Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 7112925" data-attributes="member: 7006">To me, the most obvious way 'Ranger built like Paladin' comes across is two things:&nbsp; Hunter's Mark as a Smite-like damage booster that uses spell slots but is not itself a spell... and Hunter's Prey (IE the types of monsters you hunt) as the subclass divisions like the different Oaths.There are plenty of people who hate Rangers that have spells.&nbsp; So to have a way to basically remove spellcasting from it by using the &quot;spell slots&quot; to power Hunter's Mark extra damage gives you the best of both worlds-- spells for those who want it, and non-concentration-and-thus-non-breakable extra fighting damage for those who don't.And as far as the subclasses are concerned... he talks about how the beastmaster concept being a subclass of another class screws things up balance and damagw-wise.&nbsp; It probably would have been better for a Ranger to make &quot;Oaths&quot; or &quot;Enemies&quot; of certain styles of monster.&nbsp; So the Enemy of the Giants highlights fighting large monsters, Enemy of the Horde highlights fighting smaller packs, and Enemy of the Dark highlights fighting underground enemies, etc. etc.The Fighter, Ranger, and Druid each have multiple &quot;styles&quot; of subclass mechanic, which splits the class up into two different &quot;types&quot; for not necessarily extra gain:The Champion is just a generic bunch of abilitiesThe Battlemaster uses Superiority DiceThe Hunter focuses on specific types of enemyThe Beastmaster has an animal companionThe Circle of the Land focuses on spellcastingThe Circle of the Moon is all about combat shapeshiftingIf you look at the other classes though, they don't have such a wide split between their subclass foci.&nbsp; They don't give Sneak Attack or Expertise to only one Rogue subclass, every Rogue gets it.&nbsp; They don't give Channel Divinity to only one Cleric subclass, every subclass gets it.&nbsp; They don't give Divine Smite or Lay on Hands to only one Paladin subclass, they don't give metamagic to only one Sorcerer subclass, and so forth.But for those three classes in particular, they each have a huge combat-focused &quot;thing&quot; that only one subclass gets to use-- Superiority Dice, Animal Companions, and Wildshape.&nbsp; Which mnakes balancing more difficult, and closes off other design avenues going forward because you aren't coming up with more subclasses that can use those things in a special way, you have to create subclasses that are completely separate from those things because that's what the other subclasses in the game are already.So I do think there is something to be said for animal companions to be pulled out of the ranger and given their own &quot;thing&quot;... and wildshaping pulled out of the &quot;nature caster&quot; and given their own &quot;thing&quot;, and superiority dice given over to a class as the baseline &quot;thing&quot; for that class.&nbsp; Obviously it won't happen with 5E... or at least not in 5E any time soon.&nbsp; Maybe three years from now when they make another new &quot;Big Book O' Mechanics&quot; they go ahead and create new versions of the other classes in addition to the Ranger they're probably doing for the one in the fall.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 7112925, member: 7006"] To me, the most obvious way 'Ranger built like Paladin' comes across is two things: Hunter's Mark as a Smite-like damage booster that uses spell slots but is not itself a spell... and Hunter's Prey (IE the types of monsters you hunt) as the subclass divisions like the different Oaths. There are plenty of people who hate Rangers that have spells. So to have a way to basically remove spellcasting from it by using the "spell slots" to power Hunter's Mark extra damage gives you the best of both worlds-- spells for those who want it, and non-concentration-and-thus-non-breakable extra fighting damage for those who don't. And as far as the subclasses are concerned... he talks about how the beastmaster concept being a subclass of another class screws things up balance and damagw-wise. It probably would have been better for a Ranger to make "Oaths" or "Enemies" of certain styles of monster. So the Enemy of the Giants highlights fighting large monsters, Enemy of the Horde highlights fighting smaller packs, and Enemy of the Dark highlights fighting underground enemies, etc. etc. The Fighter, Ranger, and Druid each have multiple "styles" of subclass mechanic, which splits the class up into two different "types" for not necessarily extra gain: The Champion is just a generic bunch of abilities The Battlemaster uses Superiority Dice The Hunter focuses on specific types of enemy The Beastmaster has an animal companion The Circle of the Land focuses on spellcasting The Circle of the Moon is all about combat shapeshifting If you look at the other classes though, they don't have such a wide split between their subclass foci. They don't give Sneak Attack or Expertise to only one Rogue subclass, every Rogue gets it. They don't give Channel Divinity to only one Cleric subclass, every subclass gets it. They don't give Divine Smite or Lay on Hands to only one Paladin subclass, they don't give metamagic to only one Sorcerer subclass, and so forth. But for those three classes in particular, they each have a huge combat-focused "thing" that only one subclass gets to use-- Superiority Dice, Animal Companions, and Wildshape. Which mnakes balancing more difficult, and closes off other design avenues going forward because you aren't coming up with more subclasses that can use those things in a special way, you have to create subclasses that are completely separate from those things because that's what the other subclasses in the game are already. So I do think there is something to be said for animal companions to be pulled out of the ranger and given their own "thing"... and wildshaping pulled out of the "nature caster" and given their own "thing", and superiority dice given over to a class as the baseline "thing" for that class. Obviously it won't happen with 5E... or at least not in 5E any time soon. Maybe three years from now when they make another new "Big Book O' Mechanics" they go ahead and create new versions of the other classes in addition to the Ranger they're probably doing for the one in the fall. [/QUOTE]

Verification