Search results

Beast Master 5 - 2 = 3 Fey Wanderer 7 Gloom Stalker 19 + 1 = 20 Horizon Walker 14 Hunter 22

I purchased the product and I must say the subclasses, especially for the Rogue, are overpowered. I was disappointed with this product

It was not the first language I was taught. However, not having the poster respond and clarify the intent while allowing the recipient to interpret the comment as something else is wrong. It gives credence to the recipient's interpretation.

That is not how I interpreted his comment.

Yes, I agree. But there are better ways of conveying that information

I should have said there are GMs who do not enforce, not all.

They do have access to more information. But when I see and read many alternative versions posted, it does show there are those who believe a revision is desired.

He was calling people who questioned were phantoms. By stating that if "someone has a problem might be a phantom in terms of general use," are you stating that if a person goes against what is considered the norm is nonexistent (phantom)? There are many ways to get a point across but one must...

Jeremy Crawford @JeremyECrawford Replying to @XXXXXXXX Alternate features for multiple classes are still a possibility, but we want to do more research before we invest time in them. We don’t want our design to chase phantoms but real desires held by a large number of players. 7:47 PM · Jul...

When someone refers to you as a phantom, wouldn't you get upset? It has nothing to do with not agreeing. Many people disagree, but to be dismissive of a person is another thing.

You can use what you like. Most important is to play what you and those at the table find enjoyable. It just would be nice, in our opinion, to have a ranger that is not looked at as an unwanted child.

A couple years ago I emailed him about the question on the Ranger and his general response was along the line of "phantom" people complaining about the ranger class. Phantom implying nonexistent and I take that as a personal attack.

I agree. No one enforces that restriction (in addition to donning the shield). And it's a waste of a bullet to include into the feat

They don't want to as it will confirm they got the entire class wrong. They have a huge ego, especially Crawford

It doesn't seem that WoTC doesn't read the previous critiques when they presented alternatives to the ranger class. For example, Tireless is not for me but it is not a standalone feature. And they made the Hunter subclass much weaker than the PHB version. The Hunter class just needed bonus...

I agree. I don't know how it's possible, but they made the class less desirable. They need to hire an outside consultant/developer since they cannot get it right.

I agree with the concept with what each feature is worth, but I wanted to avoid minor and major talents. Then trying to break down the features, which would make the class more cumbersome. Therefore, we made each talent possible to stand alone. For 10th level, placed a fixed feature with a...

It’s in the Ranger Companion’s creature/stat block

https://www.gmbinder.com/pdf/-NBIElSr6941RnLHOwQk/the-martial-ranger-with-talents-remastered.pdf Though there are some who feel that changes made by WoTC are enough, there are others who do not believe so. And I am not referring to damage but the concept of what a Ranger should be...

Rangers and Sorcerers.