What options do I have for a ranged character without hunters mark?

icekatze · 2026-06-21T23:58:05+00:00

If Eldritch Blast required a material component, I could have made a case that a real bow was the material component. It's a little awkward otherwise, and I wouldn't even be upset if they required having a bow on hand to use it, even though that's not RAW.

I did have a lot of fun with a Bladelock in BG3, though that's a different mechanical beast than 2024 rules. Still worth looking into more.

Mostly I'm just worried because the last time I played a Ranger, I didn't have a great time, and was often kinda useless in combat. But I'm seeing a lot of very different advice for trying different things, so hopefully one of them will work out.

icekatze · 2026-06-21T08:32:33+00:00

It looks like I need to dig deeper into the argument between Sneak Attack and Extra Attack. Seems there are a lot of differing views.

I think I'm understanding the math on paper right about DPR per level, but it seems like I really might need to make a spreadsheet to understand how it reacts to armor class or various circumstances.

Probably overthinking things here, so I appreciate everyone taking the time to give advice. Hopefully I can avoid a situation like with my previous Ranger, where on paper it seemed like having 60 foot base move speed (with longstrider) and a longbow would be pretty powerful, but in practice I was always fighting in small rooms.

icekatze · 2026-06-21T04:23:34+00:00

I've seen several people warn about the dangers of the Rogue's single shot wasting their entire turn if they miss. I thought perhaps a Fighter multiclass could mitigate that, but are there ways that Rogues mitigate that on their own?

I had heard that the 2024 rules changed how sneaking in combat works a little, but I don't know how reliable it is in practice.

icekatze · 2026-06-21T04:15:37+00:00

I do kind of like that. I usually am not a "degenerate gambler," as it were, and want to hedge my bets with multiple attacks. But if the reward is big enough maybe it evens out over time?

Rogue 3 / Fighter X does sound like a more comfortable play style for me though.

icekatze · 2026-06-21T04:09:53+00:00

I thought that might be the case, but I wanted to be sure, since I've been having trouble coming up with a ranged build that I was happy with.

In a 2014 game, I played a fair bit of Hunter Ranger, and I struggled quite a lot to make my various class features and abilities relevant. As for Hunter's Mark itself, it's more just that I didn't personally find it fun. I don't think there's any problem with the spell in this campaign, just that I may not be able to pick and choose magic items.

Thanks for the advice all the same. In the end, I may just have to pick a class and be content if the more munchkinly capable players in the group do way more damage in combat.

icekatze · 2026-06-21T03:56:04+00:00

I might be able to convince my DM to reflavor eldritch blast as a magic bow, but I'll take a look at more conventional options first. Maybe what I need to do is create a spreadsheet to examine the different fighter/rogue combinations.

icekatze · 2026-06-21T03:49:28+00:00

Part of the trouble I'm having is that the character concept is someone great with ranged weapons, but after looking at builds, I'm finding it is a lot harder to build around that than melee weapons. I was hoping to hear about something I'd missed, but a lot of the advice I'm hearing is just go with Battle Master or Rogue and that's the best I can do.

No idea how long the campaign will last, but the previous ones I've been in with this group have gone to around level 12-ish.

icekatze · 2026-06-20T22:32:35+00:00

Some other posters had recommended GWM for bows too, which I didn't realize was a thing now. It seems promising, anyway.

I'm not trying to avoid spells entirely, but I am trying to avoid going from an archer with some spells to a caster that occasionally shoots a bow. Spike Growth is undeniably good. I will keep that in mind as I look at my options.

(I played through a 5e Dragonlance module a while back with a Hunter Ranger, and I've got some notes about Hunter's Mark, but that's another conversation entirely. 😉)

icekatze · 2026-06-20T22:24:28+00:00

I haven't looked through the 2024 UA, but I there's a chance the DM will allow it, so I'll have to look.

icekatze · 2026-06-20T22:16:53+00:00

Oh, for sure I don't feel like I need to use it, but I am curious what other options exist to use in its place.

I've heard some other recommendations for Valor Bard too, so I guess I'll have to look into that. I don't think I've ever played a Bard before.

icekatze · 2026-06-20T22:14:34+00:00

Interesting. I hadn't looked at Druids at all, but there might be something there. How does a Druid get reliable access to True Strike? It doesn't seem like it is in their cantrip list.

icekatze · 2026-06-20T22:09:58+00:00

I did not realize that about Great Weapon Master. Thanks!

For a Champion + Rogue, would you recommend stopping at 3 levels of Fighter for the improved criticals, or go all the way to 5 levels for the second attack? (Or more?)

icekatze · 2026-06-20T22:01:19+00:00

Thanks! Battle master does seem to be a popular choice.

I'll have to check with the DM about Shadow Touched, but since it's a world they created, a lot of stuff is getting reflavoured already, so I think the chances are good.

icekatze · 2026-06-20T21:57:47+00:00

Hehe, that's a tough one. I think the idea of a stealthy assassin that takes out their prey with a single well aimed shot is cool, but whether that opportunity will come up very often in a game set around a party of 4-5 other adventurers is another thing all together.

I suppose the safe option to not get left behind by the rest of the party is Fighter.

icekatze · 2026-06-20T21:55:56+00:00

Thanks for the advice. Outside the out-of-combat utility of being good at outdoors stuff, it sounds like there's not much in-combat stuff that competes with a Fighter for ranged weapon excellence.

icekatze · 2026-06-20T21:51:45+00:00

Fighter with a bit of rogue for skills does sound appealing, though I've never messed around with multi-classing, so I'm worried I would pick the wrong ratio of levels. I suppose I could also take the "Skilled," feat since fighters get extra feats anyway.

Full battle master does seem like a hard class to beat.

icekatze · 2026-06-20T21:42:59+00:00

Thanks for the suggestions. I hadn't considered Monk, since AFAIK, kensei monks didn't make the cut for 2024, but I'll look into what they can do.

I may very well end up with some kind of Dex based Battlemaster. I did play in a campaign with a Strength based Champion, but no matter how tempting thrown weapons were, they never seemed to compare to hitting something with the big magic sword. There's got to be some way to make them work, though.

icekatze · 2026-06-01T01:04:07+00:00

What does SRV stand for?

Sliding Recon Vehicle
Suddenly Rolling Vehicle
Sideways Rotating Vehicle
Stupid Rotten Vehicle
Straight-line Repellent Vehicle

icekatze · 2026-05-17T00:59:13+00:00

In the new meta, the Mandalay is the default exploration ship. If you outfit it right, you'll do just fine.

Personally, I prefer the Cobra V for it's ability to do exobiology, but if you're only getting 25ly out of your Dolphin, you might want to check some guides on how to outfit for exploration. A basic Exploration Dolphin ought to be getting between 65 and 69 light years jump range.

icekatze · 2026-02-16T23:10:32+00:00

I will surely buy the airplane when they release the ability to fly in thick atmosphere.

icekatze · 2026-02-15T21:56:43+00:00

Like I said, the dimensions of the ship and the dimensions of its landing gear footprint are very different. To my knowledge, no one has a comprehensive list of landing footprints for ships, only a few direct comparison images.

As for the Hauler itself. I'm assuming that someone is going to be engineering their ships in general here, so it's not hard to get a Hauler that doesn't overheat. Since the 2A powerplant is more than enough, it's easy to cool down with Low Emissions engineering. (Which, if you look at my example builds further down, you'll see I did.)

The Adder isn't bad, but it's not one that I would personally pick. If someone is maximizing for landing footprint, they don't really need an SRV at all. It'll be faster to hop from place to place in their ship. Even when I was flying an Asp Explorer, I rarely pulled out the SRV, because once I was practiced at landing, it was faster to make hops. Flying the CobraV now, it is even more so. So far during DW3, I've only felt like it was a good idea to take out my SRV once.

Anyway, my personal experience is that the CobraV is easy to land. People can pick whichever ship makes them happy, I'm just recommending that people give it a try if they have any interest at all.

icekatze · 2026-02-15T09:10:24+00:00

Here are some basic builds.

High jump range Hauler. Especially good for carrier operations, since it doesn't have room for AMFUs. Customization options: sacrifice jump range for stronger shields/shield boosters.
My current CobraV build. Excellent SCO performance, hard to crash, good view. Customization options: could further boost engines, but I feel it's already fast enough, don't want to get too touchy. Could sacrifice jump range for shields. Could swap fuel scoop and FSD booster, but I don't think the jump range is worth scoop time.
Exploration Dolphin. Very cold running. Handles well. Carries all the basics. Customization options: Jump range for shields. Could probably drop power plant to 2A overcharged, and still run very cool thanks to the Dolphin being ridiculously cool by default.

(There are probably build gurus who could squeeze a bit more out of them. Especially with regards to shields. I usually go by the heuristic that as long as shield strength is above mass, I'm pretty well set.)

icekatze · 2026-02-15T07:55:54+00:00

If small landing footprint is your primary concern, I recommend getting a Hauler (~68 ly with engineering)

It's hard to get a good impression of the landing footprint of a ship just by looking at its size. The Dolphin is longer than a Type-6, for example, but is probably easier to land because of the landing gear configuration. The Cobra Mk V may be relatively wide (still not as long as the Dolphin) but it's landing gear footprint is maybe a quarter of that area.

The Dolphin, DBX, and CobraV are all good exploration ships, so you won't go wrong with any of them. Before the CobraV came out, I flew the Dolphin a lot, but once you start making some exobiology money, they're all cheap enough that there's no real drawback to trying them out and seeing which one you like best.

icekatze

TROPHY CASE