Search results

I don't think that really fixes anything - you have a wizard with 2 or 3 fighting cantrips so what is he going to do for most of the 5-8 rounds of a combat? Stand and watch? Use one of his precious actual spells? Wade in with his quarterstaff? I think that a better option for you might be to...

For me it is empoweringly vague. It is exactly what I want to see. It allows me as a DM to apply common sense without opening the doors to rules lawyering and the vulnerability to special cases which are later added. I love it!

All the time. Never a problem.

I think this thread has pretty much devolved into pointless arguing with name calling and frayed tempers, so I'm going to close it now. Guys, we all ought to be aware that there is a spectrum of thinking about hit points and what they mean, and there isn't any need to attempt to convert people...

I agree. Ability scores become proportionally much more important with the otherwise flatter maths (while the difference between +1 Str and +4 Str used to be three levels, what is it going to be in 5e? 6 levels? 10?) I'd be happy to see ability scores adding to damage, but not adding to hit...

Considering that it is very easy for a DM to say 'only these classes in this campaign', and the class rarity scheme which is being discussed will help reinforce the DM's ability to say this, I find it hard to understand your position. Because YOU don't like monks, you want nobody to have them...

Sorry, somehow didn't notice that you'd mentioned them. Interestingly, in Unearthed Arcana Monte had a 'Oathsworn' class which was completely inspired by the Haruchai (if I remember their name for themselves correctly).

A literary example of the kind of thing I've got in mind is the blood guard of the Thomas covenant books.

I'm hoping for a mystic monk - in a generic sense; I'd rather not see it associated with ki or psionics. However, if it is - no worries. I'll just change my definitions :)

That might have worked as an idea if she hadn't actually, yknow, killed the queen anyway.

Done! I've added a line to your signature with your old username in, to help people spot the change. Cheers

Of course, pre-AD&D the rangers and the fighters all had d8 for HD, but with the ranger starting at 2d8 and going up higher. I was always a little disappointed that the ranger was made less hardy in AD&D onwards :( Cheers

OK, I guess it could be read either way. In any case, not anything to worry about at the moment - plenty of time for worry once the Ranger eventually appears in the playtest docs! Cheers

Something I'd like to see in a ranger class (in an abstract sense) is that it is one of the bst classes for solo adventuring. More than other classes the ability to be out ranging/patrolling alone seems to me to be a desirable part of the shtick.

I think you are misreading it. There wouldn't be any need to mention picking a theme for a fighting style if it was just something that EVERYONE had as an option, because that would be just part of every classes options. The fact that they specifically call it out here in the class...

I hadn't heard about this, but I look forward to its release - RQ has always been my favourite go-to system; I must see what it looks like in RQ6!

I quite like all this except for the combat style (unnecessary IMO) and the revere nature bit (will they have spells? can't tell from this excerpt, but might be in because of this bit). I like the sound of stealthy, alert, light armour, tough, protector in particular. I'd hope they might be...

In summary, the article says: 1. The ranger is a wilderness hunter and tracker. (stealthy, alert, good at taking down a quarry) 2. The ranger is a warrior. (light armour, tough, choose a combat style via theme) 3. The ranger is a protector. (revere/protect nature or people in the wilderness)...

Strangely, that link doesn't let me see a blog, only gives me a mandatory 'Profile Setup' page. Have they turned off anonymous browse or something?

Which are?