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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Felon" data-source="post: 1575406" data-attributes="member: 8158">Please don't be obtuse. Class abilities are, in many cases, very specialized skillsets. As in "a wizard is skilled at casting spells". I'm taking a comprehensive look at the total class package--skills, class features, hit dice, saves, etc--over the course of 20 levels, and possibly more, whereas you're commited to looking at a very narrow conception of what a ranger should be, which sounds like a character that would never advance beyond maybe 5th level. Case in point...This hypothetical ranger probably doesn't know anything about magic, because he's too low level. Now what do you think a 15th-level ranger spends his time doing? The same thing he was doing at 3rd-level, using the same skillset? In D&D, not likely. He's OK, but in what capacity does a ranger currently excel based purely on his martial prowess? The brute strength niche is covered by the barbarian, the versatility niche is covered by the fighter, and the rogue's sneak attack outdamages them all. Maybe I'm not getting the thrust of your arguement here, but trading in an inadequate feature for a more effective one doesn't automatically unbalance a class. He's not giving up much, and he's not really getting much. He lost a little versatility, and he's getting a decent defensive ability. You seem determined not to get the other guy's point, but I'll try to put it more plainly: what class features do you think a mid-to-high-level ranger should possess? What should the ranger be capable of doing at the level that a priest is learning to cast heal? Whether it's a supernatural or extraordinary ability, it should be something that other classes don't already have covered.You mean like the same good explanation for how a bard's music can grant a similar immunity? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />The flavor tastes fine to me. I can accept a high-level ranger's rapport with nature heightening to the point where he taps ihto nature magic. Your assertions seem predicated entirely on some central authority being the arbiter of what a ranger is and isn't supposed to be good at. Case in point...Just curious, do you have similar beefs about other classes? How about bards casting spells? Should they just be magicless guys who hang out in bars and strum their mandolins? Perhaps so, but this would make a bard unplayable.</blockquote>

Verification