Search results

It hasn't shaked out that way, but people do want to be Aragorn adjacent with the Ranger.

I don't think that's true. Magic just isn't the be-all-end-all. Rangers should have magic, but they're martials. They should have something to make the martial bit pop besides spells.

Fine? I guess? Sure? So then, would you nominally agree that there is a justifiable position that, Rangers should be one of the higher damage combat classes, in a manner that isn't strictly tied to their magic (only not strictly tied, not completely distinct)? Like regardless of the issues with...

Does sound familiar I think, yeah. Don't know hardly anything about 4E though, it's a bit of a bramble thicket. Lots going on.

I don't really know what any of that is meant to imply. I didn't say "there is a belief that Ranger should be good at doing high damage because video games". "Archers are DPS"? There's one-naughty word-million archers in "video games". And they're not all "DPS", whatever that means.

I mean it's pretty simple in my mind; there is a belief that Ranger should be good at doing high damage.

Survival could be a good candidate in the right game already, it could be a good candidate in most games if it got the right support, was given appropriate weight. Which it somewhat lacks. It's a bit nebulous. Survival being made a better proficiency + Ranger getting some more freedom with...

I mean. We're talking about building out Ranger's levelling table. Why can't Ranger be given enough Expertise? I gave them 2 at 4th level, another 2 at 8th level. You could say "Survival is a somewhat nebulous skill, poorly conveyed by the game/given insubstantial weight for what it should...

I can absolutely understand having issues with Ranger's spells being just the wrong flavour or whatever, but. I think kneecapping their ability to utilize spells in combat at all is lame.

I would say that's basically fine. Sorta wish the scaling was different, that it started at something better than a D4, and that it wasn't single target, but. Y'know. Decent.

I almost feel like I'm speaking the wrong language. I just don't see the problem, really. I don't see how what currently exists is inadequate for creating an at least acceptable situation. The game has skill checks, conditions, and situations that can be overcome with a class toolkit. There is...

I agree! But I don't think they have to be the only tracker or forager. I don't think they have to hinge off of mechanics that only exist for them. Skill checks exist, they can handily be the best/most consistent at those skill checks, and the other relevant stuff besides.

I think having early Expertise is a mechanically and thematically nice fit for Ranger, but they still need something to do in combat. Ranger's special du jour has consistently been some flavour of "additional damage on attacks", and I think that can be acted upon better by leaving Hunter's Mark...

I mean. I guess it depends what you mean by "doesn't work". Like I said, I liked Revised Ranger. It just didn't go as far as I wanted. There are some features that are along the right lines in this rendition, but it doesn't go as far as I want (and in fact has regressed in several aspects). I...

The exploration thing is talked about a lot, I personally think just giving Ranger easy and early access to tools you'd consider within that sorta avenue (the additional movement speeds/other movement buffs, Survival/Perception/other skill expertise, heightened/exotic senses, combat bonuses for...

I'm sure it doesn't need to be said, but. Right or wrong, a lot of people care about damage. It's fun to roll dice, it's good to feel tangibly useful, it sucks to feel hopelessly outclassed by your peers. I think Ranger should do combat well, I'd consider it as important as the survivalist...

But these options already exist without being the only option for Rangers. You don't have to make them good at one thing to the detriment of the other. It sounds genuinely interminable to me. The thing is, Hunter's Mark as a class feature isn't like Rage. It's not something that you can look...

Play it when we want to and don't worry when we don't! I feel like we're further from a standard Ranger that just meets "good enough" territory than we were before. I think the closest we got was 2020, between Revised and the OCFs UA. WOTC's offerings have gotten palpably worse since then.

You would never say this about any other casting class, what's so special about Ranger that they shouldn't be casting spells in combat? Beyond the fact that, ideally their buffing is done before combat starts, but considering Hunter's Mark is where the conversation begins and ends, that's a...

Laughing at it? (I should clarify; this is for 5E. I don't particularly care about 2024 beyond acknowledging the failures in design and salvaging the useful parts. That bit from Hunter was a decent idea. And I've gratefully accepted it!)