Revised Ranger update

[Hussar]

Was asleep and missed a bunch D:

/snip

Well let's see. For one, it's not official, so no, the problem's not fixed. For two, the Revised Ranger Beastmaster comes with the horrible Revised Ranger. And for three, the Revised Beastmaster seems a little too strong. So typical UA problems. Not official, too powerful.

Wouldn't the solution be then to pair the original ranger class with the UA Beast Master? Simply use the sub-class without the revised base class?

And, why does it matter if it's "official" or not?

 

[Mistwell]

You know, I wouldn't mind some additional animals to choose from. Something like a Coelophysis dinosaur. AC 14, Bite +5, 4d6 damage, pack tactics. That's roughly the same as the giant poisonous snake. Some more direct-damage oriented beasts might help things.

 

[Yunru]

Also, what evidence would you really accept? Is there *anything* Crawford could show you to back up his statement that you would accept?

Well the source data would be a good start...

 

[Gladius Legis]

After seeing the PF2 Paladin, I will never again* complain about the 5e Ranger ...

(* OK, this isn't a promise, but still, while the 5e Ranger ceertainly has its serious design flaws, it's a masterpiece compared to some other dumpster fires of classes in other games of the D&D/Pathfinder line. Again, see the PF2 Paladin.)

 

[Horwath]

After seeing the PF2 Paladin, I will never again* complain about the 5e Ranger ...

(* OK, this isn't a promise, but still, while the 5e Ranger ceertainly has its serious design flaws, it's a masterpiece compared to some other dumpster fires of classes in other games of the D&D/Pathfinder line. Again, see the PF2 Paladin.)

Like PF2 Ranger is any better

 

[Gladius Legis]

Like PF2 Ranger is any better

It's a bit underwhelming but not a fundamentally inept mess like the PF2 Paladin is.

 

[Mistwell]

Well the source data would be a good start...

Here is what would happen of WOTC gave over valuable market research source data to a message board public:

1) No matter what the data says, those who don't like their decision will spin it to claim WOTC made a mistake;
2) They will gain no good will from doing it from anyone who doesn't already agree with them;
3) They will set a precedent that they should do that again in the future;
4) Their competitors in the marketplace will have the data they paid to gather for their own use.

We know the first three from how people already react to any data from WOTC of any kind. It's a no-win scenario for them.

This is also why almost no companies release market research source data to their consumers. It's not smart.

So we're left with you either trust what the people who have access to that data say about it, or you don't. If you don't, releasing that data won't likely change any minds anyway. As almost everyone does trust them already and those who do not will use the data against them anyway, there is no real point to releasing it.

 

[Satyrn]

You know, I wouldn't mind some additional animals to choose from. Something like a Coelophysis dinosaur. AC 14, Bite +5, 4d6 damage, pack tactics. That's roughly the same as the giant poisonous snake. Some more direct-damage oriented beasts might help things.

My players get additional animals to choose from. They get skags for example, which are like wolves, but meaner. And rakks have flyby with a far more damaging attack than an owl.

Spiderants, scythids and threshers are also available.

There definitely should be animals available that reinforce the setting's feel.

 

[Gradine]

My players get additional animals to choose from. They get skags for example, which are like wolves, but meaner. And rakks have flyby with a far more damaging attack than an owl.

Spiderants, scythids and threshers are also available.

There definitely should be animals available that reinforce the setting's feel.

The more I learn about your Borderlands campaign the more I want to learn more about it.

 

[Satyrn]

The more I learn about your Borderlands campaign the more I want to learn more about it.

Perhaps the most important thing you to know is that when I say something is corrosive, I mean it. Here's a snippet from the corrosive skag:

Armor-Corroding Bite. If the target of the skag's bite is wearing metal armor, the armor becomes lightly corroded. (-1d4) if the armor is already lightly corroded it becomes moderately corroded (-1d6) ; and moderately corroded armor becomes severely corroded (-1d8). Corroded armor has a penalty die that is rolled each time the wearer is attacked. If this penalty results in the armor providing an AC bonus of 0 or less, the armor is wrecked (magic armor gets a DC 10 death save to avoid this fate).

Weapon-Corroding Blood. A metal weapon that deals damage to a corrosive skag becomes lightly corroded (-1d4). if the weapon is already lightly corroded it becomes moderately corroded (-1d6) ; and a moderately corroded weapon becomes severely corroded (-1d8). A corroded weapon has a penalty die that is rolled each time it deals damage. If a corroded weapon ever deals 0 damage it is wrecked (a magic weapon gets a DC 10 death save to avoid this fate).

Badass corrosive skags have a breath weapon . . . that corrodes all armor and weapons in hand. Rust monsters are cute.