Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 7683147" data-attributes="member: 1465">Absolutely... I don't think there is really any class that needs to change. Exactly! But let's remember that we had 2 YEARS of playtesting to steer the design of the Ranger and everything else. It doesn't need another change. The core Ranger is what the majority wanted, including the spellcasting. They could have done a better job to take into account also the minority, and put spellcasting under a subclass, just like Eldritch Knigh and Arcane Trickster, so the core class would have been fine for a lot more people.But then, the community is full of people who just want things to keep changing. Most of them aren't even playing the game, and if nothing changes they start saying 'the hobby is dead', but it's dead only for them. Today it's the Ranger, tomorrow they will want to change the Bard or Sorcerer or Druid and so on, and when it's the Ranger's turn again then they'll just want the usual reset to a new edition. WotC is fine with this, if the game is never finished, then they can keep working. See how each revision/edition is a reaction to the previous.I had a thread about it a few weeks ago. My point was that to design a 'pet' as a class feature never works, unless you restrict it to non-combat uses, because if it can fight decently then you have to put a 'cost' on the Ranger's own capabilities alone. In other words, if you want Ranger+Pet to be balanced with other PCs, the Ranger alone has to be inferior, particularly if you want the pet to be pretty good.So just don't design 'pets' as class features! Let a PC (Ranger or not) earn a pet from roleplay, and then treat is as an ally NPC that takes its share of XP/treasure, and that can level up. Let the Ranger be its 'friend' or favourite PC, and let the player command the animal indirectly via roleplay (so that it doesn't feel like the player is playing 2 PCs).</blockquote>

Verification