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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8786927" data-attributes="member: 18">If so that goes into the "PICK A LANE!!!" factor.They need to decide what the 1D&D Ranger is.All we have in this playtest packet is a goddamn mess. It's not underpowered, really, it's arguably a mechanical upgrade from the current Ranger, but it's a goddamn mess, doesn't fit existing Ranger lore, and doesn't feel at all Witcher-y either, because it has access to exactly ZERO Witcher-style spells (most of which D&D effectively has - Quen = Shield, Aard = Thunderwave, Igni = Flaming Hands - etc. - they're actually pretty good matches!), and relies instead of spamming an incredibly boring spell that slightly increases its damage on a specific target. Does it work, mechanically? Kinda? Does it make any sense or have any style or consistency at all? Absolutely not.As for Blood Hunters, they're largely popular because they're broken OP. Not slightly OP or "as good as the most powerful normal 5E classes", straight-up broken OP. A lot of the subclasses end up having about 1.5 classes worth of power in them. Some are closer to 2. If they were not incredibly badly designed and OP I don't think anyone would be interested, as the theme-ing is pretty bad.At this point I'd honestly prefer they leant into Witcher-style antics if they want to make Ranger this serious half-caster and make most of its stuff spells. But by building the entire class around spamming Hunter's Mark (a goddamn spell directly taken from World of Warcraft, by the way, and no it didn't exist before that, except possibly in WC3! A spell so boring WoW largely dumped it too, I note - 1D&D has it work very similarly to the original boring and passive way it worked in early-ish WoW), they've created something that has fallen between two chairs so hard it's in the ambulance on the way to have its coccyx x-ray'd.</blockquote>

Verification