NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Psion" data-source="post: 210914" data-attributes="member: 172">Um, 7th, PC has warned us to cool it, so I'll make this brief.Just because you weren't talking to me doesn't mean I can't take exception to what you were saying. This is a public forum and all.Fair enough, but I might point out that one's personal take on what a class "should be" is pretty much that, a personal take.As for me, I tweak the ranger to, but not to provide more power... but to provide more options. Like Rokugan, I let rangers trade spellcasting levels for feats.That said, I see nothing wrong with the concept of a spellcasting ranger. In D&D spells are used to represent more that magical incantations. A number of magical effects get codified as spells. And the types of capabilities granted by the rangers spell lists... like speaking to animals and making friends with them... is perfectly appropriate for rangers.Well I ordered it, but someone sent me Faiths & Pantheons instead... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />It's not versatility unless they are options to your specific character. And as the number of spells you can learn overall or use in a day have not changed, then the net effect of versatility is slim, if any.I think different characters have different roles, and a wizard is never going to replace a rogue. Sure, they might get a spell that lets them trump one rogue's ability, but that does not make the rogue defunct. Okay, so the wizard can now fly and (say) get to a precipice with greater ease than a rogue can. Can he search and disarm traps better when he gets there?That is the only conclusion that I can come to if you don't realize how easily a high level party can tip a wizard back on his heels.Well first off, a wizard only has a limited selection of spells and those spells are only going to be loaded for combat if the wizard is expecting combat. Wizards who are making items will have spells ready to make items. Wizards who are involved in a plot to dominate the king's servants and scry on the king will have scrying and enchantment spells ready. Short answer: use logic and don't metagame.More generally, my comment was saying that "single combat" is not the sole test of power of a class.So? 1) D&D is built around the assumption of a 4 person party. The "single combat" theory does not stand up because the single combat theory is not representative of the way people game.2) D&D also relies on magic items as part of the balance. Were it not so, I would agree with you wholeheartidly that a wizard kicks the snot out of any other class. But there is a very good chance indeed that a non-spellcaster could have a magic item to crimp the wizard's style.And I'll say it again: feats and spells are not equivalent. Spells use temporary resources, and once expended, are gone.Scrolls also use resources, as in XP, which is not so easily surrendered as you suggest. And as I have already said, spells are convenient (I think intentionally so) at low levels, but the cost escelates RAPIDLY as the spell and caster levels increase.You can bash it all you want. The fact is for some characters, toughness IS a productive feat. It doesn't have to be a productive feat for your particular character to be justified in the game.But you dismiss it being used as a prerequisite?Are you trying to get me to just repeat myself?I agree it has room for improvement, and never said otherwise. I also said Dragons CRs are at the very least wrong. But I also think you have expectations of the system that aren't realistic. It is never going to compensate for the exact circumstances of the encoutner or the party preparedness or tactics.I have no "vaunted" designers per se. I like his writing, but he isn't perfect. I have always criticised his alt.ranger, I only gave "Queen of Lies" a 3, and were I to write a review of BoEM II, it would probably also be a "3".But that's not what I was talking about. I am talking about the FAN alt.rangers. I have yet to see one I consider appropriate.</blockquote>

Verification