Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Stormonu" data-source="post: 8425155" data-attributes="member: 52734">I picked Ranger because the mechanics don't meet the fluff of the class.Also, I'm not sold by the presentation of the Artificer much either, but haven't played the class or conceived of a character concept yet that'd entice me to play as one.  That may be just because the class is so new to me, though - it took a while for me to warm up to Warlocks when they first showed up too.A lot of the 5E classes suffer from structure-itis, and despite the appearance, have very narrow effective ways to be "built" - Warlocks with their Eldritch Ray (making Hexblades difficult to build), Paladins using Smite (making spell-based paladins difficult), Rogues depending on Sneak Attack (making non-skirmishers difficult), and the whole rigidity of the Monk class (unarmed attack or nothing, every monk has the same exact abilities).  Sometimes the homoginization of 5E's sacrifice of general playability versus options gets on my nerves, but at the same time I glance at PF2 and see what going whole-hog on options costs.</blockquote>