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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8787743" data-attributes="member: 18">Even Jackie Chan played competent characters very often, and a lot of his "incompetent" characters were actually specially trained and were kind of making a mockery of their opponents (thinking back to his HK movie career which thanks to Channel 4 I ended up seeing most of in the '90s).Ryan Reynolds normally plays highly competent characters in action stuff, just not invulnerable ones. Deadpool is extremely competent, but isn't sweating getting shot too much for obvious reasons.ROFL wth?!?You don't need to be a game designer to know when something is off, or have an opinion about a class. Or even to understand game design. That's laughable. That's like saying "Most audiences don't know enough about film-making to have an opinion on which movies they like!". Come on.Absolutely players have opinions on this. Whether you think those are informed opinions is a different matter, but they have them. They expectations of a class called "Ranger", and WotC isn't meeting them. Not in any WotC edition of D&D. WotC THEMSELVES have admitted they have problems getting this right, and have basically apologised about it before!WotC have admitted to repeatedly screwing this up. WotC themselves have also repeatedly said one of the key things audiences expect from a Ranger is a pet. And yet... Where's the bear?You're making an appeal-to-authority argument when the authority themselves has admitted messing up, and has shown designs of the class that don't match their own surveys lol. That's not a strong or logical argument.That's circular reasoning and not very plausible, frankly. Especially given 5E Rangers had better exploration abilities than 1D&D ones.I think I've demonstrated that it's not. You appeal-to-authority argument demonstrates more flawed reasoning on your part.That doesn't mean I'm right! I could well be wrong. But my reasoning on this is demonstrably better than what you're arguing.Yeah! Ones they've completely ignored, repeatedly! Where's the bear?</blockquote>

Verification