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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BluSponge" data-source="post: 6703117" data-attributes="member: 916">Go right ahead.  I'm still digesting the new ruleset (slower than most due to other commitments), so I'm very likely to be wrong about any number of things.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />It probably doesn't help that I grew to dislike 3e strongly and wasn't a big fan of 4e's design.  Not meaning to start an edition war, I just find my thinking more rooted in 1st/2nd edition and find a lot of modern choices...far out there by my tastes.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue    :P"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" />Bold Italics is mine.  The operative word here is COULD.  Yes, it is still viable no doubt but right now the relationship just isn't very strong.  The choices don't really build on one another and so you are making a choice for the sake of making a choice.  In addition, I think the language needs to be more distinct.  The terms used for Trail and Lodge are too similar and confusing.  Hunter/Scout/Warden could just as easily be subclasses/Archetypes right along side Guardian/Wanderer/Seeker.  There needs to be a clear division of language here to make both concepts firm and distinguished.You know, i KNEW the moment I typed that I was going to get dinged for it.  I knew some obvious class (Fighter, I figured) was going to have its own selection of "Not-Feats".  I haven't really read through the Warlock's class description, so I'm not very familiar with its Eldritch Invocations.  And sure, it's a personal opinion.  I have the same issue with Pathfinder classes that are riddled with "not-feats" these days.  It's (IMNSHO) a cheap way to circumvent the class advancement ladder.  It doesn't mean they don't work.  I just think these abilities do more to reinforce the archetype when they are baked in.  I've read your version of the Ranger, Quickleaf, and I totally get where your head is.  I just think there are better ways to implement those abilities.I don't know how much of a "hodgepodge" the original class was.  I know its popular to say that. The original ranger was a Fighter+, which is why it was a fighter subclass. I think the class has suffered a deterioration of niche protection brought on by adding feats and skills that allow other classes to morph into "Ranger-lite".  That's why I suggested ditching the non-caster ranger, because a fighter seems like a better choice in that regard.  The foundation of the ranger is already there at first level: wilderness lore and favored enemy.  Everything else builds on that, or should.  I think that's one of the failures of the Beastmaster.  It seems completely unrelated to the core ranger, other than animal=wild.  I mean, why doesn't the companion get bonuses against your favored enemy.So yeah, all of this is personal opinion.  I think Steeldragons' ranger is  good effort, I just think it needs to bake a bit more is all.  Tighten up the language, build on the foundation, and strengthen the concepts by focusing the options.  That's all.Carry on!Tom</blockquote>

Verification