Search results

Not sure "power-creepy" is the word I'd use for Tasha's. The problem seems to be the opposite. Most of it is pretty restrained, often to a fault. The subclasses on the whole, for example, are weak tea compared to what we saw in Xanathar's. A lot of the optional class features also kinda suck...

So, yeah, again, 2.5 extra damage over what you could do before. I don't see the problem. And I've already suggested that the concentration requirement can stay until 6th level to discourage multiclass dipping. I never suggested explicitly making it not work with Hunter's Mark. But if I did...

I don't see how 2.5/3.5/4.5 extra damage per round, on only one hit per round, is something so strong that should require concentration to balance it out. And on top of that, very limited uses per day to balance it out. I can understand maybe at the low levels, but past Lv. 6 I really don't see...

I'd replace Hold Monster with Awaken for the Beast Master's 5th-level spell.

The concentration part of it. It puts the Ranger back on Square One, a class whose features still compete with each other. At the very least the concentration part should've been eliminated at level 6, if they were worried about Ranger dips for it.

Y'all will find something. You always do.

I'm so happy that sanity prevailed and Spell Versatility as we knew it from the UA is dead as Dillinger in Tasha's. I'd have been OK with it on the Ranger, but that's only because the Ranger should've just been a prepared caster, anyway. But the full casters who stood to get it? Nope. No...

The broad concept of Favored Terrain having constant benefits anywhere is what I'm getting at. Resistance to Fire isn't what I'd do for Desert, either, since hot sun =! fire. Resistance to Cold is quite fitting for Arctic, though.

Why? What's "bad for an RPG" about giving the Ranger unique features such as resistance to a certain element based on their Favored Terrain? The idea is to make the Ranger's features more applicable in a wider range of settings while giving that Ranger an identity based on its terrain, and that...

Another reason I like (at least conceptually) Baldur's Gate 3's take on the Ranger.

Literally 29 of the currently 56 spells on their class list.

Neither was the NPC Warrior class. The 3.0 Ranger, Paladin and Monk weren't much better than the Warrior. And the Bard not much better than those three.

If there's no incentive to continue past 5th level in a class, that is a bad class in my book. Most campaigns proceed to between levels 9-12.

A lot more people were saying it about the Paladin and Barbarian before 5e properly filled their design space. If 5e had made the Ranger good from the start, people wouldn't be talking about reducing it to a Fighter subclass or whatever.

Yeah. And same with the Warlock's Hex.

So, like most D&D games ever. Which also hits on a very significant problem with the PHB Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer. When they don't work, they don't work at all. The few times they do work, they work "too well" by allowing you to skip their pillar of play altogether.

BG3's take on Favored Enemy actually makes that feature much less dependent on how many enemies of a given type you're going to meet.

The concentration part of it, mainly.

The 1e Ranger, by far and away. It was effective in the system it was in, it had terrific mechanics like a massive damage bonus against "giant class" enemies (which actually encompassed A LOT of different enemy types), enhanced ability to surprise enemies and to avoid surprise, it actually did...

Having played Baldur's Gate 3 early access, I actually like the direction that game took the Ranger. By the looks of it now, considerably more than what Tasha's Cauldron is doing with it.