D&D (2024) Ranger 2024 is a bigger joke than Ranger 2014:

[Scott Christian]

I feel like issues with OP multiclass combinations should be handled at the table level, not legislated by the designers.

I'm sorry, but that makes zero sense (to me). It's the game designer's job to balance the game, or at least try to balance it in feel. Why would that go away with multi-classing?

 

[Scott Christian]

If you drop concentration on your favored foe, hit it again and mark it again it is not the first time you hit it either.



And using your bonus action for about 5 damage every round is bad too.

The difference here is I still have my bonus action so it is 1d4 and I am giving up nothing in terms of action economy.

I would rather have my bonus action available along with 1 or 2 points less damage.

Of course you would. All players would. The cleric would rather have their bonus action and still be able to heal someone, just a few less HP. The two-weapon fighter would rather have their bonus action and just do a few points less damage. The thief would rather have their bonus action and only dash 15'.

It amazes me how often things like this come up. It completely undermines the entire structure of the rule's system.

If you have a complaint about the thematic or lore of the ranger, that is completely understandable. If you don't like the class abilities given, that can be debated too. But the position "I want more" always seems to be the end-crux of the argument.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm sorry, but that makes zero sense (to me). It's the game designer's job to balance the game, or at least try to balance it in feel. Why would that go away with multi-classing?

Because my priority is simulating things in an imaginary world, not making sure they're all balanced with each other. Let the tables find their best balance (which will subjective anyway), and leave the rules to actually make good mechanical representations.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Because my priority is simulating things in an imaginary world, not making sure they're all balanced with each other. Let the tables find their best balance (which will subjective anyway), and leave the rules to actually make good mechanical representations.

Then D&D 5e is not the game for you.

 

[mellored]

Because my priority is simulating things in an imaginary world, not making sure they're all balanced with each other. Let the tables find their best balance (which will subjective anyway), and leave the rules to actually make good mechanical representations.

In what simulation would anyone risk their live without having the strongest combination of skills and powers they can could?

 

[ECMO3]

Of course you would. All players would. The cleric would rather have their bonus action and still be able to heal someone, just a few less HP. The two-weapon fighter would rather have their bonus action and just do a few points less damage. The thief would rather have their bonus action and only dash 15'.

It amazes me how often things like this come up. It completely undermines the entire structure of the rule's system.

My complaint is not about HM needing a bonus action. My complaint is about HM being a core part of the Ranger when it is so weak.

Also to my knowlege Clerics do not have an ability to heal someone as a class feature and the Clerics I have played in 5E in fact rarely healed anyone at all.

It is not being able to move away from HM that really bothers me and my initial post on the subject was that it should be replaced by something else, even a ribbon. That is how this discussion came up originally

 

[Scott Christian]

My complaint is not about HM needing a bonus action. My complaint is about HM being a core part of the Ranger when it is so weak.

Also to my knowlege Clerics do not have an ability to heal someone as a class feature and the Clerics I have played in 5E in fact rarely healed anyone at all.

It is not being able to move away from HM that really bothers me and my initial post on the subject was that it should be replaced by something else, even a ribbon. That is how this discussion came up originally

Fair enough. But from your first post, it really sounds like you are just asking for more. And you are correct, healing word is a spell, not a class ability. I was just using it as an example, albeit a poor one. Thanks for clarifying the position.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

In what simulation would anyone risk their live without having the strongest combination of skills and powers they can could?

On that note, I think there is lot you could do with 1-2 levels of Warlock being tempting to every class...

If, you know, selling your soul / swearing allegiance to otherworldly powers actually mattered at all.

 

[Corinnguard]

The two-weapon fighter would rather have their bonus action and just do a few points less damage.

If I was playing a Fighter with the Two-Weapon Fighting style, I would like it if they could do more offhand attacks with their bonus action as they leveled up. Anyone know why 5e nerfed this fighting style by giving more attacks to your primary hand and only one attack to your offhand?

 

[Chaosmancer]

If I was playing a Fighter with the Two-Weapon Fighting style, I would like it if they could do more offhand attacks with their bonus action as they leveled up. Anyone know why 5e nerfed this fighting style by giving more attacks to your primary hand and only one attack to your offhand?

5e has always been that way? So was 4e?

So, are you asking why everyone being able to make a single bonus action attack with their off-hand, with no feats, and the only penalty being that they can't add their dex mod to the damage without a fighting style is "nerfed" from 3.5 where... looking it up you got a single extra attack with your off-hand, as long as you took a -6 penalty to your main hand and a -10 penalty to your off-hand...

I'm not seeing the nerf anywhere.