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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 9815328" data-attributes="member: 6704184">No. LOLIts more a framework for now, to show the basic ideas. Even calling the points Focus is optional. The point is to replace spellslots with points valued like the monk, and a mix of at will and focus-costed abilities, some chosen and some fundemental and thus automatic. Sort of...part monk, part warlock, part artificer, large part current and 2014 and revised ranger.Oh i absolutely support placing the mark on a critter when you track it. I want the ranger to feel like an assassin, a hunter. Someone who the enemies of good folk and nature should fear. Hell yeahIdk being highly mobile and stealthy is absolutely vital to being a ranger. Like mandatory. Me too, but multiple classes have evasion for a reason. Sometimes some amount of overlap is simply natural to the concept. A ranger simply cannot fail to be stealthy and highly mobile and succeed at being a ranger. Characters not moving is a DM failing, to be frank. Especially beefy monsters that can tank a few hits, and anythinf that can normally stay in the air or at range. And regen isnt needed for trolls bane to be useful. Those banes are useful against wide swathes of enemies, but the point is to have specialised tools that you have several of, that are themed to a creature type but useful outside of it. Different goals. I am not basically doing any such thing. If i was, i would just literally do that and say the hunter subclass isn't compatible with this variant class.</blockquote>

Verification