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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Minigiant" data-source="post: 6665257" data-attributes="member: 63508">I'm not saying wanting a mundane ranger is bad. I'm saying D&D doesn't support this.95% of the monsters over CR 8 is a spellcaster, has alternatre movement or has some other feature which makes exploration difficult.D&D allows it's monsters to get very powerful out of combat. In 4e, this was less of a problem as out of combat power was almost all rituals or items and thus up to the DM on monster's access.  But past level 10 in most of D&D, a DM has to struggle or actively to find mundane challenges which are worthwhile.5th edition does help as a DM can see use weak monsters for a long while. But once the DM starts using mid to high CR foes... giants, vampires, genies, elementals, mages, high clerics, archdruids, demons, devisl, daemons, angels, archons, major fey, liches, dragons... mundane exploration starts to slip.I'd love a mundane ranger, but I wouldn't ever suggest playing one with the DM's promise not to use all these broken D&D monsters.Default D&D and its setting is overpowered compared to most fantasy settings. You have to go to Exalted or MTG to get more broken monsters in equal quantity. I'm not saying the ranger has to be equal to a fighter. But I'd like the ranger to have a specialty not up to the whim of the DM and not locking the campaign to using the FE a lot.5th does a good job. The fighter is the best generalist fighter. The ranger is good at "AOE" weapons combat. Being outnumbered is common enough to special without overshadowing and putting pressure on the DM. Same with the monk and rogue who excell at "skrimishing" and the paladin at "burst damage".A combat role should be general.Then you can worry about D&D and its ridiculous monsters and their spells which can do almost anything. Who thought that was a good idea?</blockquote>

Verification