NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mecheon" data-source="post: 9668955" data-attributes="member: 6801776">They're weighed down with useless stuff that's irrelevant to the character concept.Let's be simple: If you want a ranger, you either want a duel-wielding swordsman like Dritz, or you want a survivalist. So let's look at what Bard offers.Stat line? Completely wrong. Bards are set up to be the party face, charisma does not help you being a wilderness survivorMore spell access? Not relevant spells, closer to wizardAny skills you want? Irrelevant given the skills you're given are specifically related to music and performingIt gets worse once we look at the further skills. Expertise doesn't mean anything when your concept is being watered down and diluted because you're getting Bardic Inspiration, Countercharm and Magical Secrets all on top of it, abilities that are useless to the survivalist ideaThe point of a class is so Job McNewPlayer can look at it and go "This fits my play idea". Bard does not fit the play idea of a ranger in the slightest.I'd argue this is a statement on the design of the Ranger class, not its viability as a class in the gameIf we scrapped classes for bad implementation then Monk, Paladin and Fighter wouldn't have made it out of 3.5EI mean, I come at this from the "I remember 3.5e" route, where the most broken classes in both "Too underpowered to be useful" and "Unstoppable god-king" were right there in the PHB, with the ones being produced in later books generally being better balanced and a few rare exceptions of the 'broken' variety, generally hitting the underpowered routeEvery edition of D&D has added new classes through its lifespan. A game that doesn't add new things to the new player experience, especially a game like D&D where rolling new characters is expected, isn't going to be a game that holds people attention for long.</blockquote>

Verification