|
1 year ago ::
Jan 29, 2012 - 8:34AM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
Yeah, favoured enemy pick a race was creepy, the whole reason I never played rangers.
I like the idea of specializing in killing a certain type of creature.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 01, 2012 - 9:23AM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Nov 21, 2010
|
I still think the 4e ranger was the only time they got it right...but that's my opinion. I just hope I can rebuild my 4e ranger in 5e.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 01, 2012 - 10:13AM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Aug 30, 2007
|
I kind of miss the old rangers when everyone wasn't an archer or TWF. Then again, there wasn't much variety back then because of the lack of TWF and other options, but I'd like to see them all exist side by side.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls.
God of ownership and possession.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 01, 2012 - 1:27PM
#24
|
|
|
I'm irritated by all the people here saying rangers can't have face skills.
Sure they can! They shouldn't be as good as a bard, but if there's going to be options to make a charismatic fighter, then there should be options to make a charismatic ranger as well. Giving one and denying the other doesn't feel like it matches the spirit of DDN.
That out of the way, here's my opinion.
I FRIGGIN LOVE TWIN STRIKE - But it is OP right from level 1 and never stops being OP until high levels where it levels out but is still really friggin good. I'm not sure how to balance it. Maybe make the second attack reliant on the first hitting (like Dual Weapon Attack, but not limited to once a round, once a turn would be good). Maybe this is a static at-will that can be switched out for something else depending on how you build your ranger.
The things that I like about the concept of a ranger in my eyes:
Exploration
Survivability
Flexibility within specializations (I'm good with a bow and an axe, but I'm REALLY good with an axe)
If the base class can make use of those three concepts in the design, I should be happy.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 05, 2012 - 4:43PM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Maybe this is a static at-will that can be switched out for something else depending on how you build your ranger.
Like a proper beast that is your second attack
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 05, 2012 - 4:44PM
#26
|
|
|
I'm irritated by all the people here saying rangers can't have face skills.
More to the point, the concept of the class skill list needs to be flushed. Let everybody take whatever skills they feel are appropriate to their character.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 05, 2012 - 5:19PM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Nov 23, 2004
|
I'm inclined to agree with Salla on removing class skill lists. If you want to emphasize certain skills for a class, that can be reflected with class features (or free skill training as a class feature).
My favorite aspect of the class has always been the crazy wilderness denizens as followers (which later translated to beast companions in 3rd and 4th). My hope is that it will be a feature, or at least an option.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 05, 2012 - 5:25PM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
Aren't they doing away with skills completely anyway?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 05, 2012 - 5:27PM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Nov 23, 2004
|
From what I understand, they are not completely gone, but rather much more simplified.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 13, 2012 - 12:35PM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Jul 14, 2010
|
I never felt their was a very good fluff justification of rangers getting magic. Firstly can anybody explain that to me (without getting setting specific) and secondly how should they be rebalanced if the spells were removed? I was thinking the favoured enemy could be drastically improved or the animal companion could be on par with a druid's.
|
|
|
