NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6103454" data-attributes="member: 1465">I think the problem there was rather with the cumulative -5, not so much because of the calculation but because after the second attack it became really unlikely to score unless on a natural 20. I dont really think this will happen again in 5e! If there are multiple attacks in 5e they most probably will all be equal, and that will make them much much more acceptable. Personally I am a lot in favor of this, since I like the idea that Fighters (and maybe it's best if it's only Fighters) can try to drop multiple enemies in the same round. If someone finds this too time-consuming, it is also always still possible to focus all attacks on the same foe and maybe even roll all the multiple d20s at once.I agree with both. I really think it's best for a Ranger class to have something special and unique, otherwise I'd rather have no Ranger class at all. To downgrade the Ranger to a mere scout or wilderness archer for my tastes is a huge turn off... you can have that concept covered with a Fighter that takes archery-oriented feats and/or maneuvers and wilderness-based skills and/or feats. IMO trying to design Ranger-only archery or 2WF abilities tend to dry out the pool of similar options available to everybody else. While this in principle could be true also for spells, that other design pool is much bigger, so there is no significant problem in choosing to design Ranger-only spells, and that actually would make the Ranger class even more interesting.However I acknowledge that there are a lot of people who really want non-spellcasting Rangers, and in some campaign settings they are really out-of-place, so WotC should keep a door open for this option.</blockquote>

Verification