Search results

I mean, I know it's a typo, but the idea we'll still be edition warring 889 years from now fills me with hope and dread simultaneously.

Does anyone remember the Revised Ranger from UA? They released it online, allowed people to play it in one season of Adventure League, then pretended it never happened. EDIT: link is cursed, removed.

Made worse by the fact that nothing is supernatural about the Warlord. Healing in D&D does not require magic or supernatural abilities. It usually does, granted, but not always. In 3.x, Fast Healing, for example, is an Extraordinary ability. No magic involved. Hell, even in 5e you have...

I get what you're saying. But you have to admit it's weird for the book to make a list of possible actions, slap Ready on there, and yet somehow it's not actually an action, it's just the process by which you can make another action resolve while someone else is performing their own actions...

Lol, well, it's funny you say that. The Gnome has the same identity crisis as the Ranger. What is a Gnome? They're small sized and sneaky, like Halflings. They live in the forest and are innately magical, like Elves. They live underground and appreciate gems, like Dwarves. But what's...

Until WotC either: A, specifies that this is or isn't intended. B, explains whether Ready is or isn't it's own unique action type. Or C, explains what the heck "cast normally" actually means in the context of 2024 as opposed to the 2014 rules. This debate isn't going to be settled. What...

Hunter's Mark is basically a variant of Hex. Nature's Veil is a small number of 1 round invisibility as a bonus action uses per day gained at 14th level. Natural Explorer is unreliable as you might not always be in the correct terrain type to use it. It's replacement, Deft Explorer is two...

Oh yeah, against "giant-class" enemies. I remember it was a pretty random list (like Tasloi were on it for some bizarre reason, lol), so the chances of it coming up were fairly decent. The same could not be said of 2e, where you picked one creature you hated for a +4 bonus to hit and that was...

If you count Pathfinder 1e as D&D, then that is probably the best version of the Ranger, especially with the ability to swap out class features you find less than reliable with Archetypes (3.5 had this option as well, but Alternative Class Features and Racial Substitution levels were scattered...

I mean it's a personal preference. I still feel I could make a multiclassed character that gives me anything I'd want from Ranger without the actual class and more, but whether that's a Ranger problem or a Multiclassing problem is debatable.

Maybe I missed something, were 1e Rangers better archers than Fighters, or were they about the same? I vaguely recall Rangers being able to use a bow in melee, but that could be a product of a fever dream, lol.

In 3.5, yes, but not in 3.0. I should have specified which 3e I was talking about, and I probably should have mentioned the 3.5 Ranger in my post, since it was a significant improvement and arguably the best version of the Ranger, if still held back by Favored Enemy and Terrain Mastery features...

It's funny that the Ranger hasn't always even been an archery expert. In 2e and 3e, for example, the Ranger had a two-weapon fighting focus, with no ranged combat bonuses in sight! 4e let the Ranger focus on ranged or two-weapon fighting (or allowed you to be a switch hitter) rather easily...

That is a good question, especially since, outside of spells, most things that you can use your bonus action for have restrictions on when they can be used anyways, like bonus action attacks typically require you to use the Attack action. There had to be some interaction they were worried...

It may seem nonsensical, but it's similar to the thing Rogues have been doing to get off-turn Sneak Attacks for over a decade now- and that's something the developers explicitly allow (well, they tried to do something about it, but the fanbase collectively made enough of a fuss about it that...

I think another section needs to be bolded here. Specifically: "When you take the Magic action, you cast a spell that has a casting time of an action...". Now bear with me, because I want to go over every point carefully. Let's assume this is a valid reading of the rules: if the spell's...

Except the idea of "later in the round" doesn't actually exist, all of these actions are supposed to be happening simultaneously, the creatures and characters in combat aren't actually waiting to take their turns, the whole "turn order" is simply a necessary abstraction to keep play from...

What if they did it the other way, use Action Surge to ready an action to cast a spell when it's not their turn, then use the Magic Action to cast a spell?

Ok, so, in conclusion, Gods are either: *All powerful, all-seeing, all-knowing. *All powerful, all-seeing, all-knowing, but don't like their priests casting the spells they grant in ways that bother them. *Only all-powerful, all-seeing, and all-knowing with regards to their specific...

Ok so the contention is about whether or not the Ready action used to cast a spell is actually a Magic Action. I don't have a horse in this race, but something about that bugs me. If I have Warcaster, and I cast a single-action spell in response to a provoked opportunity attack as a reaction-...