Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 7680322" data-attributes="member: 1465">I don't like this version of the Ranger either, quite many reasons... 1) More HP. Let's skip the fact that to me at first sight it felt like a bait ("We're buffing the Ranger! More HP, better ST, free herbalism!"). The last thing people have been complaining about the Ranger class is its HP. This is a totally unnecessary change. The choice of 2d6 is also inelegant, and unnecessary as well considering the minimal difference.2) Two major saving throws instead of one major and one minor as everyone else. Why? Not a big deal for sure, but breaking a pattern just because is the kind of thing that gives a sloppy feeling to a design.3) No spellcasting. I like Rangers with spells, but I can totally see the point of those who don't. The problem with this version is that it doesn't cast spells but it's still magical. So what's the difference? I don't believe that people who dislike spellcasting rangers just say so because they dislike the mechanics. This version practically casts "Summon bear/eagle/wolf" once a day + has an encounter-based semi-magical power.4) A summon 1/day is not a companion. It's a combat buff. A companion is supposed to be a lot more than that. I don't care what Drizz't fans say.5) Despite of the previous two points, I don't actually dislike the Spirit Companion idea itself, not at all. But I think it is too strong and too narrow to be the default for all Rangers. Seriously, the most common complaints about the Ranger identity are because a lot of people hate magical rangers, and a lot of other people hate pets, so you give the Ranger a magical pet? If the Spirit Companion was meant just for a subclass, then it would be ok.6) Ambuscade might be the most acceptable addition but doesn't fully convince me because of how it's worded. It's a free attack (or hide attempt) at the beginning of a fight, unless surprised (in which case you are not surprised). 7) Skirmisher’s Stealth... considering how stealth and hiding in 5e are purposefully vague to let different groups handle the topic the way they want, this ability (which assumes a specific interpretation of such rules) really shouldn't appear anywhere, except maybe on a feat (which is easy to rule out), much less on the 2nd level of a base class.Conclusion: - As a replacement for the Ranger class, this is horrible. - As a variant Ranger alongside the PHB default, I still dislike most of it and I don't think it solves any identity/conceptual problem. - As a Ranger subclass (meaning to keep only the Spirit Companion, drop all other changes, and just put the Spirit Companion and improvements to it in place of subclass features) it can be quite good.</blockquote>

Verification