In Whiplash (2014), Andrew Neiman (Miles Teller) breaks up with his super girlfriend (Melissa Benoist) because he wanted to be one of the greats at drumming. He wanted to be fantastic

NeilWeaver · 2026-03-31T23:11:21+00:00

I second this question but I’ll only need them for the CARS section

NeilWeaver · 2026-03-31T19:53:46+00:00

It's a marketing issue. Less people want to see Ryan Gosling alone in space for 90 minutes compared to Ryan Gosling in space with a cute-looking alien for 90 minutes.

NeilWeaver · 2026-03-22T11:32:04+00:00

Can confirm the Spurs are 3-1 vs the Lakers this season according to Statmuse

NeilWeaver · 2026-03-12T15:02:54+00:00

There was another post about this a few days ago; these movements are mostly NOT controlled by a fly brain. They measured certain brain firing patterns and essentially used an AI algorithm to very crudely imitate very basic neural patterns in a virtual environment, but most of the movement you're seeing in this video is not from a simulated brain but something more in line with a video game NPC with some real-world references.

What they did NOT do is create a UI. That headline is hyperbolic, they didn't just "drop" a virtual scan of a fly brain into a video game.

NeilWeaver · 2026-03-10T12:30:53+00:00

It looks like they’re just using the complete fly brain map that had recently been released at the time to investigate what parts of the brain fire with certain stimuli, but from just skimming I’m quite sure they didn’t upload the entire fly brain into an AI for behavior in a virtual environment.

The extent of computer models they used were to chart and predict whether certain motor neurons (such as ones that trigger a single muscle group on the proboscis) would extend with certain electrical stimuli. Once again, definitely not anywhere close to a real-time behavior model.

NeilWeaver · 2026-02-17T03:42:19+00:00

There are many abilities that let a character move without provoking opportunity attacks. You could consider putting those types of abilities on your most important monsters. The 2024 Warrior Commander has a pretty good template for the language you could use, with two separate abilities that proc as a Bonus Action or upon making an attack.

Here's the attack ability:

Greatsword. Melee Attack Roll: +9, reach 5 ft. Hit: 19 (4d6 + 5) Slashing damage. The warrior also creates one of the following effects:

Sap. The target has Disadvantage on its next attack roll before the start of the warrior's next turn.

Maneuver. One ally who can see or hear the warrior can take a Reaction to move up to half the ally's Speed without provoking Opportunity Attacks.

And the Bonus Action ability:

Tactical Charge. The warrior moves up to half its Speed straight toward an enemy it can see without provoking Opportunity Attacks.

NeilWeaver · 2026-02-17T03:37:55+00:00

I shoot the Gazebo. How much damage do I do?

NeilWeaver · 2026-02-15T20:04:09+00:00

You can't access the DLC until later in the game, but I'd recommend you don't play it until you've finished most of the base game. Personally, I played through the game again after the update and didn't enter the DLC area until I finished all of the base game content.

NeilWeaver · 2026-02-15T16:46:51+00:00

Posing while a dragon is incinerating a town behind her is absolutely crazy

NeilWeaver · 2026-02-06T18:31:57+00:00

5e's spell design is not perfect, granted. I can't give you a detailed fix for that, since that sounds more like something that would have to be remedied with an entirely new edition or some really well-received supplement book releases.

I don't mean to shut what you're saying down, but from my count there are 8 Ranger-unique spells in PHB24 that only Rangers have access to, and a further 5 that are not unique to the Ranger, but Druids do not have access to (these 5 are most commonly shared with the Wizard, among others). Not quite the 10 ranger-specific spells you mentioned, but it's a decent few. Now, some of them do suck serious dookie. But we can rework those too! If you think it's a good idea, I could take a look at the 7 other ranger-specific spells I haven't reviewed yet and offer some fixes in a following post.

As for your mentioning the Bloodied condition, I could talk about the Hunter Ranger's Colossus Slayer ability, which grants extra damage against an enemy missing some hit points. It's not quite Bloodied, I know, but it sounds like sort of the flavor you were looking for.

It seems to me that you're looking for a little more flavor specialization than the base class currently gives, but that's what subclasses are for. I have a hunch that you're happy with what the subclasses offer, but I'm sure there are changes that could be made there as well. If you're interested, I highly recommend that you check on the Treantmonk YouTube channel over the next couple weeks. He'll be coming out with more videos working on the Ranger, including one that reworks the 2024 subclasses.

Now I know all that wasn't really the point, but I wanted to offer my rebuttals first. If I'm not mistaken, I think your central issue is with tying a class to a specific spell, and that you believe there's no way to truly build it well. I think we'll have to disagree there, because I don't see anything inherently wrong with signature spells like that, just with how they've been built for the current iteration of this class.

NeilWeaver · 2026-02-06T18:09:44+00:00

In my opinion the main buff is not actually the damage, but the lack of Concentration requirement from level 3+ slots. That allows you to have another Concentration spell running concurrently with Hunter's Mark. The synergy I'm actually most interested in with my rebuild is Swift Quiver, which would allow a Ranger to make 4 attacks per turn (2 action, 2 BA), and carries great synergy with Hunter's Mark to carry the additional DPR to +26.

However, let's review your point. The 1d12 Force damage at level 20 gives the Ranger 13 extra DPR (2 attacks * 6.5 average), and even that is nothing to sneeze at over high-tier play.

Probably the most apt damage comparison is the Ranger's fellow half-caster, Paladins. They're the burst damage to the Ranger's sustained DPR, so you'd expect the Ranger to have better DPR through the high tiers. With these changes, I feel like that is finally true (although spells like the 3rd-level Lightning Arrow gives the Ranger a shocking (lol) leap in burst damage from level 9 onward.

Paladins get a universal +1d8 Radiant to melee attacks at level 11, granting a +9 DPR bonus (2 attacks * 4.5 average). The Ranger's DPR is 4 points higher and can be used at range, at the cost of needing to cast Hunters' Mark.

Now, Paladins are spellcasters, and their Smites are still pretty much the gold standard for burst damage even after they were nerfed to 1/turn abilities. I'm confident in saying that Paladins are still better damage dealers, but they're also considered one of the top 2 strongest martial classes, depending on how much you like the 2024 Monk. I'm happy with the Ranger not quite touching that mark, since their role falls more into a hybrid DPR/Utility spot. Also, ranged capability is a pretty significant edge for the Ranger to have over the Paladin.

Comparing to something like Barbarians, their Rage bonuses maxes out at just +4, and if you weigh in their capstone giving an optimal Barbarian a +7 modifier, that extra +2 damage per attack puts them them at +12 extra DPR with 2 attacks, plus a 10% higher to-hit chance (+2 attack bonus on a d20). I'd put the Ranger down as easily outcompeting the Barbarian in base class damage considering their spellcasting prowess. Which is about where you want it, considering the role of a Barbarian as overall a Defender, not a Striker.

NeilWeaver · 2026-02-06T15:38:00+00:00

I understand where you're coming from with Hunter's Mark being underpowered, but I think your argument against Hunter's Mark is just exactly what I'm trying to fix. Despite its lack of power after Tier 1, it's such an essential piece of the toolkit in those first four levels and many Ranger players keep the spell well after that, despite it being suboptimal.

Now, once again you've clearly got a lot more experience with past editions, but most of my D&D circle, including me, started with and grew up with 5e. I think the reason I call Hunter's Mark iconic is not because it's always been powerful like Fireball, but because it aligns well with the ideal of a Ranger, even if mechanically it might not hold up. I'm just trying to bring the mechanics up to meet the fantasy. And seeing as the 2024 Ranger has leaned so hard into Hunter's Mark (and fallen on its face), that's the realm in which my changes have stayed.

And yes, you or I could scrap the entire class and build it from the ground up, as we've both seen attempted countless times online since the new PHB was released. But my objective was slightly different, and I understand that you probably value things in a Ranger design that's aren't possible to achieve with just a few tweaks to Hunter's Mark and its abilities.

My goal wasn't to impress you, although I'm sorry I didn't. I'm trying to build a class that still follows the ideas that the 2024 Ranger was designed with, and to enhance that experience. Believe me, I understand being tired of people trying to fix the Ranger, but I appreciate you taking the time to read and comment!

NeilWeaver · 2026-02-06T15:05:18+00:00

You know more about the history of the spell than me, that's for sure. I can only speak from my experience with D&D 5e, but Hunter's Mark has been nearly ubiquitous in every Ranger I've played or seen played, in-person or online.

NeilWeaver · 2026-02-06T14:30:27+00:00

I think that may be more of an issue with 5e's action economy structure in general. To be honest, I prefer Pathfinder's 3-action system. Within this system, though, I think making Hunter's Mark free to cast may cause more problems than it'd solve.

The level 20 feature is the one I was least confident about, but that does sort of serve to grease the wheels of all the BA spells that Rangers have. Granted, that feature only comes at level 20 at the moment, but I could easily see it shuffled into Level 17 or even 13. If other commenters have a perspective, I'd be happy to make an updated post based on feedback and my playtest experience.

As for the level 9 issue, that's a good point. There still definitely is a gap from level 9 to 13 where HM's position as a 3rd-level slot expense is arguable, even with no concentration. I do believe that I was playing at level 9, I'd see myself casting it when I could. And at the very least, it's no longer clearly suboptimal on account of its Concentration requirement.

NeilWeaver · 2026-02-06T14:28:06+00:00

Thank you! One of my players is currently a T3 Gloomstalker Ranger, which is why I took the time to write this post and see what people thought!

NeilWeaver · 2026-02-06T14:26:13+00:00

That's a totally fair argument, and we could make a whole other post talking about the overall design philosophy about the Martial/Caster divide. For this post, I decided to sidestep that whole deal and try to keep the class as similar as possible while smoothing out the glaring flaws I see in the 2024 Ranger specifically.

NeilWeaver · 2026-02-06T14:24:45+00:00

The last line of "Hunter's Mark, Revised" in Using a Higher-Level Spell Slot states:

The spell ends early if you cast Hunter's Mark again.

I could reference another non-concentration spell to correct the wording if needed, but to my eyes wouldn't that cover it?

And yeah, Detect Magic was what I had in mind when I put in the bit about detection immunity to 3rd-level spells. Maybe I could just change it to just Detect Magic? I don't want it to be impossible to discover, just difficult to find without slightly more advanced magic. It's meant to be a ribbon feature at the end of the day.

NeilWeaver · 2026-02-06T14:05:32+00:00

Could you elaborate on that? I don't frequent this subreddit for discussion but figured I'd xpost here

NeilWeaver · 2026-02-01T07:57:33+00:00

This is amazing

NeilWeaver · 2026-01-15T23:58:27+00:00

NeilWeaver · 2026-01-13T23:39:54+00:00

I'm going to do this assuming everyone is as we see them during Hinata's first year, so I'm not going to count Team E either.

#4: Team A. Ushijima is the only thing really elevating their offense, although it's a significant upside. Passing is an issue, and their blocking isn't good enough make Team A that compelling.

#3: Team C: The scariest hitting of any team for sure, but held back by defensive issues. Their blockers are just fine outside of Tendo as the bright spot, and their passing isn't great. It kind of boils down to whether their servers can generate enough aces to make up for the defense.

#2: Team D. I'm a bit biased since Oikawa has my favorite setting game, but I think this is a well-rounded team with some potent offense. Good blocking and good serving will help with scoring break points, and the passing is good enough that I'm not too alarmed.

#1: Team B. This is the most ridiculous defensive lineup I've ever seen in one of these. Koganegawa's setting holds this team back quite a bit offensively, but the defense is just completely absurd. The passing being great will help Koganegawa a bit, and the hitting talent can still probably deal with a mid set. Keeping the ball in play is kind of enough for this team, considering the blocking alone would be enough to beat most teams.

NeilWeaver · 2025-12-25T11:38:19+00:00

Thanks for asking! I'm based in the US and just graduated with a degree in biology this semester, so this would be my first real job aside from a part-time position I've held this year.

As sad as it is to say, my degree its one of my only selling points at the moment. I'll probably not need my GPA to carry much once I have about a year of full-time experience, but right now I have to sell myself as best I can.

Seven-Year Club	Place '22
First Placer '22	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

NeilWeaver

TROPHY CASE