Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8009383" data-attributes="member: 18">Uh-huh.Except, this is D&amp;D, 5th edition. It is a game that is balanced and designed around combat, very heavily. No other class has weaker combat abilities because it has stronger non-combat abilities, not to a meaningful degree. Wizards are incredibly strong outside combat. They're also incredibly strong inside combat. Rogues are solid in both. Fighters are weak outside combat, but strong in combat. Bards are strong in both (most Bards). I could go on.No other class in 5E looks like it was nerfed in combat because of non-combat abilities. The CFV abilities you call lazy is in fact extremely sensible and flavourful. In most cases the replacement features are more engaging. More importantly, they work. In most cases, even if they were additional features, not variants, they wouldn't make the Ranger particularly OTT (just overcomplicated). Also, I dunno if you've ever tried, but in my experience, it's pretty easy to hammer in a nail with a wrench. In fact, it's a lot easier to hammer in a nail with your average wrench than entirely the wrong kind of hammer.Re: subclass-focused, that's one way to look at it, but I think it's an artifact rather than a cause. I think the cause is overvaluing dubious non-combat abilities, and making them not part of subclasses, but part of the class.I agree that they kind of look like they were designed by someone who didn't love the class, but I'd say the same of Clerics and Sorcerers, and Clerics are absolutely fine, balance-wise.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 8009383, member: 18"] Uh-huh. Except, this is D&D, 5th edition. It is a game that is balanced and designed around combat, very heavily. No other class has weaker combat abilities because it has stronger non-combat abilities, not to a meaningful degree. Wizards are incredibly strong outside combat. They're also incredibly strong inside combat. Rogues are solid in both. Fighters are weak outside combat, but strong in combat. Bards are strong in both (most Bards). I could go on. No other class in 5E looks like it was nerfed in combat because of non-combat abilities. The CFV abilities you call lazy is in fact extremely sensible and flavourful. In most cases the replacement features are more engaging. More importantly, they work. In most cases, even if they were additional features, not variants, they wouldn't make the Ranger particularly OTT (just overcomplicated). Also, I dunno if you've ever tried, but in my experience, it's pretty easy to hammer in a nail with a wrench. In fact, it's a lot easier to hammer in a nail with your average wrench than entirely the wrong kind of hammer. Re: subclass-focused, that's one way to look at it, but I think it's an artifact rather than a cause. I think the cause is overvaluing dubious non-combat abilities, and making them not part of subclasses, but part of the class. I agree that they kind of look like they were designed by someone who didn't love the class, but I'd say the same of Clerics and Sorcerers, and Clerics are absolutely fine, balance-wise. [/QUOTE]

Verification