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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aegeri" data-source="post: 5558195" data-attributes="member: 78116">I don't mean to cut down your post of rather valid points to this alone, but this is the crux of it for me. The ranger is a striker. This is his job. He should be - first and foremost - a striker who deals damage. People who insist that it should work in being an effective option for dealing damage are 100% right. That's exactly what it should be doing and what it fails in doing. This is again, what makes it a total trap option because it performs very poorly when you actually take the powers. I am well aware of the utility of the BMR, but it's failure in the actual role of the class is extremely problematic. This is why I dislike the animal master as well. It's design is confused because like the BMR it has no idea what it's trying to do. It might get relegated to a pure flavor pet, but it's strictly worse than other options making it a trap for newer players. Advanced players might be able to get a lot out of it, such as those who realize the BMR is inherently terrible but the pet has its uses for occasionally meatshielding, sometimes flanking and the quarry advantage it provides. If 4E didn't demonstrate time and time again you can build a class with solid mechanics and achieve certain themes effectively I wouldn't be so harsh. The slayer and thief are great examples of having very simple classes to play, that are incredibly effective even against their original (already very effective) parent classes that are much more complex. That's an A+ design success there. That's what I want to see more of. I want to see less feat cruft and pure crap options. The problem as well is that I know that overpowered stuff like Order Adept, it will get fixed. Stuff that sucks? Well too bad. It will suck forever.</blockquote>

Verification