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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gladius Legis" data-source="post: 7033931" data-attributes="member: 68748">I love how you parsed my statement into two separate items as if they weren't part of the same thought. I see you are not arguing in good faith.What's the point of this tautology?Because 5e has an established precedent for handling characters attacking without weapons still being able to bypass DR/magical. Making it a spell instead just adds more clutter. And makes it a spell tax. It's an inelegant solution when an elegant solution already exists.Again, you keep ignoring the part where I've mentioned the ranger's connection with the beast is magical. And what Hong Kong movies pray tell have "monks" or "martial artists" fighting literal ghosts?Now you're just getting into silly semantics. Also, most monsters that have DR/magical in the first place don't have weapons to disarm, or even might be too big to disarm, trip or grapple. Not nearly as reliable as a spellcaster's good ol' Forcecage.But you're not giving EVERYONE that key. You're giving one full class and one subclass that key right now, and maybe another one, too. That's not "everyone." Hyperbole makes your argument null and void.You're begging more questions. What makes an interesting game? What makes interesting class features? Why can't a means to passively overcome DR/magical be interesting? What if the Beast Ranger *gasp* needs that feature to actually BE interesting, or at least be played according to its inherently interesting concept?Because like the Moon Druid and the Monk, its main avenue of offense is not a weapon. Those two (sub)classes have abilities to overcome DR/magical as part of their package so their character concept actually works effectively in-game. If the Beast Ranger is going to work effectively, then it needs something similar.If that's difficult to understand, then I can't help you.</blockquote>

Verification