Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gadget" data-source="post: 7680678" data-attributes="member: 23716">Upon further reflection, I have refined how I feel about this new Ranger, all the additional comments have helped.2d6 Hit Dice.  Serves to make the Ranger a tough and resilient survivalist and does not, contrary to the often voiced opinion, make them more buff, or tanky than the Barbarian.  Both are offered an average option of (7) hit points per level, the Barbarian's has merely been rounded up.  With only light armor and no Rage/damage mitigation, it is a nice way to show endurance and a good nod to the old AD&D Ranger that got 2d8 HD at first level.  Like it. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />Ambuscade - Conceptually, I like the idea of what they are trying to accomplish with this feature and it seems like the kind of thing you want a tough skirmisher to have.  Mechanically, I don't like the one level multi-class bait, and the power level is extremely questionable, to say the least.  Someone up thread suggested taking a leaf from the wilderness Rogue of 3.5 and using similar mechanics, that might be an option.  Verdict: ehhh. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm    :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" />Skirmisher's Stealth - Once again, I kind of like what they are trying to do with the concept, but I'm starting to get a little bit squeamish about treading on the Rogue/Assassin Shadow/Monk.  Mechanically, I'm more worried about not only the balance, but the whole foundation of the stealth rules it is built upon.  Not sure <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/ponder.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":hmm:" title="Hmmm    :hmm:" data-shortname=":hmm:" />Spirit Animals - I think this might make a decent sub class for the Ranger, perhaps it would benefit from following in the Totem Barbarian's footsteps and allow the Ranger to pick and choose between the various animals at different levels.  But as a shot at getting the Ranger 'right', I thought the spelless ranger they offered earlier was a better attempt.  I'm not sure the whole 'Spirit Shaman' vibe is not better in a different class, or that such a subclass is that high on the list Ranger sub classes we need or want.  It almost seems like a pseudo-replacement for the Beastmaster variant to give the pet more bite (<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> see what I did there?) while trying to make it more balanced.  The abilities granted still feel kind of arbitrary.  Verdict - not so good <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f631.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":eek:" title="Eek!    :eek:"  data-smilie="9"data-shortname=":eek:" />I am beginning to think that they could take some of the features from this variant (2d6 hit dice, light armor, two good saves), the hoard breaker, colossus slayer options from the Hunter Ranger, the poultice ability from the spelless ranger, maybe a reworked ambuscade/skirmisher ability, jettison this whole 'nature paladin' thing, and you could have a Ranger I would really like.That being said, I do not mind having a spell casting Ranger, perhaps as a subclass.  The Ranger has been a spell caster in every edition of D&D except 4e, so I don't see it as too much of a problem; it is a nice way to give the Ranger some outdoors flavored utility and power with a tried and true sub system of the game.</blockquote>

Verification