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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9442503" data-attributes="member: 6801228">DisagreeNever heard of set-up I see.Misunderstanding what I meant. I didn't mean they have few as in not many options, I meant they have a few options for how to accomplish that. ieThey could bonus action attack via the Light Property, without TWF -- Using this method Hunter's Mark is basically identicalThey could use the Crossbow Expert Feat -- This give the mod damage, and uses their bonus actionYou could use the TWF style and the Light PropertyectAnd now you are altering your own terms on me. Wonderful.Not modifying them, just changing them... right.Why is that bad design?Yeah, a system like that is never going to happen. You would end up with five pages of ranger abilities, where each level is offering ten different spell options. No thanks. Homebrew that if you like, but as a design it is horrible.It doesn't need to upcast. Also, I took out every single spell you listed that was not on the ranger's spell list. So, what you are really trying to say it seems, is that ranger's don't have good 1st level spells. I also notice that of the very few spells you mentioned that deal damage, they all also create disadvantage on enemy attacks, or force movement. Hunter's Mark is far more comparable to a pure damage spell, which if you don't think those are good spells, would explain your position.Then why, in the above quote, did you do that twice more? Is it not bad class design if you have to concentrate on fog cloud or entangle? Would it not be bad class design to do it for any of those other spells you listed as actually good 1st level spells that have concentration? It doesn't seem to be inherently bad design, you just hate that it is a design focused on Hunter's Mark.</blockquote>

Verification