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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ECMO3" data-source="post: 9439451" data-attributes="member: 7030563">If you are not then you have no argument.If you don;t play at high level then how can you even  make a rational judgement about high-level play?Well I mean even at this level, if they wanted to use primal awareness or favored foe they are SOL.Cleric's do not get a free casting of either, and if they got a free cast of SOF instead of say heavy armor proficiency and then in addition they got 3 more class features over the levels, including a capstone that worked with SOF and required casting SOF, then yes it would be a big deal!This is a great example, because like HM, SOF is a mediocre spell at low level, it is a bonus action to cast and it requires concentration.So let's build a cleric:Level 1: Divine order - Protector you get martial weapons and a free casting of SOF instead of heavy armorLevel 14:  No blessed strikes, instead damage no longer breaks concentration on SOFLevel 20: Instead of Greater Divine Intervention, now SOF improves AC by 4 instead of 2.That would be roughly equivalent to what we have for the Ranger class!That is NOT what I said.  What I said is "I do miss using those spells but no the bad design is having 4 separate class abilities centered around a specific spell"If you are going to make a claim about what I said, please be sure it is accurate.Again no I didn't.  What I said was one of them rarely made attack rolls and the other neve made an attack after level 15.So what?  That doesn't mean I did not use it.  It is a bonus action.It is taking it away at the levels you don't have it, and I will add one of those levels is level 10, which is a level people supposedly play a lot.yes.  But only one of those things is a specific class feature at FOUR different levels.Okl let me be clear here.  It is something that I can't do if I use Hunter's Mark.  I call that a conflict.  You call it something else, but I can use it with the 2014 favored foe.Also nick does not "remove" anything.  Nick only applies IF you have a weapon with the nick property and IF your character has mastery on that weapon and even IF that is the potential bonus action attack from dual wielding would still not be allowed (since 'conflict' means something else) with the other attack from light.Your Drudic Warrior is going to be fighting with a club or a staff!Call it a 'conflict', call it not a 'conflict'.  The FACT is if you cast hunter's mark you can't Misty Step, Nature's Viel or use a TWF bonus action attack.  What you want to call that interference is irrelevant .... and those are not the only things!At high level, when not concentrating on another spell?  I don't think that is true.  It may be true at low level, but I don't think it is true at high level.I don't think I did.There are more powerful Ranger spells available than Hunter's Mark at high level.  That much is fact, not opinion (even with the buffs to HM).Yes and you are discouraged from a playstyle that uses spells based on multiple abilities that leverage attacks.  Also FWIW two of the spell options 'conflict' (am I using that term right with your definition?) with Hunter's Mark since they are concentration.Whatever.  It was MUCH better than HM at level.  That is all that really matters to this discussion.  I would not be that upset with losing it, but replacing it with HM is not a boost, it is a nerf for that playstyle.Well you responded to a post where I mentioned damge at 20th level, so I don't know what other level matters in that discussion ..... but yes your math is wrong at ANY level.Sure.  My prefered fix for all those HM abilities is to change them, as I mentioned in my original post.You can say that, but unless you provide a reference or a photocopy of a page from the book, I will go with what is reported online by the sources I have used.Please do not misquote me.  I said losing primal awarness is not what made the Ranger a bad design.I never said it did not matter.  I said removing it was not what made the new class a poor design.Two different things.What makes the class a poor design is having 4 separate class features focused on Hunters Mark when there are 40 concentration spells (plus more from subclasses).Yes.  When  you claim they lost nothing you are factually either misinformed or lying.  That is an objective statement you made that is factually untrue.  Pick which applies - you didn't know or you lied.  EDIT:  3rd option - the reports on the PHB are wrong and the Ranger actually actually still has all those abilities.Whether I am upset about those lost abilities or not does not change the facts, nor do my personal feelings really have any bearing on whether it is a poor class design.I used it more than I used HM and it was one first level ability.So you think this even though I explicitly said otherwise on this very thread?No that is not what I said at all.  Read what I posted in several posts above, then make another post about what I "feel bad seeing".</blockquote>

Verification