Timeline for Would giving PHB Ranger archetypes extra "spells known" unbalance them?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 6, 2018 at 15:18 | comment | added | Man_Over_Game | @Ruse I added it this way to provide a universal balance template for future readers. The concept of adding spells to a subclass when other subclasses have spells and the target subclass does not is a very niche situation. This example, though, is fairly universal for modifying classes and other people can use something similar to make their own modifications. It's a little out there, but I like to provide ideas that more people will use rather than providing the best short term answer possible. I could do the same thing, sans spells like you suggest with what I have, but it'd be big. | |
| Sep 6, 2018 at 15:14 | history | edited | Man_Over_Game | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 63 characters in body
|
| Sep 6, 2018 at 14:15 | vote | accept | NathanS | ||
| Sep 5, 2018 at 19:24 | comment | added | Ruse | The only problem I have with your current comparison is that it is impossible to tell how much of that final +3 is dependent on the HW's extra spells. I think that the answer would be slightly better if it compared the Hunter and HW features without the extra spells. Ideally, the final result would be 0±1, showing that it is reasonable to give the Hunter some extra spells to match the HW's. | |
| Sep 5, 2018 at 17:08 | comment | added | NotArch | Fair enough - I think there are flaws in the argument, but I'm not sure they're big enough to actually be a problem :) | |
| Sep 5, 2018 at 17:05 | comment | added | Man_Over_Game | @NautArch That's a fair point, but at the same time, HW converts that attack into Force damage, which isn't resisted by pretty much any creature ever. I didn't quite list everything, to avoid clutter, but I tried to give an assessment based off of the majority of the concerns I saw. | |
| Sep 5, 2018 at 16:56 | history | edited | Man_Over_Game | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 18 characters in body
|
| Sep 5, 2018 at 16:48 | comment | added | NotArch | Gotcha, although the Hunter features are an always-on combat direct impact thing (especially for 3rd level), but the HW provides some out of combat utility or a combat option that requires utilizing your bonus action). Depending on your campaign, I think that can change the assessment. For instance, Colossus slayer generally lets you deal that same extra d8 that HW gets without losing your bonus action. | |
| Sep 5, 2018 at 16:32 | comment | added | KorvinStarmast | While I personally call the level 17 +1 for the HW, not +2, and +2 not +3 at level 3, I think this was a good analysis. (Similar to what I recall being in my notes), ) | |
| Sep 5, 2018 at 16:29 | history | edited | Man_Over_Game | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 56 characters in body
|
| Sep 5, 2018 at 16:24 | history | edited | Man_Over_Game | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 20 characters in body
|
| Sep 5, 2018 at 16:21 | comment | added | Man_Over_Game | @NautArch I chose the easiest ones to compare to. I assume all choices for Hunters at each upgrade are considered equal, so I just pick the one easiest to compare to against the Horizon Walker's features at the same level. A good example is the level 17 upgrade, which is almost identical to the Horizon Walker's ability, except that it halves all damage (so it stacks with resistance) but it requires sight. Requiring vision is a much bigger deal than worrying about stacking resistance. | |
| Sep 5, 2018 at 16:17 | comment | added | NotArch | Not saying there's a problem, but are you saying that each of the Hunter options at those levels are equal in comparison to the Horizon Walker (you chose Horde Breaker, but are the other two options equal in comparison as well/) | |
| Sep 5, 2018 at 16:12 | history | answered | Man_Over_Game | CC BY-SA 4.0 |