Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TheLoneRanger1979" data-source="post: 6765630" data-attributes="member: 6804148">However, keeping up with the fighter and the rogue in the damage department, doesn't have to be ranger's raison d'etre. After all, there are &quot;alternatives to fighting&quot;. Multiple hit dice makes the ranger more self sufficient and more affordable to a party that is short on healing. Disengage as a bonus action, makes the ranger more capable of executing tactical maneuvers and/or fighting on his/her own terms. Awareness or ambushing could make the ranger always act first or at the very least prevent from being taken off guard. There are many ways to make the class useful without resorting to damage per round calculations.Yeah, but the original rangers were the &quot;tough&quot; guys and i kind of miss that. Personally i am a great fan of the 1E 11 hit dice per 9 levels concept (yes, they were d8's but you added CON bonus to each of those). I also like the 2d6 per level of the UA latest iteration. In my eyes, the rangers should be some of the toughest guys out there as far as their capability to stay in a fight and/or last on their own is at stake, though probably not the best and hardest hitters (which should be either fighter's or barbarian's role).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TheLoneRanger1979, post: 6765630, member: 6804148"] However, keeping up with the fighter and the rogue in the damage department, doesn't have to be ranger's raison d'etre. After all, there are "alternatives to fighting". Multiple hit dice makes the ranger more self sufficient and more affordable to a party that is short on healing. Disengage as a bonus action, makes the ranger more capable of executing tactical maneuvers and/or fighting on his/her own terms. Awareness or ambushing could make the ranger always act first or at the very least prevent from being taken off guard. There are many ways to make the class useful without resorting to damage per round calculations. Yeah, but the original rangers were the "tough" guys and i kind of miss that. Personally i am a great fan of the 1E 11 hit dice per 9 levels concept (yes, they were d8's but you added CON bonus to each of those). I also like the 2d6 per level of the UA latest iteration. In my eyes, the rangers should be some of the toughest guys out there as far as their capability to stay in a fight and/or last on their own is at stake, though probably not the best and hardest hitters (which should be either fighter's or barbarian's role). [/QUOTE]

Verification