Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour, Nov 27 2018
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 7529602" data-attributes="member: 6704184"><p>If a player picks a subclass for a concept, and also gives up spellcasting (arguably the most significant feature in the core class) to improve that concept, they should be very, very good at that concept. If a BM ranger drops spells for a better beast, it should be better than an NPC companion. </p><p>I also like this idea, if it didn't come with the separate and terrible idea of not doing literally anything to help the BM that chooses to keep spellcasting. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>They are better, and my fellow DM in my group has pretty much decided that he is just fine with simply adding them to the existing features, rather than replacing them. For my wife's BM ranger, we're either going to keep using the revised ranger, or do the above and then replace the PHB lvl 3 writeup for the beast with the one from the Revise Ranger. </p><p></p><p>The thing is, the beast is rarely better at doing damage in a single attack than the ranger is, and usually is pretty close to that 1d8, or lower. The Hunter can choose a feature that does 1d8 once per turn to any creature not at full HP. Every time the hunter can hit the target, that is gonna happen, if it has taken even 1hp of damage. No extra action cost required. </p><p></p><p>The BM is going to require spending a bonus action, to get the same damage, with a feature that can die from an average damage fireball, and has less of an easy time hitting targets reliably than the ranger (thus, the damage is applied less often)? WHy?</p><p></p><p>The physical existence of the pet on the battlefield is <em>not</em> that valuable! </p><p></p><p>Just let it have a turn!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="doctorbadwolf, post: 7529602, member: 6704184"] If a player picks a subclass for a concept, and also gives up spellcasting (arguably the most significant feature in the core class) to improve that concept, they should be very, very good at that concept. If a BM ranger drops spells for a better beast, it should be better than an NPC companion. I also like this idea, if it didn't come with the separate and terrible idea of not doing literally anything to help the BM that chooses to keep spellcasting. They are better, and my fellow DM in my group has pretty much decided that he is just fine with simply adding them to the existing features, rather than replacing them. For my wife's BM ranger, we're either going to keep using the revised ranger, or do the above and then replace the PHB lvl 3 writeup for the beast with the one from the Revise Ranger. The thing is, the beast is rarely better at doing damage in a single attack than the ranger is, and usually is pretty close to that 1d8, or lower. The Hunter can choose a feature that does 1d8 once per turn to any creature not at full HP. Every time the hunter can hit the target, that is gonna happen, if it has taken even 1hp of damage. No extra action cost required. The BM is going to require spending a bonus action, to get the same damage, with a feature that can die from an average damage fireball, and has less of an easy time hitting targets reliably than the ranger (thus, the damage is applied less often)? WHy? The physical existence of the pet on the battlefield is [I]not[/I] that valuable! Just let it have a turn! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour, Nov 27 2018
Top