Search results

I will concede that is entirely possible. It may not even be the worst Ranger they've ever released. Somewhat similar framework, yes. I conceptualize Ranger, Barbarian and Druid as a loose trinity. Could work basically alright? I'd say that's pretty weak for upcasting, personally. But...

The Rangers got 'em mid-reply! Oh yeah that's not a mystery either, that WOTC have failed to sell you on Ranger's merits. I feel like "how much you enjoy the flavour/trappings of ranger going in" is a big part of it. But even if not, I'd say "every class should meet a roughly similar level of...

Nah just that, Hunter's Mark appears on that spell list in 5E. I saw a message in this thread indicating that that is still the case, not sure though. Haven't investigated 2024 thoroughly, the Ranger is the bit I was invested in seeing how it shaked out. If you'll agree just that they likely...

Exactly. So the spell, fundamentally, is the feature. It lets you use that and only that spell more, and later gives it buffs in tiny, pathetic increments. And if I weren't making my own homebrew for Ranger, and/or if I was playing in a game that didn't allow for homebrew, I absolutely would.

Something something Vengeance Paladins. Mostly disagree with these bits.

More a demonstration of the fact that it doesn't fit any of the criteria of being a spell, it's just fuelled by spell slots. I get why you say it, but I don't think it's accurate. There is the Smite ability, and there are Smite spells, they are meaningfully distinct. Tell me what it does if I...

So, it's an ability they're synonymous with. It's something only they can do, it's thematic, actually useful, can lead to cool moments etc. Every one of the more "thick of combat" classes has at least one ability I'd put in that category, and I think it'd be good if Rangers got a feature that...

Tell me another class that can cast it! Hunter's Mark is a spell, I am advocating for it staying a spell as opposed to being made a class feature.

My question was, is he especially more explicitly magical in the book. Healing Frodo with Kingsfoil happens in the movie too.

Exceptions as in, like Barbarians not getting a fighting style. Rogue and Monk are out on the fringe, Barbarian a little closer, Fighter, Paladin, and Ranger are more immediately obviously similar. You would never say "why should paladin have smite? they get a fighting style, extra attack and...

I did not say that, actually. I said they should have something to make the martial bit pop besides spells. Because literally every class has a thing only they can do. For Ranger, WOTC always do the spell, or some worse version of the spell. I'm saying they should not do the spell, nor a worse...

Y'mean those things that literally every martial class gets (with like, one or two exceptions, always forget that Barbarian doesn't get a Fighting Style)? Not to say they're bad or not good enough, but Ranger would still benefit from something that's theirs.

That's my position. I'm not saying there can't be Rangers that lean away from direct damage in the name of tanking or area denial or battlefield control or whatever, just that that choice isn't best expressed through prepared spells, as the rules currently exist or in an ideal scenario. (And...

That's true enough. I guess I might say "People want a lot of things but instead they have WOTC" instead, but.

Y'mean except the one I'm actually concerned with? So the reality we currently occupy has Ranger associated with dealing high damage?

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.