Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="1Mac" data-source="post: 6871935" data-attributes="member: 48998">I am entirely comfortable with saying this, or at least something like it. I feel like you may as well be uncomfortable saying that a paladin gets its combat power from smiting, or a rogue from sneak attack. You speak of the identity crisis of the ranger; part of that crisis is that it is a combat class that doesn't feel different in combat from other classes, particularly the fighter. And in the end, I don't think your Survivalist dice do anything to make that distinction; indeed, by using what is basically a fighter's Combat Superiority pool to power combat abilities, I think you have made that distinction even weaker. And if that distinction isn't sharpened in some way, then the ranger really is better served by being a fighter archetype than it's own class.I'm sorry I keep harping on this. I really am enjoying your take on the ranger (and our interesting, civil discussion, for which I meant to thank you earlier). I guess I just have strong opinions about what is needed to make the ranger work, and feel that you are really close to making the class come into its own.</blockquote>