Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AmerginLiath" data-source="post: 6445969" data-attributes="member: 777">Pretty much every change in the Ranger this edition excited me to read. Favored Enemy in particular is a great change: bonuses to hit and damage are boring while increased knowledge and markers of a character's training of dealing with all the idiosyncrasies of a species (YES!!! MOAR LANGUAGES!!!) are really, really cool. Likewise a focus on terrain choice as a second axis of specialization without losing the first. As for spells? They were there at the start, and the decreased focus in 3.x because Drizz't didn't use them and their loss in 4e because reasons doesn't mean the Ranger doesn't get his toolbox back – especially when his toolbox is this awesome.Hunter is really neat, as folks have said. It's not about combat bonuses – IT'S NEVER ABOUT COMBAT BONUSES – it's about whether the class makes a neat impression for the player to build around. In combat, exploration, and social (especially social with particular races), the Hunter is an exceptional chassis. Likewise, the Beastmaster looks to be fun (even if the Hunter is more my style). The &quot;MOAR ACTIONS FOR ME BUT NOT FOR THEE!&quot; idea is generational and doesn't reflect traditional ranging, so I'm glad to see it go, above and beyond how it was abused at the table (much like I'm glad to not have to sit through Rogue's with eight sneak attacks or whatever).The other thing to keep in mind is that we've spent how many years as a culture dealing with an epidemic of dogs being rescued from dogfighting rings over the last decade (as someone from the Philadelphia area, the Michael Vick story was of course the big one)? Yes, of course let's train lots of fighting animals!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AmerginLiath, post: 6445969, member: 777"] Pretty much every change in the Ranger this edition excited me to read. Favored Enemy in particular is a great change: bonuses to hit and damage are [i]boring[/i] while increased knowledge and markers of a character's training of dealing with all the idiosyncrasies of a species (YES!!! MOAR LANGUAGES!!!) are really, really cool. Likewise a focus on terrain choice as a second axis of specialization without losing the first. As for spells? They were there at the start, and the decreased focus in 3.x because Drizz't didn't use them and their loss in 4e because reasons doesn't mean the Ranger doesn't get his toolbox back – especially when his toolbox is this awesome. Hunter is really neat, as folks have said. It's not about combat bonuses – IT'S NEVER ABOUT COMBAT BONUSES – it's about whether the class makes a neat impression for the player to build around. In combat, exploration, and social (especially social with particular races), the Hunter is an exceptional chassis. Likewise, the Beastmaster looks to be fun (even if the Hunter is more my style). The "MOAR ACTIONS FOR ME BUT NOT FOR THEE!" idea is generational and doesn't reflect traditional ranging, so I'm glad to see it go, above and beyond how it was abused at the table (much like I'm glad to not have to sit through Rogue's with eight sneak attacks or whatever). The other thing to keep in mind is that we've spent [i]how[/i] many years as a culture dealing with an epidemic of dogs being rescued from dogfighting rings over the last decade (as someone from the Philadelphia area, the Michael Vick story was of course the big one)? Yes, of course let's train lots of fighting animals! [/QUOTE]

Verification