Sword Coast Legends Survey; Plus Ranger Feedback Results!

Interesting stuff on the ranger.

But a whole survey on Sword Coast Legends. Hm. I don't even know what it is, really. And said as much when I answered.

 

[CapnZapp]

Beware that this means you'll get your powerful pet, but at the cost of less personal power.

There is no way out... Ranger re-design will never end.

Until when they will finally figure out that the only 'pet' that works, is a friendly NPC that doesn't count against a PC's 'power budget'.

As long as you get an ACTION I'm good. There's little personal power, and then there's getting humiliated.

Abstaining from your own action just to make your pet do something useful; what we're they thinking? That's worse than anything!

 

[Minigiant]

All this Ranger stuff is honestly proof that D&D does not need a Ranger class.

Simply make the Ranger a wilderness skirmisher martial path of the Fighter with an animal companion. Simple. Done. And better implemented.

Let the ranger class merge into the fighter.

If you think the Ranger is just a skirmisher, you're gonna need a shield to raise your AC so some of the arrows heading your way miss.

If all you wish is to kill stuff as a ranger, do don't want to be a ranger.

 

[CapnZapp]

If all you wish is to kill stuff as a ranger, do don't want to be a ranger.

Please don't tell other people how to play their game.

Plenty of people want the Ranger to be a sturdy wilderness warrior with a fearsome beast by his side, and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[steeldragons]

Plenty of people want the Ranger to be a sturdy wilderness warrior with a fearsome beast by his side, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Other than the "fearsome beast at his side", of course.

<dives for cover>

 

[Minigiant]

Please don't tell other people how to play their game.

Plenty of people want the Ranger to be a sturdy wilderness warrior with a fearsome beast by his side, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I'm not telling people how to play their game.

I'm telling people that they can't warp the game so only they can have fun.

They just can't suggest taking away the ranger and replacing it with a fighter because they play their ranger like a fighter and are upset it isn't and refuse to play a fighter with survival skill or whatever.

If the tools to play their way exists, they have no right to claim other ways to play are redundant and need to be removed.

If the tools to play their way doesn't exist, they need to elaborate one what they need and what they are willing to give up for it for official support.

Personally, I think we would need another whole new class, a nonmagical scout class, to fill both the nonmagical skirmishing death feather, the tough tanky guardian, and the combat cooptatitve beastmaster archetypes.

 

[Azurewraith]

I'm not telling people how to play their game.

I'm telling people that they can't warp the game so only they can have fun.

They just can't suggest taking away the ranger and replacing it with a fighter because they play their ranger like a fighter and are upset it isn't and refuse to play a fighter with survival skill or whatever.

If the tools to play their way exists, they have no right to claim other ways to play are redundant and need to be removed.

If the tools to play their way doesn't exist, they need to elaborate one what they need and what they are willing to give up for it for official support.

Personally, I think we would need another whole new class, a nonmagical scout class, to fill both the nonmagical skirmishing death feather, the tough tanky guardian, and the combat cooptatitve beastmaster archetypes.

I could get behind a new scout class for non magic rangeriness only issue would be to much cross over imo

 

[Minigiant]

I could get behind a new scout class for non magic rangeriness only issue would be to much cross over imo

Well losing spellcasting is a big alteration.

Take out Extra Attack for like the 3.5 scout's skirmishing.

Then you have room for an independent pet, bonus HP and a situationial extra attacks, or 4e ranger style damage buffs.

 

[Azurewraith]

Well losing spellcasting is a big alteration.

Take out Extra Attack for like the 3.5 scout's skirmishing.

Then you have room for an independent pet, bonus HP and a situationial extra attacks, or 4e ranger style damage buffs.

Good argument I can see it working I wouldn't mind some sort of "armour rending" skill that softened up the target for allies

 

[Lord Twig]

I could get behind a new scout class for non magic rangeriness only issue would be to much cross over imo

If you made it a subclass of Rogue I think it would be unique enough.

 

[Orlax]

If we are getting ranger to finally settle down into what it should have been from the start (using the pet as it's main focus as it's special thing), I definitely think a scout class or subclass (not sure what class it would be a subclass of, maybe rogue) could be a viable design space.