Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9440828" data-attributes="member: 6801228">This is just getting exhausting. Not every plays exactly the way you played.No idea why it matters so much, but I went back and found your own words for you.-Huh, I wonder if using it to mop up is something that having some free uses of it would be nice for, you know, so you don't use up spell slots for your other 1st level spells. Also, love how hilarious some of these are. Swift Quiver is going to give you two bonus action attacks, for a total of four, and add 2d8+10 or 19 damage. Hunter's Mark for a dual-wielder is adding 4d6 or 14 damage, plus advantage on every attack, which ups the DPR, making it very close (13.3 vs 11.76). At the d10 mark it is 4d10 which is 22 higher than Swift Quiver. Conjure animals is a dex save vs 3d10 damage, no damage on a success. That is less than the 4d10 as well. Conjure Woodland beings is ACTUALLY better, being an emanation that does 5d8 and gives you a bonus action disengage. Plus half damage on a success. And some of those others start getting situational.Nothing has made me hate the phrase RAW more than the reaction to the release of 2024. Sure, defend the bloody hill that you were technically playing RAW. But they wouldn't have given the ability concentration and a 1/turn limit if it was meant to be used on every attack on the same turn. You know it was unintentional and an exploit.Arguing that I should have been using your characters as an example, when I responding to the idea of giving up an attack to use Hunter's Mark is not demonstrating my math is incorrect. My point, which you clearly missed is that by giving up that 4th attack... the ranger does more damage. Meaning that they didn't "give up" or "lose" anything by deciding to cast Hunter's Mark instead. And yes, many rangers get abilities to add to damage at level 3, not as much at level 17, and those are typically once per turn abilities, so "giving up" an attack doesn't make a difference. Also, kind of weird that you want to accuse me of bad math. Lena: 4 attacks: total 5d6+4d4+28 - Would mean she has a floating d6 from Fey Wanderer, then that makes each attack 1d6+1d4+7.... and you claim that dropping an attack would lose her 1d6+1d4+6? Chromescale: 4 attacks: total 8d6+10 -- This is just bizzare. You dealt +2.5 on the mod per attack? That doesn't make sense so you must be combining wisdom and dexterity. Maybe a +0 dex? I'm guessing you are using a light club to allow the dual-wielding, but you claim dropping an attack just loses you 2d6. However when casting shillelagh as a bonus action on your turn, you drop the damage to 5d6+10, meaning that not using the bonus action attack is 3d6? None of this makes sense. I understand you think this is bad class design, but you are basing that entirely off "I want to play a ranger who does not make attack rolls" with a dose of "but they have better spells, so this is bad" Neither of which make the design bad. Honestly, I think people are underestimating how this ranger is going to end up working at the table. People are still stuck in the old paradigms of abilities and spells, and I think they are going to be awfully surprised to find how effective and good to play this ranger is going to be. The only truly bad design is in the capstone. The more I look at the rest, the more it seems perfectly fine.</blockquote>

Verification