Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 9078544" data-attributes="member: 6704184">Most invisibility works a certain way, not just from spells. Either way though, you're not going to be in darkness fighting creatures that rely on darkvision all that often.People will still use it, when the situation calls for it. Other times they'll use those spell slots for other spells that better fit the circumstance. That's good. They should lean further away from making things rely on HM, anyway.It's objectively very little. Ribbon features can be always on, they're ribbons because they don't really matter most of the time. Regardless, it's one feature each in two subclasses. The class isn't leaning heavily on the feature.I doubt they failed to account for that at all. They put meaningful choices in the class, and gave different tools for different situations.You're the one claiming the class is meant to be built so that rangers are casting HM frequently and judging it based on that. I'm telling you that this wouldn't be the case unless they busted the spell completely, which would be very bad for the class. The last thing we should want is for a class to revolve around one spell.I haven't been even low key aggressive. You always get like this whenever someone criticizes treatmonk and his opinions on the game.You can't possibly have read my response and concluded that I was unaware that you were making a joke, my dude. Seriously, read what you're replying to.Feel free to quote exactly where I insulted you, please. Hell, I didn't insult him, either, but if you think criticism of someone's analysis and how they view the thing they make their name analyzing is insulting, well... I think that's nonsense, but whatever.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="doctorbadwolf, post: 9078544, member: 6704184"] Most invisibility works a certain way, not just from spells. Either way though, you're not going to be in darkness fighting creatures that rely on darkvision all that often. People will still use it, when the situation calls for it. Other times they'll use those spell slots for other spells that better fit the circumstance. That's good. They should lean further away from making things rely on HM, anyway. It's objectively very little. Ribbon features can be always on, they're ribbons because they don't really matter most of the time. Regardless, it's one feature each in two subclasses. The class isn't leaning heavily on the feature. I doubt they failed to account for that at all. They put meaningful choices in the class, and gave different tools for different situations. You're the one claiming the class is meant to be built so that rangers are casting HM frequently and judging it based on that. I'm telling you that this wouldn't be the case unless they busted the spell completely, which would be very bad for the class. The last thing we should want is for a class to revolve around one spell. I haven't been even low key aggressive. You always get like this whenever someone criticizes treatmonk and his opinions on the game. You can't possibly have read my response and concluded that I was unaware that you were making a joke, my dude. Seriously, read what you're replying to. Feel free to quote exactly where I insulted you, please. Hell, I didn't insult him, either, but if you think criticism of someone's analysis and how they view the thing they make their name analyzing is insulting, well... I think that's nonsense, but whatever. [/QUOTE]

Verification