Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Minigiant" data-source="post: 8010115" data-attributes="member: 63508">And Rangers are very specific as well. That's my point. A newcomer would have to explain to the DM what they want to be. If you want martial weapons, light and medium armor, a warrior HD, stealth, survival, an animal companion, and druid magic, play a ranger. If you want an archer with a couple specific skills, play a fighter. It isn't Favored enemy's fault Beast Companions are bad and the spell list is missing spells.Again, the main complaint is implementation.Again your issue is implementation.At the table I DM and the table I play, a ranger can learn a favored enemy or terrain as a downtime activity. I make it time based when I DM. My DM when I makes it cost heaps of gold and treats it like an expensive wizard's spellbook. Metagame problem solved..The 5e designers falling into the traps that the 2e and 3e designers did is not the problem with Favored Enemy/Terrain. It's them not researching the many many discussions about FE in 2e and 3e on the internet. There is so much they could have done. They could Make Primeval Awereness swap FE/FT with spell slots.Or made a feat to add more FE/FT. Or gave you extra ones with high INT or WISAgain your issue is implementation. The idea wasn't bad, the implementation was.I still thing it would be better if FE/FT was core but done well for once. Get someone who has passion about ranger to finishes its playtesting in time. Rangers have been hunting specific foes better since the olden days. Time for someone you use that open design space well.Because ifthey make FE/FT optional but pull this mess again in 6E, everyone will blame them for not making FE/FT strong and core.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Minigiant, post: 8010115, member: 63508"] And Rangers are very specific as well. That's my point. A newcomer would have to explain to the DM what they want to be. If you want martial weapons, light and medium armor, a warrior HD, stealth, survival, an animal companion, and druid magic, play a ranger. If you want an archer with a couple specific skills, play a fighter. It isn't Favored enemy's fault Beast Companions are bad and the spell list is missing spells. Again, the main complaint is implementation. Again your issue is implementation. At the table I DM and the table I play, a ranger can learn a favored enemy or terrain as a downtime activity. I make it time based when I DM. My DM when I makes it cost heaps of gold and treats it like an expensive wizard's spellbook. Metagame problem solved.. The 5e designers falling into the traps that the 2e and 3e designers did is not the problem with Favored Enemy/Terrain. It's them not researching the many many discussions about FE in 2e and 3e on the internet. There is so much they could have done. They could Make Primeval Awereness swap FE/FT with spell slots. Or made a feat to add more FE/FT. Or gave you extra ones with high INT or WIS Again your issue is implementation. The idea wasn't bad, the implementation was. I still thing it would be better if FE/FT was core but done well for once. Get someone who has passion about ranger to finishes its playtesting in time. Rangers have been hunting specific foes better since the olden days. Time for someone you use that open design space well. Because ifthey make FE/FT optional but pull this mess again in 6E, everyone will blame them for not making FE/FT strong and core. [/QUOTE]

Verification