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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="NotAYakk" data-source="post: 8027432" data-attributes="member: 72555">Ranger remains the only class that has zero combat features at level one besides "can use weapons and wear armor".Valor remains meh.  Weapon feat nerfs makes it worse more than your buff makes it better.Nerfs to wespon feats mostly just make ASIs dominate them hard.Elemental Adept remains the suck unless you are forced to use one damage type (its damage boost remains undetectable).Wording is unclear and non-5E like.  Example Ranger BM.  I have to read your mind and hope I read it right.Having a single choice between a feature you deem crappy and a new option does not lift a subclass up to "as good as another".  Either the choice is a trap, or the difference is small.Champion losing crits and gaining ~1 damage per hit still sucks compared to BM.  BM did get nerfed by stripping out -5/+10 feats, but gap is still large.More choices for 4E monk doesn't fix problem that its inefficient Ki options don't matter until T3.  It adds no power, just options; and its options are usually worse than flurry+stunning blow.  You didn't explicitly state Ki cost of cantrips (free?), but if they use them they lose MA/Fkurry (again, failure to stack efficiently with base kit).Instead of dumping houserules and asking others to analyze them, include analysis of why the change, hiw large the gap, and an argument why the gap is now gone.Btw, even with baseline 5e, accuracy gets so high at high levels that +3 weapons are often worse than +2d6 damage weapons (trade is -3 to hit for +4 to damage; hey look, that power attack equation appears!  At equal rarity, trade is -2 for +5).Having +5 weapons and +3/+2d6 weapons and +0/+3d10 weapons would bring power attack in via the back door.</blockquote>

Verification