Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kobold Stew" data-source="post: 6204007" data-attributes="member: 23484">I agree with your 1, 2, and 4. I agree with the principal of "3" (that all classes make a significant choice at level 3 -- that's fine), but not the formulation: "apprentice tier" isn't helpful, I think, as a concept to think with. It may have been useful to get the designers (and players) to buy into changes that have been (selectively) implemented, but now it's there, I don't think the language helps anyone. As an example, let's think about Rangers (something I could have addressed in my earlier post). Currently, there is a lame choice at level 2, with "favoured enemy": you can do extra damage next turn to the same opponent ("colossus slayer") or extra damage the same turn to a different opponent ("horde breaker"). The options themselves are fine, but I feel the choice is lame because (a) moving it to third level won't change their impact (it's just filling a dead level, apparently). (b) it's the only thematically-related ability in the entire path until level 11 (the gains at 7 could be swapped with no discernable impact(c) everything in the tree is essentially a combat feat-- they've taken away cultural knowledge or languages or anything that might have out-of-combat applicability. All these abilities could as well fit a fighter.(d) it leaves many Ranger archetypes unaccounted for (see below).I agree with you that a more diverse tree of options, beginning at level 3, would help make rangers a more appealing option to play. What sort of diversity? Well... For the testpack in August, <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?340272-Ranger-s-favored-enemies-and-spells/page4&p=6174531&viewfull=1#post6174531" target="_blank">I described my concerns with rangers</a>, and suggested three paths they might choose were the spellcaster, the beast master, and the horizon walker. I still think that produces a richer range of characters than what we have here. Sure, let all Rangers have a choice with favoured enemies, but to define the wilderness hunter character a fuller set of abilities, that affect both combat and non-combat situations, would be preferable, IMO.</blockquote>

Verification