Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tigris" data-source="post: 9856067" data-attributes="member: 7043270">Thanj you for the thorough answer! I will go more in detail another time, but I really appreciate this!I did disagree with you quite a bit in the other thread but this made it a lot more clear qhat you mean.I think one big difference for you and for me is that with Ranger being flexible I mean less that a single Ranger needs to be flexibel, for me a Ranger is an expert, I mean more that the range of Rangers for me needa to be broad and flexible. Thats why deft explorer for me works well (and I would not want a a broad boost to all skills like the bard), on the other hand a reliable class feature (like not being able to roll below 10) would fit perfecly. I also fully agree that a class should not just be defined by its spells, especially when spell lists are not unique, thats why I often dont like spellcasters too much. Honestly my favourite ranger would have no spells (except rituals and more of them!), but thats not a small change but a complete rework. Ah and some "natural familiar" ritual/spell is something I miss from Ranger which could be easily added in 5e. Also I would rather have something more flexible than the level 14 invisibility feature.</blockquote>