Search results

I mean it's not freely, it's costly. A refresh costs one of your uses per day. You can do it, but again, that seems more like an oversight than anything else.

I mean it can be, they can do what they will. But the result will be lame. They have conclusively demonstrated that they cannot make Hunter's Mark, as the Ranger's signature ability, not lame. Shrug, I can't tell people what's better for them and their tables, but I can say that no amount of...

The language is "The first time on each of your turns that you hit the favored enemy and deal damage to it, including when you mark it, you can increase that damage by 1d4". Which suggests the first time, and not subsequent times. So, once per turn. The fact that you can technically piss away...

Yeah I know what it does, and it's awful as well. Absolutely anemic. They cut it down to 1D4 at the baseline and couldn't even make it for all attacks, just the first one that hits and only on your turn.

Y'mean that feature that isn't even as good as Paladin's Improved Divine Smite even with it's final scaling coming 3 levels later? That one?

I hate Favoured Enemy also, but. In terms of listed benefits. S'alright? It's better than desperately repackaging a spell into a class feature. I don't think we're quite at "yes, this is equivalent to rage, sneak attack and" etc. But. A step away from being shackled to specifically Hunter's Mark...

Why does it have to be Hunter's Mark at all? Like, it's not even a convenient framework! Just make a new ability!

It's a separate issue to the whole spellcaster thing, but. I do kinda think giving up on Hunter's Mark would help immensely. I feel like Ranger is still crying out for a signature class feature, their own Rage, Smite, Wild Shape, etc. And Hunter's Mark just. Isn't it. It cannot fill those shoes.

I cannot agree in the slightest, there are no depths to how much I don't care about the idea of Ranger as just "the bow and arrow folks that do stuff with a bow and arrow". If you're not General Radahn, the "hail of arrows" thing just reads like a MOBA ability to me. I find it dull.

(Oh yeah I figured of course, but y'know, wanted to say it anyway.) I will say; Land's Stride did deserve to be scrapped, but yeah it also needed to be replaced with something that accomplished it's intended effect more handily, and at a level where it's actually worth a damn.

I mean yes that would be better, but it's still bad! Why can't the Ranger just get a handful of decent spells they can pick from at a reasonable level? With their spellcasting feature, that they have? You're right that absolutely nobody wants to be hanging on till 17th level for stuff the...

Sure! It's sort of a multi-layered problem for me personally; I don't like spells being "elevated" to class feature in general. I think WOTC having basically nothing to work with for the Ranger besides Hunter's Mark in particular has caused endless problems. They also happened to pick boring...

I do think them being married to what they've already offered is another big part of it, like they cannot bring themselves to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but that is fair to say as well. I think it's partially down to the wide spectrum of ideals that people have for the Ranger. Some...

There goes WOTC, doing exactly what I would've guessed. Still just completely unable to imagine anything for Ranger without saying the words "Hunter's Mark", and even then what they've got is just absolutely anemic and boring. At least they killed the class features "the spells Conjure Barrage...

Disregard all that! I discovered my error too late! Oh, well, that makes my other thought easier. Why don't they just Polymorph themselves into a Giant Eagle and go collect the friendly Cleric?

I also had that thought, and as your maths suggest, it's a non-starter. I thought a Brontosaurus might be a workable alternative, that it's Gargantuan size would make up for it's lower Strength score than the Huge size Beasts, but. The rules on carrying capacity are less generous than those for...

You could also Polymorph a party member into a Beast capable of transporting the petrified party member to town! Rules as written say no! Which seems ridiculous! Or... Y'know. Just go into town, and. Ask the friendly Cleric to accompany you to the location where the petrified party member...

While it's not the subject of this thread specifically, I will admit I am somewhat split on spell components as far as Ranger goes. If balance was no object, I feel like I probably would say "let Rangers have Subtle Spellcasting". But I'm unsure how to act on that in a way that isn't a massive...

I disagree, but that's probably more down to different reads on the magic in question than anything else. I disagree, unlike PWT being a fitting way to express the journey to Amon Sul, I'd say Disguise Self is a poor way to express Aragorn being Strider in the Prancing Pony. It's more an act...

Sure! But just to clarify, didn't mean like "you were wrong to include these", more just, they don't perfectly jive with the vague notion of Ranger I have in my head. They would be fine for someone else. But yeah, let me go through and try and explain why; Disguise Self: It's just not the sort...