Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rocker26a" data-source="post: 9256982" data-attributes="member: 7042495">You get what I mean. It's not hard to imagine a Ranger that just does not fit the flavour of that sort of effect. Or on the more extreme level, simply does not use or even carry a ranged option despite it being a good idea, nevermind using a spell that specifically requires one. <s>Hell we're not extremely far off from Minsc there.</s> And if you genuinely never intend to use it, but you're forced to take it to progress in your class, then you got nothing that level!I think part of the problem is that we're just in too deep, and things that shouldn't be spells are, and there's no real mechanism for undoing that. What do you do when Hunter's Mark is effectively crowned Ranger's signature class feature, but Hunter's Mark is still duty bound to continue existing? Outside of "jump ship, kick off the next edition and fix it in that", since they've ruled out abandoning 5E and are seeking to fold One D&D back into it.I think there are more tolerable instances than others. The spell in question is a big factor for me personally. I could deal with Hunter's Mark being a rendered a class feature because you can spin it however you want, give it whatever flavour suits. It could be different per character even. Whereas something like the Conjure (ranged attack) spells, they're more particular and will just be a non-starter for some <s>(me)</s>.</blockquote>