fine as it otherwise is, because now it is able to lock down a small clump of mooks.

Hail of thorns, on a failed save, does 1d10+1d8+5, optimally, if you attack with a longbow and have a 20 Dexterity. That's to the main target, and only if he also fails that dexterity save. That's an average of 15 damage to one target. The secondary targets who fail their dexterity save take 5.5 average damage. Now, the range is pretty good for a first level spell, being that of your ranged weapon, but that's about all that it's got going for it. Compare to magic missile: 120 ft. range (easily comparable to most ranged weapon ranges, though a longbow's long range does reach much further), guaranteed hit and damage, and a total of 10.5 average damage spread out between 1, 2, or 3 targets. Sounds like hail of thorns is comparable, or even better, until you remember that the actual EXTRA damage from hail of thorns (as opposed to what you get from the attack action anyway) is only that d10, so you can actively do more damage to a single target from the spell slot alone, or you can guaranteedly hit multiple other targets. If you compare it to burning hands, the range is superior for hail of thorns, but 3d6 damage (average 10.5, save for half) to all creatures in the cone is again superior to the extra damage from hail of thorns.

Honestly, hail of thorns probably just needs to be 2d10 rather than 1d10 base extra (and AoE) damage. And, as stated, go from being a bonus action cast with Concentration and triggering on the first hit to being something cast as a bonus action WHEN you hit, with an instantaneous duration.

[JellyPooga]

@Segev

I don't disagree that these spells are all on the weak side. Much like the Paladin Smite spells, I think the devs undertuned them for whatever reason.

I do think the "optimal target" argument against Ensnaring Strike is being overstated. I'll again point out that unlike most "save per turn" spells it takes an Action on the victims part to free themselves and then it's an Ability Check rather than a Save, which tend to be easier to penalise (as a rule). So if you want to stop a melee monster in their tracks, yes, this spell can do it in a pinch but it's not great odds.

On the flipside, if you target a Cult Fanatic, for example, not only is it nore likely to stick due to his woefully low Str Save, but unless he (likely) gives up on casting a powerful spell (e.g. Hold Person) for a chance at freeing himself, he remains Restrained (advantage to hit him, his attacks have disadvantage) and takes another instance of damage. Unless he gets a friend to give up an Action to have a go at freeing him.

A Bonus Action and a 1st level spell is a small price to pay for that kind of jazz. Start adding in teamwork (Rogue Sneak Attacks, Wizard or Druid Poisons them, Fighter Action Surges, Paladin Smites, etc.) to really focus fire on that target and Ensnaring Strike can be the fulcrum upon which that single target rag-dolls pretty fast.

You're absolutely right that you don't want to be using ES against mooks and it's obvious that it's a crap-shot against big melee beasts (but if you can get it to stick, it could swing a battle for a low price)...it's real value is in nailing a physically weak, single target and forcing them to choose between taking ongoing damage at zero cost to the caster (besides concentration) and spending an action to try and get free...which is a sharp price for the kind of targets you want to cast it on.

It's not a damage spell, it's a "miss a go" control spell disguised as a damage spell.

Could it be stronger as a lvl.1 spell? Sure, I actually agree that it should probably deal extra damage or something on the initial hit regardless of the Save result. I also think it's fine as it is; in the right hands and against the right foe (and with a little luck) it'll swing a battle.

[Willie the Duck]

Hunter's mark isn't really getting better by comparison, though at least its multi-action cost is one where more attacks means more effect. That's actually probably its biggest sin: it should be a spell that makes TWF and even XBE good fighting styles/feats, because it makes every attack stronger. But its bonus action cost to cast and move eats so far into those extra attacks that it takes two more hits to make up for the damage lost to casting/moving it, at a minimum!

That's a thought. What if, instead of this obsessive use of bonus-action casting that WotC leaned hard into for 5e, they had done a 'can be cast as part of an attack action' model.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

So I get the argument that Hunter's mark doesn't work with some fighting styles. Where I think this starts to fall flat is comparisons where fighting with Hunter's Mark + no fighting style is compared to fighting with Spell X and / or XBE (or whatever).

First, on the HM side, let's add SS with longbow if we're going to add a feat on the other side. That gives us more base damage, more range, more opportunity for magic weapons, and the benefits of SS.

Second, on the other side, let's recognize that many other 1st level ranger spells that you might use like ensnaring strike and hail of thorns also use up your bonus action, so if you have XBE you won't be shooting that extra shot in the round you cast them anyway. Yes, there's no BA conflict in future rounds, but the trade off is... there's no benefit (Hail of Thorns) or possibly no benefit (Ensnaring Strike) in future rounds. Let's also recognize that many/ most Rangers aren't prioritizing Wis; this isn't a Paladin with awesome auras and turning on top of spells, so there's little motivation to have your spell DC be great. This means any spell that has a save attached to it has less value for this class than pretty much any other.

On duration, for 1/2 casters that absolutely matters at least until the end of tier 2. I suppose if your table has a 5 min adventuring day it doesn't, but then there are probably bigger balance issues coming up than this. I can only say for my experience, playing a Gloomstalker to 9th level before multi-classing out, then another 6 levels in Fighter and Rogue, this spell (along with Pass Without Trace) were my bread and butter. HM was giving me potentially 3 extra dice on the first round of (sometimes multiple) encounters with a single slot.

So should Ranger get better spell options that work with other fighting styles? Should there be higher level combat based Ranger spells that aren't concentration and stack with HM? Clearly the answer is yes, and anybody that has played a Paladin and been able to concentrate on Bless, or whatever, then Smite will appreciate the ease of this class. But none of those things make Hunter's Mark a bad spell.

[Segev]

I feel like there is a claim that Ensnaring Strike shines against single weak targets, and that makes it good because it can make them miss a turn. But I question whether a Ranger level 1 spell slot is low-value enough to spend on such a thing. Especially if you take TCE and allow Rangers to cast Entangle, instead.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I feel like there is a claim that Ensnaring Strike shines against single weak targets, and that makes it good because it can make them miss a turn. But I question whether a Ranger level 1 spell slot is low-value enough to spend on such a thing. Especially if you take TCE and allow Rangers to cast Entangle, instead.

As per some of the discussion here Rangers do have very limited slots, so as soon as something is a bit Niche it's hard to justify. HM with the right build just works, as does Pass Without Trace and Goodberry. So remaining slots are pretty limited.

[JellyPooga]

I feel like there is a claim that Ensnaring Strike shines against single weak targets, and that makes it good because it can make them miss a turn. But I question whether a Ranger level 1 spell slot is low-value enough to spend on such a thing. Especially if you take TCE and allow Rangers to cast Entangle, instead.

The key difference between Entangle and Ensnaring Strike is that there's more of an incentive to make the attempt to release yourself; damage. A spellslinger caught by Entangle has the dis/advantage Restrained imposes, but with adequate spells prepared they largely ignore it. Not so much with ES.

[Chronos]

Quoth Jelly Pooga:

On the flipside, if you target a Cult Fanatic, for example, not only is it nore likely to stick due to his woefully low Str Save, but unless he (likely) gives up on casting a powerful spell (e.g. Hold Person) for a chance at freeing himself, he remains Restrained (advantage to hit him, his attacks have disadvantage) and takes another instance of damage. Unless he gets a friend to give up an Action to have a go at freeing him.
Why would the fanatic give up on casting Hold Person for a chance to free himself, when he could instead cast Hold Person and also get a chance at freeing himself? His casting of Hold Person is not in any way penalized by being Restrained, the ranger probably doesn't have a very good Wis save, and if the ranger fails the save, concentration on the Ensnaring Strike will end.

[LordShade]

I mean, would it break anything (even flavor-wise) for them to have the exact same number of prepared spells as a Paladin, and just be a prepared caster?

I allow the Ranger in my campaign to do this. It works fine. It's also how Rangers were handled in 2e, so I further have no problems with it.

Separately, he did use the Tracking feature of HM to follow some bad guys who were escaping--turned out to be quite useful. Spamming HM as your only combat spell is pretty boring, though.

[Kane0]

I'm about a page late, but yes Pally and Ranger spellcasting absolutely should have been reversed (Ranger prepared, Paladin known)

And on top of that, i've adjusted a few Ranger spells plus added some extras:


Beast Bond
1st-level divination
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Components: V, S, M (a bit of fur wrapped in cloth)
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 hour

You establish a telepathic link with one beast you touch that is friendly to you or charmed by you. The spell fails if the beast’s Intelligence is 4 or higher. Until the spell ends, the link is active while you and the beast are within one mile of each other. Through the link, the beast can understand your telepathic messages to it, and it can telepathically communicate simple emotions and concepts back to you. While the link is active, the beast gains advantage on attack rolls against any creature within your reach that you can see.

Hail of Thorns
1st-level Conjuration
Casting time: 1 Action
Range: Self
Components: V, M (ranged weapon)
Duration: Instantaneous

As part of the action used to cast this spell you must make a ranged weapon attack, otherwise the spell fails.
Hit or miss, a rain of thorns sprouts from your ranged weapon or ammunition. In addition to the normal effect of the attack, the target of the attack and each creature within 5 feet of it must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 1d10 piercing damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
At Higher Levels: If you cast this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, the damage increases by 1d10 for each slot level above 1st.

Hunter's Mark
1st-Level Divination
Casting Time: 1 Bonus Action
Range: 90 feet
Components: V
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 hour

Choose a creature you can see within range. Until the spell ends, you gain advantage on Dexterity (Stealth), Intelligence (Lore) and Wisdom (Insight and Survival) checks in relation to, and when dealing with, that creature.
At Higher Levels: When you use a spell slot of 3rd level, you can select a creature you have met even if you cannot see them and they are outside of the spell's range. When you use a spell slot of 5th level, you can maintain Concentration on the spell for up to 8 hours.

Obscure Camp
1st level Illusion (Ritual)
Casting Time: 1 minute
Range: 20 feet
Duration: 8 Hours
Components: V, S, M
The area in a 20 foot radius around you is magically obscured from those attempting to locate it, dimming campfires and shrouding smoke. Any creature outside of the area of the spell has disadvantage on any Wisdom (Perception) or Intelligence (Investigation) checks to find your hidden campsite.

Zephyr Strike
1st-level Transmutation
Casting Time: 1 bonus action
Range: Self
Components: V
Duration: 1 minute

For the duration, your movement doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks.
On your turn you can choose to end this spell early. If you do so, you gain advantage on the next weapon attack you make and your speed increases by 30 feet until the end of that turn.

Barkskin
2nd-level Transmutation
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Components: S
Duration: 8 hours

You touch a willing creature. Until the spell ends the target's AC cannot be less than 18 regardless of what kind of armor it is wearing. When the targeted creature is struck by a critical hit or takes fire damage this minimum AC is reduced by 1 (maximum once per turn). The spell ends when the minimum AC reaches 10 or the target's natural AC.

Conjure Raft
2nd level Conjuration (Ritual)
Casting Time: 1 Minute
Range: Touch
Duration: Concentration, up to one hour
Components: S, M
The piece of wood touches expands and turns into a square raft 10 feet long and 10 feet wide. This craft can support up to three large creatures, six medium creatures or nine small creatures on calm waters.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 3rd level or higher, the raft is 5 feet longer and wider, supporting one large, two medium or three small creatures more for each slot above 2nd.

Discern Weakness
2nd-Level Divination
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Self
Components: S
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute
For the duration, you sense the weaknesses of creatures within 30 feet of you. When you cast this spell and on each of your turns for the duration you can use your action to determine one damage vulnerability, source of disadvantage or the lowest saving throw of one creature you can see within 30 feet.

Find Traps
2nd-level divination
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Self
Components: S
Duration: 1 hour

Rope Bridge
2nd level Transmutation
Casting Time: 1 Minute
Range: 60 feet
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 hour
Components: S, M
The length of rope you are holding magically anchors itself to up to three surfaces you can see within range, creating a rope bridge that is 5 feet wide between those spaces that can support up to 500 pounds. Each 5 foot length has an AC of 13 and 20 hit points. Reducing a length to 0 hit points destroys it and might cause the bridge to collapse at the DM’s discretion.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 3rd level or higher, the range of the spell increases by 15 feet for each slot level above 2nd.

Safeguard Shelter
2nd level Abjuration
Casting time: 1 minute
Range: 20 feet
Duration: 8 Hours
Components: V, S, M
The area in a 20 foot radius is magically warded from those attempting to enter it. The spell fails if its area includes more than six creatures. Creatures and objects within the area when you cast this spell can move freely, all other creatures must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw against your Spell DC in order to enter the area. Spells and objects are unaffected.

Conjure Barrage
3rd-level Conjuration
Casting time: 1 Action
Range: Self (60-foot cone)
Components: S, M (one piece of ammunition or a thrown weapon)
Duration: Instantaneous

You throw a nonmagical weapon or fire a piece of nonmagical ammunition into the air to create a cone of identical weapons that shoot forward and then disappear. Each creature in a 60-foot cone must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 6d8 damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. The damage type is the same as that of the weapon or ammunition used as a component.
At Higher Levels: The damage increases by 1d8 for each slot level above 3rd.

Flame Arrows
3rd-level transmutation
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Components: S
Duration: 8 hours

You touch a quiver containing arrows, bullets or bolts. When a target is hit by a ranged weapon attack using a piece of ammunition drawn from the quiver, the target takes an extra 1d8 fire damage. The spell’s magic ends on a piece of ammunition when it hits or misses, and the spell ends after twelve pieces of ammunition have been drawn from the quiver.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 3rd level or higher, the number of pieces of ammunition you can affect with this spell increases by six for each slot level above 2nd.

Lightning Arrow
3rd level transmutation
Casting Time: 1 bonus action
Range: Self
Components: V, S, M (ranged weapon)
Duration: Instantaneous

As part of the casting of this spell you must make a ranged weapon attack, otherwise the spell fails.
Hit or miss, the weapon or ammunition emits bolts of lightning. In addition to the normal effect of the attack, the target of the attack and each creature within 10 feet of it must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 3d8 lightning damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, the damage for both effects of the spell increases by 1d8 for each slot level above 3rd.

Grasping Vine
4th Level Conjuration
Casting Time: 1 Bonus Action
Range: 30 feet
Components: M
Duration: Concentration, up to one minute

You make a vine sprout in an unoccupied space you can see. When you cast this spell, you can make the vine whip a creature up to 30 feet from it, if you can see the target. The creature must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or be restrained and moved up to 20 feet in a direction of your choice within the 30 foot reach of the vine.
Creatures that are restrained by the vine take 4d8 poison damage at the beginning of their turn and as an action can attempt a Strength check against your spell DC to break free of the vine's grip.
Until the spell ends, you can use your bonus action to have the vine lash out again.

Guardian of Nature
4th-Level Transmutation
Casting time: 1 Bonus Action
Range: Self
Components: V
Duration: 1 minute

A nature spirit answers your call and transforms you into a powerful guardian. The transformation lasts until the spell ends. You choose one of the following forms to assume: Primal Beast or Great Tree.
Primal Beast: Bestial fur covers your body, your facial features become feral, and you gain the following benefits:
- Your walking speed increases by 10 feet.
- You gain darkvision with a range of 120 feet.
- You make Strength-based attack rolls with advantage.
- Your melee weapon attacks deal an extra 1d6 force damage on a hit.

Great Tree: Your skin appears barky, leaves sprout from your hair, and you gain the following benefits:
- You gain 10 temporary hit points.
- You make Constitution saving throws with advantage.
- You make Dexterity- and Wisdom-based attack rolls with advantage.
- While you are on the ground, the ground within 15 feet of you is difficult terrain for your enemies.

Swift Quiver
5th-Level Transmutation
Casting time: 1 Bonus Action
Range: Touch
Components: V, S, M (a weapon or quiver containing at least one piece of ammunition)
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 hour

Until the spell ends your weapon attacks deal an extra 1d6 Force damage on a hit and once per turn you can duplicate one weapon attack you make before you roll the attack. This attack is treated as two identical attacks against the same target.


Hunter's Mark notably is not for damage specifically to break players out of the habit of going straight to that and ignoring all other bonus action/concentration spells plus I also have 'brewed changes to the Ranger class such that the damage isn't necessary.

[JellyPooga]

Why would the fanatic give up on casting Hold Person for a chance to free himself, when he could instead cast Hold Person and also get a chance at freeing himself? His casting of Hold Person is not in any way penalized by being Restrained, the ranger probably doesn't have a very good Wis save, and if the ranger fails the save, concentration on the Ensnaring Strike will end.

Over-specific delve into theoretical scenarios is over-specific. And pointless semantics.

The point is that someone affected by ES has their options severely limited. Can they target the Ranger in hopes of freeing themselves? Sure, why not? Better that, perhaps, than targeting the party Wizard or whoever else that might be more vulnerable or valuable to the task at hand.

In addition, the Ranger is only expending a single Bonus Action to cast a single Lvl.1 spell; countering that with an Action and/or a lvl.2 or higher spell is a net win for the Ranger.

Further, the success of whatever Action the victim takes to counter the Ranger is limited by the disadvantage imposed by being Restrained; nothing says a given target will have any spells or abilities that aren't governed by an attack roll, nor that those spells they do have that won't suffer the disadvantage are going to be applicable to disrupting our Ranger.

[Witty Username]

I feel like there is a claim that Ensnaring Strike shines against single weak targets, and that makes it good because it can make them miss a turn. But I question whether a Ranger level 1 spell slot is low-value enough to spend on such a thing. Especially if you take TCE and allow Rangers to cast Entangle, instead.

I definitely prefer spells like Goodberry and fog cloud to ensnaring strike, entangle being there now too helps. I personally prefer looking at non-combat spells on Ranger, they don't really need the extra damage.

[Coidzor]

It's just one of too many spells that require concentration. It's just one of too many things competing for your bonus action, and this just gets worse as your level increases and your options increase.

It works best when it has many rounds over which to do damage but it works at cross purposes with maximizing your number of attacks due to its action economy cost AND you're not proficient with Constitution Saves and are likely to lose concentration before you see too many different fights and fights generally don't last more than 3 or 4 rounds.

The effect is nice at low level, but doesn't scale and the duration scaling is not very relevant 99% of the time because you're going to get hit often enough for enough damage that you can't just assume that you'll keep concentration up on it for an entire adventuring day. +2 or 3 to Con Saves is not going to cut it once you get hit for 50 damage by a giant and have to make a DC 25 concentration check.

[Thunderous Mojo]

+2 or 3 to Con Saves is not going to cut it once you get hit for 50 damage by a giant and have to make a DC 25 concentration check.

This would be true for any spell the hypothetical Ranger would be Concentrating on, would it not?

Are you asserting Ranger should never select Concentration spells?

[5eNeedsDarksun]

This would be true for any spell the hypothetical Ranger would be Concentrating on, would it not?

Are you asserting Ranger should never select Concentration spells?

I think the assertion is that the benefit of extra duration for HM over other options can't be counted on due to lack of Con saves (without feat investment).

[Thunderous Mojo]

I think the assertion is that the benefit of extra duration for HM over other options can't be counted on due to lack of Con saves (without feat investment).

That is a valid point. Of course Hunter’s Mark is a 1st level spell on a half caster…if the spell dies, it dies.

Rangers subclasses generally add an extra damage option at 3rd level, as is.

[Aalbatr0ss]

I think the assertion is that the benefit of extra duration for HM over other options can't be counted on due to lack of Con saves (without feat investment).

Yes. Somewhat. But same for the 1-minute concentration spells. Usually as a ranger if my concentration gets broken it's in the round or 2 after I've cast it.

If trying to keep it going for a while, I'll switch to ranged but no certainty there either. Could hit a trap and lose it out of combat.

[Chronos]

Quoth JellyPooga:

In addition, the Ranger is only expending a single Bonus Action to cast a single Lvl.1 spell; countering that with an Action and/or a lvl.2 or higher spell is a net win for the Ranger.
The cult fanatic isn't spending a 2nd-level spell slot because the ranger forced his hand by using a bonus action and a 1st-level spell. He's spending a 2nd-level spell slot because that's what he would have been doing anyway, because casting Hold Person is already a cult fanatic's best available action option. The ranger casting Ensnaring Strike didn't change what the fanatic would do at all.

And sure, maybe a cult fanatic isn't the best example. But it was your example. If you want a better example, come up with it.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Yes. Somewhat. But same for the 1-minute concentration spells. Usually as a ranger if my concentration gets broken it's in the round or 2 after I've cast it.

If trying to keep it going for a while, I'll switch to ranged but no certainty there either. Could hit a trap and lose it out of combat.

I guess all of this was part of the calculation for me with my Ranger where I took Resilient Con and left Wisdom alone as I leveled. Getting Wis saves as a Gloomstalker didn't hurt either. So spells like Pass Without Trace and HM could be counted on to somewhat reliably stick for multiple combats. I suppose you could go another direction and leave your Con save alone and put some ASI(s) into Wis to get those other spells working more consistently.
Given limited slots and availability of other good spells like Absorb Elements and Goodberry, it made sense to me to try to get spells up and running for longer than 1 fight. I can certainly see others going another direction and do take the point that if you do nothing about Con saves then longer term spells are going to have more limited benefit.

[JellyPooga]

The cult fanatic isn't spending a 2nd-level spell slot because the ranger forced his hand by using a bonus action and a 1st-level spell. He's spending a 2nd-level spell slot because that's what he would have been doing anyway, because casting Hold Person is already a cult fanatic's best available action option. The ranger casting Ensnaring Strike didn't change what the fanatic would do at all.

And sure, maybe a cult fanatic isn't the best example. But it was your example. If you want a better example, come up with it.

Wrong. While the Cult Fanatic might have cast Hold Person anyway, the Ranger forced their hand to cast it on them instead of having the freedom of casting it on someone else. Unless they wanted to remain restrained and take more damage, of course.

Again, the specific scenario is entirely irrelevant and pointless semantics. I don't need to give a better example because every example will have a specific counter argument, which will only result in endless counter-examples ad nauseum.

If you contend the actual premise that Ensnaring Strike is a valuable spell to cast on targets that are vulnerable to it, then contend that instead of picking apart the specific example. I pulled the Cult Fanatic out of a pool of potential examples; I'm not saying ES is always going to be super-mega-effective against that specific foe any more than I'm going to list every specific foe the spell might be useful against in every scenario; that would be stupid :smallmad:. Ain't playing stupid games.

[MeimuHakurei]

Can you please use your 1st level slots on Fog Cloud, Entangle or Goodberry instead? Those meaningfully affect health regained or substantially hinder opponents instead of adding a piddling amount of bonus damage per turn. And definitely don't concentrate on Hunter's Mark if Pass Without Trace and/or Conjure Animals are available.

It's like saying Wizards are completely useless for burning all slots all the time on Pyrotechnics. And never even considering to cast something other than Pyrotechnics.

[Leon]

Can you please use your 1st level slots on Fog Cloud, Entangle or Goodberry instead? Those meaningfully affect health regained or substantially hinder opponents instead of adding a piddling amount of bonus damage per turn. And definitely don't concentrate on Hunter's Mark if Pass Without Trace and/or Conjure Animals are available.


All situational spells in there own way.

[Aalbatr0ss]

Sorry to make a thread of just this but I thought it was beyond just a RAW question and I did search but I couldn't seem find a clear answer. What is the deal with all the hate/dislike/disappointment I keep seeing heaped upon the spell Hunter's Mark (https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/hunters-mark)?

Thanks,
Necro

To take another run at the original question...

Some people don't like it because there are other good ranger spells and it somehow bothers them that someone might use this one.
Some people don't like it because they think all ranger spells are bad?
Some are arguing why it doesn't work for their pet ranger build, which is fine. That doesn't make it a bad spell.

Noone seems to be advocating that hunter's mark should always be used reflexively in every situation. If you do this, it can be a bad spell.

It is a tool in a toolbox. If you're curious, I recommend you try it out in a few different scenarios and see how it goes. There are encounters/adventuring days where casting hunter's mark at the start of round 1 can make a lot of sense, especially if you're attacking from range.

[Segev]

To take another run at the original question...

Some people don't like it because there are other good ranger spells and it somehow bothers them that someone might use this one.
Some people don't like it because they think all ranger spells are bad?
Some are arguing why it doesn't work for their pet ranger build, which is fine. That doesn't make it a bad spell.

Noone seems to be advocating that hunter's mark should always be used reflexively in every situation. If you do this, it can be a bad spell.

It is a tool in a toolbox. If you're curious, I recommend you try it out in a few different scenarios and see how it goes. There are encounters/adventuring days where casting hunter's mark at the start of round 1 can make a lot of sense, especially if you're attacking from range.

It doesn't seem to work for ANY ranger build, is the problem. There is almost always a better use for your first level spell slot than any ranger-exclusive first level spell, and thus always a better use for your spells known.

[ZRN]

The problem with Hunter's Mark is that it does nothing interesting fluff-wise, but it clogs up your action economy and hogs your concentration (preventing you from using more interesting spells). What's worse, WOTC seems to know it sucks but don't know why, so they keep coming up with other ways rangers can make their basic attacks deal extra damage using their concentration and/or minor actions. (Favored foe, slayer's prey, planar warrior, etc.)

What about the ranger concept screams "I want to spend all my bonus actions aiming real good so my attacks hit harder"? To make rogues and barbarians deal more damage they give them scaling bonuses (to sneak attack and rage damage, respectively). To make fighters deal more damage they get more attacks per action. Why do rangers need to use up all their other action economy just to stay on par?

Especially bad when the average fight lasts like 3 rounds and there are a bunch of ways to use your bonus action to just attack again, almost certainly dealing more damage than hunter's mark grants.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

It doesn't seem to work for ANY ranger build, is the problem. There is almost always a better use for your first level spell slot than any ranger-exclusive first level spell, and thus always a better use for your spells known.

As someone who played a longbow using Gloomstalker Ranger for many levels I can only say I 100% disagree with this. HM worked well with my chosen build, and I'd add it was my chosen thematic build to use a longbow; I didn't choose this to co-ordinate specifically with HM. It absolutely was an efficient way to get benefit often for multiple combats out of a 1st level slot.

Anyway, I guess mileage may vary and others may not have experienced this for whatever reason. Maybe others don't see a longbow using Ranger as a usual build?

I guess the question I have for you, since you see HM as having little use, at least to the extent that you believe there to be 'almost always a better use for your first level spell slot' is this: Do you see Hex in the same light? Given their similarities, does Hex also have little use?

[GentlemanVoodoo]

It doesn't seem to work for ANY ranger build, is the problem. There is almost always a better use for your first level spell slot than any ranger-exclusive first level spell, and thus always a better use for your spells known.

When I see this I just laugh at how people fail to realize spells, even the supposed "best", are always situational.

Aalbatr0ss has said it the best. It is a tool used for specific instances, though personally I will say it is the most versatile of the attack spells. 1d6 extra damage is fine enough it gets the job done but more importantly is the tracking ability it offers. Enemy goes invisible, ranger can find them. Enemy teleports, ranger knows where they went. Enemy uses blinding spell like Darkness, doesn't matter for ranger still knows where to find them.

So we have a spell that grants a boost in damage and makes the target's whereabouts known to the ranger who can advise the other people in the party. Compared to the other ranger spells here are some things to consider:

Ensnaring Strike - Restrain is good provided the target doesn't have a high strength score. Anything bigger than medium sized creatures is useless against since they get advantage on the check. Yes the extra 1d6 damage may be nice but that is provided the enemy stays alive long enough and doesn't escape it. Realistically, most players are going to dog pile one target so unless you are using it against a foe that hasn't been focused on, and can survive at least 2 rounds of damage from others in your party for the extra damage to take effect, the spell is almost a waste really.

Hail of Thorns - Ranged only so if you are going melee ranger then it is a useless spell. Also that 1d10 piercing damage is conditional on the dex save. Target makes it, it is half. Nothing else to this.

Zephyr Strike - Granted the 1d8 extra force damage and advantage on attack is nice but it is a one shot. The speed to boost is nice, however that is assuming you haven't already moved that turn. But if you are wanting to pile on the damage and make it force, why not just pick the Horizon Walker subclass to get planar warrior (which scales) and just flank an enemy? More so the instances when you will need the extra speed of 30 feet are rare themselves and a spell like longstrider provides a boost that is more consistent.

So compared to these, Hunter's Mark is the most versatile and has more uses to benefit the party in the long run. All other spells of the ranger are situational and mostly non-combat based.

Which brings me my initial statement I have been saying for years now. People fail to understand that the Ranger class is meant to be a "jack of all trades" like the bard but it is the nature/wilderness edition. All of the spells in the ranger's use are wide spread to provide healing, utility, social interactions (with animals of course), and combat. So it was never made to be a big bruiser like the barbarian or fighter. Its an all rounder class and like the bard.

[Ascendant]

What if we were to reframe the question as "how would you redesign Hunter's Mark" to be better?

I would tie the spell to the Ranger as a feature, but change how it progresses (replaces favored foe) Hunter's Quarry:

At level 2, before you roll for an attack, you can cast Hunter's Mark [at 1st level without expending a spell slot as part of the attack action(no action required).
You can do this a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus OR Wis mod per LR.
When cast in this way, you can apply the damage dice only once on each turn, regardless of how many attacks you make against the target.
You may move the target as a bonus action as normal, or reapply it by spending another use.
Once you reach level 6 in this class, you may apply the bonus damage to all attacks made against the target as normal, without restriction. In addition, you may cast another spell on the same turn you use this feature without restriction.
Once you reach level 11 in this class, Hunter's Mark no longer requires concentration when cast this way.
At level 20, you may add your Wis to any attack and damage rolls made against the target of this feature.


I hope this fixes the following problems:
HM being a spell choice 'tax'.
Ranger's BA and Concentration being infamously cluttered (looking at you, swift quiver).
Preventing the feature from being too tempting for dips, without limiting it to once per turn.

It's probably overtuned, but I'm hoping it hits the right notes.
I am also toying with the idea of lowering the duration to 1 minute, rather than the full hour, to let HM proper still have the niche of being a long term, efficient use. Also, hopefully the free, shorter durations will allow some feel of flexibility.
Letting this and a spell both be used at the same time might be overkill. Not sure.
On another note, does Hunter's Mark get shared for the new Beast Master? Seems like it ought to be.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

What if we were to reframe the question as "how would you redesign Hunter's Mark" to be better?

I would tie the spell to the Ranger as a feature, but change how it progresses (replaces favored foe) Hunter's Quarry:

At level 2, before you roll for an attack, you can cast Hunter's Mark [at 1st level without expending a spell slot as part of the attack action(no action required).
You can do this a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus OR Wis mod per LR.
When cast in this way, you can apply the damage dice only once on each turn, regardless of how many attacks you make against the target.
You may move the target as a bonus action as normal, or reapply it by spending another use.
Once you reach level 6 in this class, you may apply the bonus damage to all attacks made against the target as normal, without restriction. In addition, you may cast another spell on the same turn you use this feature without restriction.
Once you reach level 11 in this class, Hunter's Mark no longer requires concentration when cast this way.
At level 20, you may add your Wis to any attack and damage rolls made against the target of this feature.


I hope this fixes the following problems:
HM being a spell choice 'tax'.
Ranger's BA and Concentration being infamously cluttered (looking at you, swift quiver).
Preventing the feature from being too tempting for dips, without limiting it to once per turn.

It's probably overtuned, but I'm hoping it hits the right notes.
I am also toying with the idea of lowering the duration to 1 minute, rather than the full hour, to let HM proper still have the niche of being a long term, efficient use. Also, hopefully the free, shorter durations will allow some feel of flexibility.
Letting this and a spell both be used at the same time might be overkill. Not sure.
On another note, does Hunter's Mark get shared for the new Beast Master? Seems like it ought to be.

I personally think this is a better question. Some of the issue definitely comes down to how the spell interacts with the Ranger class and other Ranger spells.
If I was to change the spell in one way I would say allow it to scale. That said, I'm still somewhat of the school of thought that says this spell individually isn't the issue, rather the numerous other Ranger spells you get as you level also tend to be Concentration. If Lightning Arrow and a few others acted more like a Paladin Divine Smite, then I'm not sure the HM 'problem' would keep coming up.
In saying that, the spell

[Chronos]

Quoth JellyPooga:

If you contend the actual premise that Ensnaring Strike is a valuable spell to cast on targets that are vulnerable to it, then contend that instead of picking apart the specific example.
Of course it's a valuable spell to cast on targets that are vulnerable to it. That's tautological. My point is that there are very, very few targets that are vulnerable to it. The fact that you can list off a long list of creatures that aren't vulnerable to it isn't an argument against that.


Quoth GentlemanVoodoo:

Aalbatr0ss has said it the best. It is a tool used for specific instances, though personally I will say it is the most versatile of the attack spells. 1d6 extra damage is fine enough it gets the job done but more importantly is the tracking ability it offers. Enemy goes invisible, ranger can find them. Enemy teleports, ranger knows where they went. Enemy uses blinding spell like Darkness, doesn't matter for ranger still knows where to find them.
That overstates the case. The spell doesn't have the effect "ranger can find them". It gives you advantage on checks made to find them. If they escaped in such a way that a check wouldn't be useful, such as teleporting, then there's no benefit. If a check is possible but very unlikely to succeed, then advantage will help, but not very much. Even if it's an easy check, advantage still leaves the possibility of failure.

[Kane0]

What if we were to reframe the question as "how would you redesign Hunter's Mark" to be better?

I would tie the spell to the Ranger as a feature, but change how it progresses (replaces favored foe) Hunter's Quarry:


See my post halfway down page 3.

I also change Favored Foe to apply the damage once per turn to you or an ally that can see/hear you within 30', so its becomes a potent focus fire tool and suitable replacement for PHB hunters mark.

[Silpharon]

Of course it's a valuable spell to cast on targets that are vulnerable to it. That's tautological.

I think that's the second time this week I've had to look up a word you've used. Who knew this forum would expand my vocabulary?! Appreciate your posts Chronos. ;)

[Thunderous Mojo]

Especially bad when the average fight lasts like 3 rounds and there are a bunch of ways to use your bonus action to just attack again, almost certainly dealing more damage than hunter's mark grants.

A three round or less fight is, generally, a straightforward Medium Encounter. A Ranger, may not need to cast any spells, in a Medium Encounter.

Much of D&D conversation runs off of Anecdotes, which may result in conclusions being made primarily off of a small experiential sample size.
I think we need numbers. 🥳

Parameters:

Assume a Ranger Base with a +2 Proficiency Bonus and +3 Attack stat modifier.
Base Main Hand damage is a 1d8 Weapon.
Off Hand Weapon is a 1d6 weapon. Attack stat modifier was not added to damage.
Ranged Weapon is Longbow.
Archer Ranger has Archery Style.

Against AC 16:
A Sword and Board Ranger: 3.95 DPR.
An Archer Ranger: 4.75 DPR
A Dual Wielding Ranger: 8.5 DPR
Archer Ranger w/ HM: 7 DPR
Dual Wielder w/ HM: 12 DPR

*note: the dual wielder has a 75% of at least one hit when attacking with two weapons*

[JellyPooga]

Of course it's a valuable spell to cast on targets that are vulnerable to it. That's tautological. My point is that there are very, very few targets that are vulnerable to it. The fact that you can list off a long list of creatures that aren't vulnerable to it isn't an argument against that.

I contend that there are a remarkably large number of creatures vulnerable to it. Any Medium or smaller creature with low strength is a candidate, of course, but you should bear in mind that my post is in response to the contention that ES isn't as valuable against anyone with ranged or spell options; I contend that they are the primary targets for the spell. Ranged attacks are penalised and spell options are limited by it, offering the party using the spell the opportunity to deal with mooks or melee threats while the ensnared victim deals with the consequence of the spell. Simultaneously, it allows the party using it an opportunity to focus-fire on the victim with advantage to hit. It's a versatile effect but only has a decent chance of success against low-strength high-priority targets that you want to either eliminate quickly or compromise until they can be dealt with like spellcasters and other glass-cannon ranged units.

Can the target mitigate the limitation? Of course. But whichever option they take they suffer a consequence, be it loss of action(s), penalised attacks, taking damage or having limited target options. The only way the target escapes the spell entirely without one of these sanctions is if an ally frees them before their next turn after being affected.

[Segev]

The problem is that the creatures vulnerable to it typically are the mooks. So you're using your concentration to inconvenience or maybe remove from combat for a time one mook.

[JellyPooga]

The problem is that the creatures vulnerable to it typically are the mooks. So you're using your concentration to inconvenience or maybe remove from combat for a time one mook.

I disagree. Yes, mooks will be vulnerable, but so will a significant number of backline/glass-cannon types that can ruin a party's day unless dealt with by focusing fire (ES is good for that) or delaying them (also good for that).

The point being made that you want to use it on big strong melee guys only applies if you don't have your own big strong melee guys to face-check them. Rangers might not be the best tanks, but they're still tough enough to duke it out, so putting something like ES on their chassis qualifies the spell as a backline counter.

Foe example; As an opening move it wouldn't be a bad shout to ping an ES at the pesky mage in back before engaging the mooks and bodyguards stopping you and the rest of the party from getting to said pesky mage (or archer or whatever).

[Thunderous Mojo]

In a campaign that primarily had players that had never played D&D before, I saw a newbie Ranger use Ensnaring Strike on the Drow Wizard in Wave Echo Cave. The newbie Wizard, then added their Witch Bolt spell to the Drow’s assortment of maladies.

The spell combination was surprisingly effective.

Every dog will have it’s day.

[Kane0]

Ive never really considered Ensnaring Strike to be a bad spell, seemed okay every time I saw it used.

[Witty Username]

The problem is that the creatures vulnerable to it typically are the mooks. So you're using your concentration to inconvenience or maybe remove from combat for a time one mook.

There is a note that not much is out right immune though, insert monk stunning strike comment here. And it screws with dex enemies like flyers, and casters to some degree. I am not sure on low strength large creatures of the top of my head, but if it comes up the advantage it going to be limited.
And hilariously, magic resistant enemies get no special advantage against it, not a plus just kinda funny.

[Segev]

There is a note that not much is out right immune though, insert monk stunning strike comment here. And it screws with dex enemies like flyers, and casters to some degree. I am not sure on low strength large creatures of the top of my head, but if it comes up the advantage it going to be limited.
And hilariously, magic resistant enemies get no special advantage against it, not a plus just kinda funny.

Monk stunning strike is imminently cheaper, and doesn't require concentration.

And "the caster in back" just keeps casting from the back.

Good call on flyers, though, at least if they aren't dragons or the like.

[JellyPooga]

And "the caster in back" just keeps casting from the back.

That's a gross understatement of the situation though (IMO). If they "just keep casting" it's probably not any spells requiring an attack roll and they continue to take damage unless they can force the Ranger to lose concentration. That's not nothing; that's a significant liimitation.

[Chronos]

Quoth Witty Username:

And hilariously, magic resistant enemies get no special advantage against it, not a plus just kinda funny.
How do you figure? It's a spell, and it offers a save. Magic resistance gives an enemy advantage on that save.

[JellyPooga]

How do you figure? It's a spell, and it offers a save. Magic resistance gives an enemy advantage on that save.

The initial save, yes. There is an argument that if you can get the spell to stick in the first place that because the subsequent checks to free yourself aren't Saves, it's got an advantage against magic resistance over other spells that offer saves to end.

...not an argument to end all ends, but it's a benefit of sorts.

[Chronos]

Oh, sure, the checks to end it early aren't saves at all. For that matter, there are some spells that never offer a save, like Telekinesis and Bigby's Hand.

[JellyPooga]

Oh, sure, the checks to end it early aren't saves at all. For that matter, there are some spells that never offer a save, like Telekinesis and Bigby's Hand.

Indeed, which begs the question of whether "magic resistance" is really doing its job adequately. That or whether the entire magic system could (or should) be streamlined into something more cohesive than the utter mess of nonsense that it is currently...but that's a whole other discussion.

[Witty Username]

How do you figure? It's a spell, and it offers a save. Magic resistance gives an enemy advantage on that save.

I more ment that if they are large size they roll with advantage, if they have magic resistance they roll with advantage. Because advantage doesn't stack, it means this spell isn't actually worse against large magic resistant enemies.

[animorte]

Everything else aside, IMHO the absolute number one problem with Hunter's Mark is that MOST of the spells the Ranger gets access to around the same level require concentration, thus invalidating the purpose of a reasonably useful and otherwise potentially all-day spell extremely underwhelming.

I think what utility it offers can be entirely useful, obviously depending on the DM and who else is in the rest of the party. Unfortunately, people don't often plan to rely on others too much to make sure all bases are covered.

I didn't feel like this was supposed to be a Hex vs Hunter's Mark conversation, so I'll set those thoughts aside.

[JellyPooga]

Everything else aside, IMHO the absolute number one problem with Hunter's Mark is that MOST of the spells the Ranger gets access to around the same level require concentration, thus invalidating the purpose of a reasonably useful and otherwise potentially all-day spell extremely underwhelming.

I think what utility it offers can be entirely useful, obviously depending on the DM and who else is in the rest of the party. Unfortunately, people don't often plan to rely on others too much to make sure all bases are covered.

I didn't feel like this was supposed to be a Hex vs Hunter's Mark conversation, so I'll set those thoughts aside.

I suppose that'e where the issue of spell selection as a Spells Known caster comes in. While the Ranger list might have a bunch of concentration spells on it, a specific Ranger will not know any more than a fraction of them. If they want the potential all-day damage boost from Hunters Mark they're free to select non-concentration spells as the rest lf their repertoir. Whether or not that's a good decision or not will depend entirely on the play style that player/character is looking for.

To give a basic example, a lvl.2 Ranger with Goodberry and Hunters Mark on their list doesn't really have many choices to make about what spell they're going to cast; only when they choose to use the latter. As a half-caster, spellcasting is never going to be their main schtick; if they wanted it to be, then perhaps they're in the wrong Class...

[Segev]

I suppose that'e where the issue of spell selection as a Spells Known caster comes in. While the Ranger list might have a bunch of concentration spells on it, a specific Ranger will not know any more than a fraction of them. If they want the potential all-day damage boost from Hunters Mark they're free to select non-concentration spells as the rest lf their repertoir. Whether or not that's a good decision or not will depend entirely on the play style that player/character is looking for.

To give a basic example, a lvl.2 Ranger with Goodberry and Hunters Mark on their list doesn't really have many choices to make about what spell they're going to cast; only when they choose to use the latter. As a half-caster, spellcasting is never going to be their main schtick; if they wanted it to be, then perhaps they're in the wrong Class...

And yet, paladins are prepared casters.

Further, Ensnaring Strike is a generally better spell to know than Hunter's Mark, and Entangle generally better still.

[JellyPooga]

And yet, paladins are prepared casters.

Further, Ensnaring Strike is a generally better spell to know than Hunter's Mark, and Entangle generally better still.

Paladins don't have anything to do with it. Might as well complain that Rangers don't have full-casting like Wizards.

Whilst yes, Ensnaring Strike[i] and [i]Entangle might be better spells in the short term, neither offers the longevity of Hunters Mark and beside that is the notion that a given Ranger might or might not want to engage with the game in the ways either of those expected. Many a Ranger just wants something basic with less frills, for the same reason many people choose to be Champion Fighters.

[Segev]

Paladins don't have anything to do with it. Might as well complain that Rangers don't have full-casting like Wizards.

Whilst yes, Ensnaring Strike and Entangle might be better spells in the short term, neither offers the longevity of Hunters Mark and beside that is the notion that a given Ranger might or might not want to engage with the game in the ways either of those expected. Many a Ranger just wants something basic with less frills, for the same reason many people choose to be Champion Fighters.

Nope, you don't get to say "they're half-casters; what do you expect?" and then, when somebody points out a half-caster that has what might alternatively be expected, say, "Paladins have nothing to do with it." You either defend your point about half-casters being supposed to be stuck with that, or you concede it.

The trouble is that hunter's mark isn't better in the long run, either, and it certainly isn't simpler than the other two, given the action tracking and planning you have to do with it.

[Kane0]

Artificers also, whichs puts the Ranger in the minority.

[JellyPooga]

Nope, you don't get to say "they're half-casters; what do you expect?" and then, when somebody points out a half-caster that has what might alternatively be expected, say, "Paladins have nothing to do with it." You either defend your point about half-casters being supposed to be stuck with that, or you concede it. What's the point I'm supposed to concede? That if Rangers were a prepared spell caster their choices of spells they prepared would be more flexible? Of course they would, but they're not and it doesn't change the fact that Rangers still have much fewer slots than full-casters and as such if they want spellcasting to be a primary aspect of their character, then they'd be better off playing a full-casting Class. What have Paladins or Artificers got to do with that?


The trouble is that hunter's mark isn't better in the long run, either, and it certainly isn't simpler than the other two, given the action tracking and planning you have to do with it.

I'm not saying it is, but it does offer a different spellcasting experience.

[animorte]

What's the point I'm supposed to concede? That if Rangers were a prepared spell caster their choices of spells they prepared would be more flexible? Of course they would, but they're not and it doesn't change the fact that Rangers still have much fewer slots than full-casters and as such if they want spellcasting to be a primary aspect of their character, then they'd be better off playing a full-casting Class. What have Paladins or Artificers got to do with that?



I'm not saying it is, but it does offer a different spellcasting experience.

I'm leaning toward your take on it, Jelly. Obviously the Ranger (and Hunter's Mark, specifically) have issues, but for some people, that design is pretty appealing. I personally like being able to keep Hunter's Mark up all day. It's a neat feature that can be effective if you care to use it for what it is. This goes back to the same thing I keep finding myself referencing in these conversations: People don't like the idea of leaving the other jobs up to other players, they think their one PC, whatever it may be, needs to be good at everything or at least be able to do a little bit of everything. I'm ok with taking a step back and letting other people shine.

Who cares that I don't have the battlefield control that's better left to my Bard or the AoE that the Sorcerer has more than taken care of. I will be more than happy to track down the guy that's going to lead us to his hideout all while making sure everyone's got something to eat along the way. Then we face a boss and I'll do the single target damage.

Guys, I promise, it's OK to not 100% optimize everything you play for the most all-round effectiveness just because the internet says you have to. Try something different; have fun.

[Aalbatr0ss]

Guys, I promise, it's OK to not 100% optimize everything you play for the most all-round effectiveness just because the internet says you have to. Try something different; have fun.

A prophet has spoken!! Seriously though, I agree 100%. One reason I like 5e rangers is I played one before reading on the internet how terrible everyone thought they were.

There’s a lot of attention given to making a character powerful enough that you’re basically playing on easy mode. Some ranger combat spells take a few tries to figure out how to best use them. None of them are eldritch blast (although one is conjure animals).

I do think that because these spells come with a learning curve, maybe some increase in flexibility to switch spells would be reasonable. Especially for players who aren’t reading internet guides before every decision they make.

A long levels 3-4 with 3 known spells can be tough. I’m persuaded by some arguments I’ve read here that I may let the ranger in my game start switching out 1 spell daily and see how it goes.

[Segev]

What's the point I'm supposed to concede? That if Rangers were a prepared spell caster their choices of spells they prepared would be more flexible? Of course they would, but they're not and it doesn't change the fact that Rangers still have much fewer slots than full-casters and as such if they want spellcasting to be a primary aspect of their character, then they'd be better off playing a full-casting Class. What have Paladins or Artificers got to do with that?



I'm not saying it is, but it does offer a different spellcasting experience.

You brought up rangers being known list casters as a support for a point. I found the point not supported because the notion that rangers should be known list casters is, itself, something I question. I brought up paladins as a contrast to show that rangers are not somehow better balanced with fewer spells available and more situational spells that wind up as trap options because of it. You counter by saying Paladins aren't topical.

Paladins serve as a counterpoint to what you were saying, by demonstrating that any point predicated on the ranger's limited spells known acting as a justification for weak spells on their list is flawed.

[JellyPooga]

You brought up rangers being known list casters as a support for a point. I found the point not supported because the notion that rangers should be known list casters is, itself, something I question. I brought up paladins as a contrast to show that rangers are not somehow better balanced with fewer spells available and more situational spells that wind up as trap options because of it. You counter by saying Paladins aren't topical.

Paladins serve as a counterpoint to what you were saying, by demonstrating that any point predicated on the ranger's limited spells known acting as a justification for weak spells on their list is flawed.

I'm not discussing would'a-should'a-could'a, I'm discussing what is. Whether or not Rangers should have Spells Known or use the Prepared Spell mechanic doesn't have anything to do with how they currently function.

How they currently function, it's important to note that the Ranger list having many concentration spells to choose from is of less importance than an individual Ranger having multiple concentration spells actually known. Thus the impact or implication of a given spell and whether it requires concentration is only relevant in the spotlight of the specific Rangers other spells known.

[Segev]

I'm not discussing would'a-should'a-could'a, I'm discussing what is. Whether or not Rangers should have Spells Known or use the Prepared Spell mechanic doesn't have anything to do with how they currently function.

How they currently function, it's important to note that the Ranger list having many concentration spells to choose from is of less importance than an individual Ranger having multiple concentration spells actually known. Thus the impact or implication of a given spell and whether it requires concentration is only relevant in the spotlight of the specific Rangers other spells known.
It also highlights that Racers have even more restrictions to their spell lists, and makes choosing Hunter's Mark a worse choice due to it being a concentration spell, and this pressuring them away from other concentration spells. Or, more likely, pressuring them away from hunter's mark due to it conflicting with better concentration spells they would be better off knowing.

[JellyPooga]

It also highlights that Racers have even more restrictions to their spell lists, and makes choosing Hunter's Mark a worse choice due to it being a concentration spell, and this pressuring them away from other concentration spells. Or, more likely, pressuring them away from hunter's mark due to it conflicting with better concentration spells they would be better off knowing.

I would tend to agree that the limitation on spells known would encourage Rangers away from Hunters Mark, but the point I was getting at is that for a certain playstyle of Ranger i.e. one that doesn't want to focus on the spellcasting aspect of the Class by taking spells like Entangle or Ensnaring Strike (both overtly and visibly "magical" effects), Hunters Mark can offer an "unseen" bonus that doesn't feel like it's turning your woodland warrior into a wizard.

[Thunderous Mojo]

It also highlights that Racers have even more restrictions to their spell lists, and makes choosing Hunter's Mark a worse choice due to it being a concentration spell, and this pressuring them away from other concentration spells..

This is not a convincing argument, to me.
Rangers can retrain spells at level up. A Ranger can always swap Hunter’s Mark out. That is part of the reason, why, Hunter’s Mark is fine as a spell.

Inherent in the value of training wheels, is, one can remove the wheels, when the wheels are no longer required.

Rangers have a base of 11 spells known at 20th level. The TCoE variant abilities would add 5 more spells to that list, (and more importantly), yields a free use, per day, of each of those spells.

Every High Level Tasha Ranger is Bran from Song of Fire and Ice.

What spells are you having a hard time adding to the reservoir of 11 spells known?

[animorte]

Guys, I promise, it's OK to not 100% optimize everything you play for the most all-round effectiveness just because the internet says you have to. Try something different; have fun.


A prophet has spoken!! Seriously though, I agree 100%.

I appreciate that <3

[Hytheter]

Entangle and Ensnaring Strike are kinda nice, but they're save spells from your secondary stat. They're unreliable, especially in a world full of big monsters with high strength. The nice thing about hunter's mark is that it just works.

[animorte]

Entangle and Ensnaring Strike are kinda nice, but they're save spells from your secondary stat. They're unreliable, especially in a world full of big monsters with high strength. The nice thing about hunter's mark is that it just works.

This is another thing that people don't take into account. Yes, there are things with better potential, but it balances out with duration and saves. I love the reliability that Hunter's Mark brings, while I'm perfectly happy allowing the Bard/Sorc/other caster with more slots take care of the consistent battlefield control.

[ZRN]

This is another thing that people don't take into account. Yes, there are things with better potential, but it balances out with duration and saves. I love the reliability that Hunter's Mark brings, while I'm perfectly happy allowing the Bard/Sorc/other caster with more slots take care of the consistent battlefield control.

If you just want to do good single-target damage shooting things with arrows, why do we need a spell for that? Is the argument that Hunter's Mark is like paladin smiting, giving players who don't want to deal with spells a way to just convert those slots into stabbing/shooting stuff harder?

[Chronos]

With my ranger, I didn't just want to deal extra damage with my arrows. I also wanted to be able to make my whole party super-stealthy, and to literally blow away enemy arrows, and to make magic berries that sustain and heal my allies, and to summon animals to fight alongside me, and to cover a huge area with super-caltrops to slow and damage enemies who pass through them. As a ranger, I could do all of those things. I couldn't do all of them at once: I had to pick and choose to some extent. But that's why you get multiple spells known.

[Aalbatr0ss]

If you just want to do good single-target damage shooting things with arrows, why do we need a spell for that? Is the argument that Hunter's Mark is like paladin smiting, giving players who don't want to deal with spells a way to just convert those slots into stabbing/shooting stuff harder?

What argument? It's in the spell description. You cast a spell to mark a creature as your quarry. It is an enhanced hunting spell. It magically enhances tracking and damage. Why are you making assumptions about people who would choose to use it?

[sithlordnergal]

I'm gonna be honest: Hunter's Mark on its own is not a bad spell, it's basically a different version of Hex. I can't even say its "weaker" then Hex, because while Hex has a better secondary effect and procs on weapon and spell attacks, the secondary effect of Hunter's Mark is still handy, and its damage type is much more versatile. Since the damage comes from a spell, any damage Hunter's Mark deals is considered magical damage, meaning you bypass non-magical weapon resistance with it, even if you're using a non-magical weapon. And if you're using, say, a Sun Blade, Hunter's Mark will deal Radiant Damage. If you're using a Flametongue, you get to choose if Hunter's Mark deals standard weapon damage or fire damage, as confirmed by Crawford with this tweet here (https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/808824943299264512?lang=en).

So the issue with Hunter's Mark isn't the spell itself, its who has access to it. In order to make Hunter's Mark shine, you wanna have it on a class that makes a lot of attacks in a round, has a few Bonus Actions to spare, and doesn't really have anything better to Concentrate on. The reason why Hex works so well isn't because its a powerful spell, its because most Warlocks don't have a lot of Bonus Actions, Eldritch Blast gives the same number of attacks as a straight Fighter, and the Warlock has almost no spell slots per encounter, so Concentrating on Hex all day is a really efficient use of those spell slots. If you were to give Hex to a Monk or Paladin, you'd be severely disappointed in it because Monks have too many Bonus Actions, and Paladins don't make enough attacks to good use of Hex while also having more spells slots and better Concentration spells.


Now look at who has access to Hunter's Mark. Baring feats, you can get it via the Ranger, Vengeance Paladin, or Bard. And none of those classes are built for using Hunter's Mark. Take the Ranger for example, Rangers can only ever make two attacks in a round unless they're dual wielding, which has its own issues. This means that a Ranger will only ever make 2 attacks per round once they get past level 5, which means Hunter's Mark will only add 2d6 damage every round. At the same time, Rangers actually have a decent spell list, but most of their really amazing spells are Concentration, which competes with Hunter's Mark. And unlike the Warlock, they're a Half Caster and have some slots to spare if an enemy succeeds on their save. Finally, Rangers tend to have a lot of Bonus Actions that compete with each other. Vanish and Nature's Veil are things that every Ranger gets, but their Subclass could give them even more Bonus Actions to use. And if they're dual wielding, that's yet another Bonus Action to compete with everything else. If you're casting/moving Hunter's Mark, that means you're not using one of your many other, often stronger, Bonus Actions. Hunter's Mark is just not worth it.

The Vengeance Paladin and Bard are sort of in the same boat. Paladins don't have as many bonus actions, but they only make two attacks per turn. Their damage comes from being able to dump a ton of resources into a single hit to improve it via smite. They also have a lot of Bonus Action spells to concentrate on that compete with Hunter's Mark. For example, Wrathful and Searing Smite are better spells than Hunter's Mark. Sure, Searing Smite is a Con save, which weakens it, but if the target fails they'll start taking 1d6 fire damage at the start of their turn, and it takes an entire action to end the spell. Wrathful Smite is even better, 1d6 Psychic damage and the creature makes a Wisdom save or becomes Frightened of you. It has to use its action to make a Wisdom check, check not save, against your Spell DC to try and end the Frightened effect.

As for Bards...they're a Bard. Earliest you can get Hunter's Mark via Magical Secrets is level 6 as a Lore Bard, but name me one Lore Bard that Hunter's Mark works well with. For the rest, they can take it at level 10...but if you're a level 10 Bard that likes to use martial weapons why not just take Swift Quiver? Or Wrath of Nature? Or Circle of Power? Or any other number of spells normally only available to half casters at level 20?

Would you like to know what class would benefit the most from Hunter's Mark? The Fighter. Give Hunter's Mark to an Eldritch Knight, and they will go to town with it. Hunter's Mark on a Fighter is just as strong as Hex is on a Warlock, potentially stronger at times. And why? Because Fighter's make a ton of attacks per round. At T3, a Fighter with Hunter's Mark gets to add a total of 3d6 damage to their attacks, and if they Action Surge it becomes 6d6. This is on top of everything else, like SS/GWM, Battlemaster Maneuvers, or their Fighting Style. But Fighter's can't get Hunter's Mark unless they take 2 levels of Ranger, 3 levels of Paladin, or 6 levels of Lore Bard. Which is impractical since Fighter's really don't get much from multiclassing into Paladin or Ranger, and Fighter/Lore Bards are better off as frontline support instead of frontline attackers.


TL;DR: Hunter's Mark is weak because of who has access to it, not because of it being a weak spell.

[Witty Username]

Gloomstalker gets three attacks at level 5. and Rangers get access to XBE like everyone else, so 3 attacks around is not unreasonable for a ranger. I think hex vs hunter's mark is more hex is overrated. play experience has decreed that Hunger of Hadar is more potent, and that spell isn't exactly Christmas in terms of effectiveness.

Edit: I realize I don't understand a point being argued, hunter's mark and whether the ranger uses spells known or spells prepared have little to do with each other. The high number of better concentration spells would still result in hunter's mark being overshadowed. This would be especially notable on paladin as it is competing with bless. I agree that Ranger should be a prepared caster, because I like how it was done since AD&D better than 5e, but that is an entirely separate issue from the value or lack thereof of hunter's mark.

[sithlordnergal]

Gloomstalker gets three attacks at level 5. and Rangers get access to XBE like everyone else, so 3 attacks around is not unreasonable for a ranger. I think hex vs hunter's mark is more hex is overrated. play experience has decreed that Hunger of Hadar is more potent, and that spell isn't exactly Christmas in terms of effectiveness.



Don't they only get that third attack on the first round? Which means afterwards they only make 2 attacks. Getting 3d6 on round 1 isn't exactly making up for anything. And XBE has the same problem that dual wielding does, too many Bonus Actions. If you're casting or swapping Hunter's Mark, you're not making a third attack, or going invisible, or hiding, or using a class feature.

The Monk has a similar issue, I tried making a Monk/Warlock to get Hex. But I quickly found it was far more efficient never to cast Hex because I had far better Bonus Actions. Rangers just have too many Bonus Actions to really use Hunters Mark

[ZRN]

What argument? It's in the spell description. You cast a spell to mark a creature as your quarry. It is an enhanced hunting spell. It magically enhances tracking and damage. Why are you making assumptions about people who would choose to use it?

Oh, I don't have an issue with players who choose to use the spell. As a player (or DM) you largely make the best of the options in front of you to create an interesting/effective character. My issue is from a design perspective: the spell adds a lot of gameplay complexity (tracking spell slots, concentration, bonus-action casting time, switching targets, etc) just to deal a little extra weapon damage. Is making the ranger player remember to say "I cast hunter's mark" every combat making the game more fun?

I think the game would be better off if they hadn't included this spell, and had maybe just found another way to boost ranger damage a bit if that's a real issue.

[Leon]

My issue is from a design perspective: the spell adds a lot of gameplay complexity (tracking spell slots, concentration, bonus-action casting time, switching targets, etc)

Seen this type of thing a few places and find it hard to understand that making a choice to Do X instead of Y or being able to track with simple means the expenditure of resources is such a hard thing for some players, how are they even able to play if the choices are overwhelming on what a BA could do let alone main actions which have a greater variety of choices on any given turn.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Don't they only get that third attack on the first round? Which means afterwards they only make 2 attacks. Getting 3d6 on round 1 isn't exactly making up for anything. And XBE has the same problem that dual wielding does, too many Bonus Actions. If you're casting or swapping Hunter's Mark, you're not making a third attack, or going invisible, or hiding, or using a class feature.

The Monk has a similar issue, I tried making a Monk/Warlock to get Hex. But I quickly found it was far more efficient never to cast Hex because I had far better Bonus Actions. Rangers just have too many Bonus Actions to really use Hunters Mark

So at least the PHB Ranger has the Vanish feature, which comes on at 14th level, as a bonus action. Other than that, I don't see any, so when you say Rangers have too many bonus actions I'm not sure what you're referring to.
Most people are multi-classing out of ranger before 14th anyway due to lack of good upper level abilities (and I'd suggest 4th level spells) so even the Vanish ability is pretty moot in my mind.

[Aalbatr0ss]

So at least the PHB Ranger has the Vanish feature, which comes on at 14th level, as a bonus action. Other than that, I don't see any, so when you say Rangers have too many bonus actions I'm not sure what you're referring to.
Most people are multi-classing out of ranger before 14th anyway due to lack of good upper level abilities (and I'd suggest 4th level spells) so even the Vanish ability is pretty moot in my mind.

Very subclass specific. Horizon walker / beastmaster have / monster slayer all have very busy bonus action.

Lot's here seem to think think if you don't take crossbow expert you're playing wrong, but hunter / swarmkeeper / fey wanderer all have pretty open bonus actions. (These are also the subclasses most likely to get mileage out of hunter's mark)

[sithlordnergal]

So at least the PHB Ranger has the Vanish feature, which comes on at 14th level, as a bonus action. Other than that, I don't see any, so when you say Rangers have too many bonus actions I'm not sure what you're referring to.
Most people are multi-classing out of ranger before 14th anyway due to lack of good upper level abilities (and I'd suggest 4th level spells) so even the Vanish ability is pretty moot in my mind.

Tasha's added a Bonus Action for Ranger's to use. Instead of taking Hide in Plain Sight, all Rangers can take Nature's Veil, which lets a Ranger turn invisible until the start of their next turn as a Bonus Action. Its non-Concentration, and attacking/casting a spell doesn't end the Invisibility early. The only limitation is that you can only do it a number of times equal to your Proficiency Modifier. So at level 10 all Rangers can get a pretty powerful Bonus Action.

Outside of that it does heavily depend on your Subclass. Beastmaster's Primal Companion, Horizon Walker's Planar Warrior, the Drakewarden's companion, Swarmkeeper's Writhing Tide, and Slayer's Prey from Monster Slayer all require your Bonus Action. That's 5 out of 8 Subclasses that make heavy constant use of their Bonus Action, and those Bonus Actions tend to be significantly stronger than Hunter's Mark.

Now it is true that Fey Wanderer, Gloomstalker, and Hunter all have Bonus Actions to spare for Hunter's Mark, but then the Ranger's second issue comes into play. They effectively only have two attacks per round that can proc Hunter's Mark. Yes, I know that Gloomstalker and Hunter do/can get three attacks, but there are some heavy limitations on those. Gloomstalker only gets that 3rd attack on their first turn, afterwhich they're stuck mking 2 attacks per round like everyone else except the Fighter and Warlock.

Meanwhile Hunter does get more attacks, a lot more attacks, but its problem is that you have to target different creatures, which means no extra Hunter's Mark damage on them. The only exception is the Giant Killer option from Hunter's Prey, but you're giving up Colossus Slayer for the ability to make a single Reaction attack on a Large or larger creature within 5 feet of you that attacks you. Not exactly a good trade in my book since Colossus Slayer can be used in every situation and adds an entire d8 to the damage. Everything else, like Volley, Hoard Breaker, or Whirlwind Attack, all require you to attack different creatures, so Hunter's Mark doesn't really do much of anything.

Of course, you can take Crossbow Expert, Sharpshooter, and carry around a Hand Crossbow...but at that point you're having to ask "Is it worth casting Hunter's Mark or moving it?" Sometimes the answer is yes, a decent amount of time its no

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Tasha's added a Bonus Action for Ranger's to use. Instead of taking Hide in Plain Sight, all Rangers can take Nature's Veil, which lets a Ranger turn invisible until the start of their next turn as a Bonus Action. Its non-Concentration, and attacking/casting a spell doesn't end the Invisibility early. The only limitation is that you can only do it a number of times equal to your Proficiency Modifier. So at level 10 all Rangers can get a pretty powerful Bonus Action.

Outside of that it does heavily depend on your Subclass. Beastmaster's Primal Companion, Horizon Walker's Planar Warrior, the Drakewarden's companion, Swarmkeeper's Writhing Tide, and Slayer's Prey from Monster Slayer all require your Bonus Action. That's 5 out of 8 Subclasses that make heavy constant use of their Bonus Action, and those Bonus Actions tend to be significantly stronger than Hunter's Mark.

Now it is true that Fey Wanderer, Gloomstalker, and Hunter all have Bonus Actions to spare for Hunter's Mark, but then the Ranger's second issue comes into play. They effectively only have two attacks per round that can proc Hunter's Mark. Yes, I know that Gloomstalker and Hunter do/can get three attacks, but there are some heavy limitations on those. Gloomstalker only gets that 3rd attack on their first turn, afterwhich they're stuck mking 2 attacks per round like everyone else except the Fighter and Warlock.

Meanwhile Hunter does get more attacks, a lot more attacks, but its problem is that you have to target different creatures, which means no extra Hunter's Mark damage on them. The only exception is the Giant Killer option from Hunter's Prey, but you're giving up Colossus Slayer for the ability to make a single Reaction attack on a Large or larger creature within 5 feet of you that attacks you. Not exactly a good trade in my book since Colossus Slayer can be used in every situation and adds an entire d8 to the damage. Everything else, like Volley, Hoard Breaker, or Whirlwind Attack, all require you to attack different creatures, so Hunter's Mark doesn't really do much of anything.

Of course, you can take Crossbow Expert, Sharpshooter, and carry around a Hand Crossbow...but at that point you're having to ask "Is it worth casting Hunter's Mark or moving it?" Sometimes the answer is yes, a decent amount of time its no

OK, so since I played my Gloomstalker 9/ multiclass there's a 10th level bonus action that can be used a few times per day. That doesn't really seem like a huge conflict to me. It's funny how when wizards have tons of options for using their action to cast different spells that makes them powerful and versatile, but as soon as a martial character has more than one option for their bonus action that's somehow bad design.

Regarding XBE, sure if you want to use a crossbow, HM is probably not the spell for you. The thing I'd note though is it's not just as simple as wanting to take XBE and SS; 2 feats and maxing Dex alone requires 16 levels worth of investement for most races. Meaning it's more than viable from levels 5-15 to use HM and longbow with SS on a ranged character. And that's without considering that longbow has bigger base damage and more magic weapons available. And by 16th there's still the opportunity cost of taking XBE vs other feats/ ASIs. Don't get me wrong; XBE early on is fine if that's what you want to play, but it's not the only way to play. On a longbow using Gloomstalker (and some other subclasses) HM is fine, not game changing, but fine in that it doesn't conflict with bunches of other bonus actions and provides a reliable damage boost.

[sithlordnergal]

OK, so since I played my Gloomstalker 9/ multiclass there's a 10th level bonus action that can be used a few times per day. That doesn't really seem like a huge conflict to me. It's funny how when wizards have tons of options for using their action to cast different spells that makes them powerful and versatile, but as soon as a martial character has more than one option for their bonus action that's somehow bad design.

Regarding XBE, sure if you want to use a crossbow, HM is probably not the spell for you. The thing I'd note though is it's not just as simple as wanting to take XBE and SS; 2 feats and maxing Dex alone requires 16 levels worth of investement for most races. Meaning it's more than viable from levels 5-15 to use HM and longbow with SS on a ranged character. And that's without considering that longbow has bigger base damage and more magic weapons available. And by 16th there's still the opportunity cost of taking XBE vs other feats/ ASIs. Don't get me wrong; XBE early on is fine if that's what you want to play, but it's not the only way to play. On a longbow using Gloomstalker (and some other subclasses) HM is fine, not game changing, but fine in that it doesn't conflict with bunches of other bonus actions and provides a reliable damage boost.

Oh you misunderstand, I'm not saying that its bad for Rangers to have multiple options for Bonus Actions, I think that's a good thing. I'm talking about how Hunter's Mark interacts with Rangers. I personally feel Hunter's Mark is a fine spell, and is on par with Hex, maybe even a bit better because of its versatile damage and guaranteed magical weapon damage. However, I feel Hunter's Mark was ultimately given to a class that can't really benefit from Hunter's Mark in the same way that the Warlock benefits from Hex. And the reason for that is because the Ranger has too many conflicting Bonus Actions and too few attacks to make Hunter's Mark worthwhile, especially once you reach T3.

The reason I bought up XBE is simply because that's a way for a Ranger to have a 3rd attack, though you can also dual wield for the same benefit with far less investment. But the cost is still the same, if you cast/move Hunter's Mark you're not making a 3rd attack on your turn. Same with Gloomstalker and Hunter. Yeah, you can occasionally get a 3rd attack with Giant Slayer, and you can always make a 3rd attack on your first turn as a Gloomstalker, but compare that to Warlocks with Hex and Eldritch Blast. The moment they get 3 shots, Hex ends up outperforming Hunter's Mark, not due to damage but because Warlocks can make 3 attacks every single round without using their Bonus Action to do so. Hunter's Mark falls behind Hex every single time the Ranger has to use their Bonus Action to do anything but make a 3rd attack.

Its why I keep saying that Hunter's Mark is far better on the Fighter class than it is on the Ranger or Paladin. Because Fighters can also make 3 attacks, or more if they use Action Surge.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Oh you misunderstand, I'm not saying that its bad for Rangers to have multiple options for Bonus Actions, I think that's a good thing. I'm talking about how Hunter's Mark interacts with Rangers. I personally feel Hunter's Mark is a fine spell, and is on par with Hex, maybe even a bit better because of its versatile damage and guaranteed magical weapon damage. However, I feel Hunter's Mark was ultimately given to a class that can't really benefit from Hunter's Mark in the same way that the Warlock benefits from Hex. And the reason for that is because the Ranger has too many conflicting Bonus Actions and too few attacks to make Hunter's Mark worthwhile, especially once you reach T3.

The reason I bought up XBE is simply because that's a way for a Ranger to have a 3rd attack, though you can also dual wield for the same benefit with far less investment. But the cost is still the same, if you cast/move Hunter's Mark you're not making a 3rd attack on your turn. Same with Gloomstalker and Hunter. Yeah, you can occasionally get a 3rd attack with Giant Slayer, and you can always make a 3rd attack on your first turn as a Gloomstalker, but compare that to Warlocks with Hex and Eldritch Blast. The moment they get 3 shots, Hex ends up outperforming Hunter's Mark, not due to damage but because Warlocks can make 3 attacks every single round without using their Bonus Action to do so. Hunter's Mark falls behind Hex every single time the Ranger has to use their Bonus Action to do anything but make a 3rd attack.

Its why I keep saying that Hunter's Mark is far better on the Fighter class than it is on the Ranger or Paladin. Because Fighters can also make 3 attacks, or more if they use Action Surge.

For sure on the fighter. An EK who gets HM (particularly as a spell they can cast with slots) gets a pretty good boost out of it. I think the other benefit is that as a 1/3 caster you have even less spells, so the extra duration is helpful, especially when you might be burning a bunch of them for Shield.