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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gadget" data-source="post: 7113408" data-attributes="member: 23716">I can't say I disagree with MM that much.  The main thing about the Druid back in the day was how unique their spell list was; they had some healing like a cleric, along with a more offensive (especially at lower levels) spell list that was more unique.  If I could criticize 5e, it is that there seems to be a lot more 'sameness' between spell lists, and multiple easy ways to raid another class's spells (unless you are a sorcerer).  As such, a land druid feels a little more like a 'green wizard' than anything.  As for the Ranger, I've never liked pet classes, both the aesthetics and the cumbersome play that can result in play at the table.  I've also never seen this a a core Ranger concept.  You have Animal Friendship and Speak With Animals on your spell list, that's good enough.  I'm all for moving it out of the Ranger wheel house, perhaps to some type of 'Tarzan' Barbarian class.  I would also like to see a Ranger class designed more like the Paladin, not in the sense that Rangers are 'Nature Paladins' (I concept I despise), but a mechanical framework that feels more smooth and elegant.  Like suggested elsewhere, maybe a Hunter's Mark ability modeled on smite and Rangers knowing all the Ranger spells.      As for the Way of Elements Monk and Way of Shadows Monk discrepancy, yes that explains a lot, but it still should have been caught in editing/play testing.  This along with the expressed dislike of designing spells & feats goes a long way to explain other things about 5e that I can be problematic.  Those two elements (spells & feats) are two to the worst designed elements of 5e.  I appreciate the work done to reign in the LFQW, but there are a lot of stinkers in there and feats...there are issues.I would like to his take on a new initiative system as well.</blockquote>

Verification