The ones in UA are better balanced. Just take a look at any of the SCAG subclasses (except for the Arcana Domain and Rogue subclasses), or the three in Explorer's Guide to Wildemount. There's a lot of stuff in those subclasses that could have been fairly easily fixed if they had put it in the UA.
(Of course, UA isn't perfect, proven by the existence of the Order of the Scribes and the Circle of Wildfire's loss of Fire Bolt and Fireball)
That seems true. UA is probably much better for catching small mistakes and weird interactions, since so many people see it. I doubt it as effective with large rules changes though; I feel that a lot of stuff that makes it through UA ends up being dumbed down.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
That seems true. UA is probably much better for catching small mistakes and weird interactions, since so many people see it. I doubt it as effective with large rules changes though; I feel that a lot of stuff that makes it through UA ends up being dumbed down.
Definitely. The loss of the Psionic Talent Die proves this, as do most other changes from the UA to official form of the subclasses/spells. 5e's unspoken, yet clear motto is "Keep It Simple, Stupid".
I definitely got help on my Enigmatic Esoterica forms with strange rule interactions that could be exploited. I'm an optimizer, which means I look for these kinds of combinations, so I'm better at finding issues than most people are, but I still fail to see certain combos from time to time.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
That seems true. UA is probably much better for catching small mistakes and weird interactions, since so many people see it. I doubt it as effective with large rules changes though; I feel that a lot of stuff that makes it through UA ends up being dumbed down.
Definitely. The loss of the Psionic Talent Die proves this, as do most other changes from the UA to official form of the subclasses/spells. 5e's unspoken, yet clear motto is "Keep It Simple, Stupid".
I definitely got help on my Enigmatic Esoterica forms with strange rule interactions that could be exploited. I'm an optimizer, which means I look for these kinds of combinations, so I'm better at finding issues than most people are, but I still fail to see certain combos from time to time.
It's a good thing to have the weird unexpected things pop up in UA.
That seems true. UA is probably much better for catching small mistakes and weird interactions, since so many people see it. I doubt it as effective with large rules changes though; I feel that a lot of stuff that makes it through UA ends up being dumbed down.
Definitely. The loss of the Psionic Talent Die proves this, as do most other changes from the UA to official form of the subclasses/spells. 5e's unspoken, yet clear motto is "Keep It Simple, Stupid".
I definitely got help on my Enigmatic Esoterica forms with strange rule interactions that could be exploited. I'm an optimizer, which means I look for these kinds of combinations, so I'm better at finding issues than most people are, but I still fail to see certain combos from time to time.
It's a good thing to have the weird unexpected things pop up in UA.
However it's not always fixed lol
I 100% agree. However, WotC seems to fixate on certain mechanics, like they are currently doing for "you may use this feature an amount of times proficiency bonus each long rest" mechanics. If they fixate too much on something, it makes a serious disconnect between the previous status quo and the new normal. I like new changes and unique mechanics, but I wish they sprinkled in normal ways of having features recharge (X ability score modifier times each long rest or once a short rest, for example).
New mechanics are great and cool, but if they do too much new mechanics, the game starts feeling like it's becoming a different game than it was for.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I honestly wish they'd start making UA ranger classes with 2 spells already known at each interval compared to the current 1. Paladin already outshines most classes in terms of raw damage, and I always felt like Ranger's versatility was its strong suit, so I have no clue why they've insisted on only giving them 5 spells when paladin gets 10. Hell, I don't know why they didn't rewrite hunter and beastmaster to have spell lists, frankly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's ok Ranger, you'll always be cool to me.. Unless druid gets another use for its wild shape charges.
I honestly wish they'd start making UA ranger classes with 2 spells already known at each interval compared to the current 1. Paladin already outshines most classes in terms of raw damage, and I always felt like Ranger's versatility was its strong suit, so I have no clue why they've insisted on only giving them 5 spells when paladin gets 10. Hell, I don't know why they didn't rewrite hunter and beastmaster to have spell lists, frankly.
Paladins were always more versatile with their spells than rangers, shown by the fact that paladins get to prepare their spells and rangers have to learn them. Sometime during the design process of 5e, they decided that the Ranger doesn't deserve to be anywhere near the power level of the Paladin and that they also don't deserve to be near the level of versatility that the paladin is. (TBH, the versatility of the paladin spell list rarely matters, as they typically use most of their spell slots for Divine Smites. At least they have the option to be versatile, even if they normally choose to not be versatile. It's better than the ranger, as it isn't versatile and doesn't have the option to be versatile.)
As for why they didn't give Hunters or Beast Masters extra spells known, it's for the same reason they didn't do that with all of the previous Sorcerer subclasses, even though all of the new ranger and sorcerer subclasses get those spell lists. I don't know what this reason is, and I'm sure it doesn't hold water, but WotC has decided that they're not going to make any subclasses better unless it is so broken that it can be unplayable (previous Beast Master).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Don't know why Ranger's can't prepare their spells either, seeing as they refer to their magic as being "much like a druid" or "druidic" several times throughout the books. That's definitely not going to change in this edition, though. At this point whenever I want to play a melee ranger, I just make an OoTA Paladin and change some flavor things around.
Also, funny you should mention that seeing as they went back and buffed Bladesinger (I've never played one so I have no clue if it was underpowered or not before this, but it doesn't seem like it was on paper) in a manner that makes it seem like it's probably the best blade-and-spell class now. But yea, no, lets just let Draconic Bloodline/Storm Sorcery/Wild Magic stay as they are. Hell, at least Shadow Sorcery gets a free Darkness spell and Divine Soul gets the entire cleric spell list to choose from.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's ok Ranger, you'll always be cool to me.. Unless druid gets another use for its wild shape charges.
Don't know why Ranger's can't prepare their spells either, seeing as they refer to their magic as being "much like a druid" or "druidic" several times throughout the books. That's definitely not going to change in this edition, though. At this point whenever I want to play a melee ranger, I just make an OoTA Paladin and change some flavor things around.
Oath of Vengeance and Oath of Watchers also work pretty well as pseudo-rangers, especially if you focus on Dexterity. Oath of Vengeance gets hunter's mark, and can easily be flavored as having your Oath sworn for revenge against a "Favored Enemy" that wronged you.
Also, funny you should mention that seeing as they went back and buffed Bladesinger (I've never played one so I have no clue if it was underpowered or not before this, but it doesn't seem like it was on paper) in a manner that makes it seem like it's probably the best blade-and-spell class now. But yea, no, lets just let Draconic Bloodline/Storm Sorcery/Wild Magic stay as they are. Hell, at least Shadow Sorcery gets a free Darkness spell and Divine Soul gets the entire cleric spell list to choose from.
They only changed the Bladesigner because they reprinted it. They're not going to reprint the subclasses in the PHB or in XGtE anytime soon, so unless they do so (which would be unprecedented) for some strange reason, they're not getting changes.
I agree that they should get additional spell lists, I'm just explaining the warped and nonsensical reason that WotC doesn't give them the spell lists.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
If the change was only because they were reprinting it, they would've left it alone like the reprints from the other books. Aside from the racial exclusivity (which nobody really paid attention to anyway), there was no reason to change its mechanics, but they did. I'm not complaining about it, If anything it makes me want to Bladesinger now. The ability to cast a cantrip as a part of your extra attacks without even needing to activate your bladesong really makes it feel like you're actually merging spell and sword.
Also yea, Vengeance is another one I'd consider for that, but can't say I've read over Watchers enough to really have an opinion on it. While we're on the subject of Paladins, are they ever going to actually make an Oath of Trickery/Treachery/Deception/Anarchy subclass? I've only played 5e and a bit of Pathfinder, but without looking it up I'm fairly certain that idea has existed before, right?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's ok Ranger, you'll always be cool to me.. Unless druid gets another use for its wild shape charges.
If the change was only because they were reprinting it, they would've left it alone like the reprints from the other books. Aside from the racial exclusivity (which nobody really paid attention to anyway), there was no reason to change its mechanics, but they did. I'm not complaining about it, If anything it makes me want to Bladesinger now. The ability to cast a cantrip as a part of your extra attacks without even needing to activate your bladesong really makes it feel like you're actually merging spell and sword.
I agree 100% that the change to Extra Attack is really good. They did slightly nerf Bladesong to make it less common, though.
However, they decided that something about the subclass was designed in a bad way, so they decided to change it in the reprint. It's not normally something that happens, but there hasn't really been a huge chance for them to do it until now. They had already reprinted most of the well-designed SCAG subclasses (the only one left out now is the Arcana Domain Cleric), and decided to fix one of the unbalanced subclasses that they wanted to reprint.
Also yea, Vengeance is another one I'd consider for that, but can't say I've read over Watchers enough to really have an opinion on it. While we're on the subject of Paladins, are they ever going to actually make an Oath of Trickery/Treachery/Deception/Anarchy subclass? I've only played 5e and a bit of Pathfinder, but without looking it up I'm fairly certain that idea has existed before, right?
They once did a UA with the Oath of Treachery, but people didn't like it because it seems counterintuitive to have a subclass based on someone swearing an oath of betraying, as they would probably immediately become an Oathbreaker from betraying their oath. It also did poison damage, which is underpowered, so the idea was dumped. I do want an "Oath of Freedom/Liberty" paladin that is more chaotic than the others, but more fights for the personal rights and freedoms of others.
The Oath of Watchers is okay. It's not particularly memorable, but it's better than the Oath of the Crown and Oath of Glory as a paladin concept. It is also fairly well designed, with really good Channel Divinities, Auras, a great reaction ability, and potent and powerful "saving throw punishment" ability. For some reason, I kind of forgot that it existed until the book came out, but it's kind of cool and would fit as a replacement for a Horizon Walker ranger.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Eh, the proficiency bonus switch is something I don't think you would notice in most groups, since there' usually only one big combat encounter per long rest anyway. From a flavor standpoint, having abilities tied to proficiency makes more sense to me.
I actually really like Oath of Glory, and I would totally play it. The idea of someone swearing an oath to their own greatness and essentially believing in their own hype so hard that they get magic powers is incredibly funny to me. It also has a lot of roleplay potential if you planned on changing oaths halfway through the campaign. Maybe your starry-eyed young character swore an oath to heroism after reading about classic tales of good and evil and mighty heroes slaying evil villains and got sick of all of the black-and-white rhetoric?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's ok Ranger, you'll always be cool to me.. Unless druid gets another use for its wild shape charges.
There's a big difference between two bladesongs a short rest and an amount each long rest equal to your proficiency bonus.
I really liked the idea of the Oath of Glory, but its mechanics don't emulate their theme. Greek Heroes didn't increase the speed of their allies or give temporary hit points.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Nobody's saying it didn't get nerfed, just that it wouldn't matter too much because for most campaigns, since there's only one large fight per session. It's a change that could be completely negligible, way better, or flat out worse, depending on how your group operates.
Yea that's fair about OoG though. I'm glad it's been reprinted as a non-theros class so I can just pretend it's about the classic hero stereotype and his group of friends being bolstered and not the lone greek hero they designed it from.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's ok Ranger, you'll always be cool to me.. Unless druid gets another use for its wild shape charges.
I honestly wish they'd start making UA ranger classes with 2 spells already known at each interval compared to the current 1. Paladin already outshines most classes in terms of raw damage, and I always felt like Ranger's versatility was its strong suit, so I have no clue why they've insisted on only giving them 5 spells when paladin gets 10. Hell, I don't know why they didn't rewrite hunter and beastmaster to have spell lists, frankly.
well at least for the hunter ranger there also are not a whole lot of spells that would make sense, the subclass is not really oriented towards magic, only martial combat ability and with all the customization you have for what an hunter can do there is no single set of abilities that would fit every hunter the same way that the monster slayer ranger can (since it is more about combating magical threats, spell casters, dragons etc)
they could get a minor feature to make up for this lack of flexibility compared to other sub classes, such as perhaps getting additional hit dice, d4, equal to your ranger level (on top of your existing ranger hit dice) that can only be spent during short rests (in other words they would not count towards their hit point maximum or be able to be spent on stuff like abberant dragonmark or dwarven fortitude, it just allows the hunter to spend more hit dice during a short rests and have more hit dice to spend during short rests granting them greater longevity)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Nobody's saying it didn't get nerfed, just that it wouldn't matter too much because for most campaigns, since there's only one large fight per session.
I'm not sure this is true for most campaigns. If you're in a dungeon, you will probably have several encounters in a day. Officially, the game is designed around an adventuring day of ~6 encounters with ~2 short rests. Of course no one sticks to this like clockwork and there will be slow days, but I wouldn't assume that most people have 1 big fight a day. I think your experience might deviate from the norm if that's what your games are always like. There are a lot of people who consider the bladesong limit to be a huge nerf.
I personally wouldn't want to play one at a level lower than 11 or so. Not because it's not balanced correctly, but because if I play a bladesinger I want to be using my bladesong in most fights because I picked bladesinger so I could bladesing.
Nobody's saying it didn't get nerfed, just that it wouldn't matter too much because for most campaigns, since there's only one large fight per session.
I'm not sure this is true for most campaigns. If you're in a dungeon, you will probably have several encounters in a day. Officially, the game is designed around an adventuring day of ~6 encounters with ~2 short rests. Of course no one sticks to this like clockwork and there will be slow days, but I wouldn't assume that most people have 1 big fight a day. I think your experience might deviate from the norm if that's what your games are always like. There are a lot of people who consider the bladesong limit to be a huge nerf.
I personally wouldn't want to play one at a level lower than 11 or so. Not because it's not balanced correctly, but because if I play a bladesinger I want to be using my bladesong in most fights because I picked bladesinger so I could bladesing.
i think what seven over here is refering to is that they have several smaller encounters of easy or trivial difficulty but then one single encounter that is significantly harder than the rest. As for if that is the norm or not well the amount of games i actiually play is too pitiful for me to actually tell, the short rest restriction is still a huge deal and kinda stupid
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
In the campaigns that I have run and have taken part in a single encounter is fairly common during travel while multiple encounters between rest only seem to happen in "dungeons". Of course this is only when talking about combat encounters.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The ones in UA are better balanced. Just take a look at any of the SCAG subclasses (except for the Arcana Domain and Rogue subclasses), or the three in Explorer's Guide to Wildemount. There's a lot of stuff in those subclasses that could have been fairly easily fixed if they had put it in the UA.
(Of course, UA isn't perfect, proven by the existence of the Order of the Scribes and the Circle of Wildfire's loss of Fire Bolt and Fireball)
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
That seems true. UA is probably much better for catching small mistakes and weird interactions, since so many people see it. I doubt it as effective with large rules changes though; I feel that a lot of stuff that makes it through UA ends up being dumbed down.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Definitely. The loss of the Psionic Talent Die proves this, as do most other changes from the UA to official form of the subclasses/spells. 5e's unspoken, yet clear motto is "Keep It Simple, Stupid".
I definitely got help on my Enigmatic Esoterica forms with strange rule interactions that could be exploited. I'm an optimizer, which means I look for these kinds of combinations, so I'm better at finding issues than most people are, but I still fail to see certain combos from time to time.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
It's a good thing to have the weird unexpected things pop up in UA.
However it's not always fixed lol
Considering that the current Ranger and Sorcerer were play tested by the masses prior to release shows that it is not really a guarantee of success.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I 100% agree. However, WotC seems to fixate on certain mechanics, like they are currently doing for "you may use this feature an amount of times proficiency bonus each long rest" mechanics. If they fixate too much on something, it makes a serious disconnect between the previous status quo and the new normal. I like new changes and unique mechanics, but I wish they sprinkled in normal ways of having features recharge (X ability score modifier times each long rest or once a short rest, for example).
New mechanics are great and cool, but if they do too much new mechanics, the game starts feeling like it's becoming a different game than it was for.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Definitely. It's generally better than just their private playtesting, though. UA is better than private playtesting, but it isn't perfect.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I honestly wish they'd start making UA ranger classes with 2 spells already known at each interval compared to the current 1. Paladin already outshines most classes in terms of raw damage, and I always felt like Ranger's versatility was its strong suit, so I have no clue why they've insisted on only giving them 5 spells when paladin gets 10. Hell, I don't know why they didn't rewrite hunter and beastmaster to have spell lists, frankly.
It's ok Ranger, you'll always be cool to me.. Unless druid gets another use for its wild shape charges.
Paladins were always more versatile with their spells than rangers, shown by the fact that paladins get to prepare their spells and rangers have to learn them. Sometime during the design process of 5e, they decided that the Ranger doesn't deserve to be anywhere near the power level of the Paladin and that they also don't deserve to be near the level of versatility that the paladin is. (TBH, the versatility of the paladin spell list rarely matters, as they typically use most of their spell slots for Divine Smites. At least they have the option to be versatile, even if they normally choose to not be versatile. It's better than the ranger, as it isn't versatile and doesn't have the option to be versatile.)
As for why they didn't give Hunters or Beast Masters extra spells known, it's for the same reason they didn't do that with all of the previous Sorcerer subclasses, even though all of the new ranger and sorcerer subclasses get those spell lists. I don't know what this reason is, and I'm sure it doesn't hold water, but WotC has decided that they're not going to make any subclasses better unless it is so broken that it can be unplayable (previous Beast Master).
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Don't know why Ranger's can't prepare their spells either, seeing as they refer to their magic as being "much like a druid" or "druidic" several times throughout the books. That's definitely not going to change in this edition, though. At this point whenever I want to play a melee ranger, I just make an OoTA Paladin and change some flavor things around.
Also, funny you should mention that seeing as they went back and buffed Bladesinger (I've never played one so I have no clue if it was underpowered or not before this, but it doesn't seem like it was on paper) in a manner that makes it seem like it's probably the best blade-and-spell class now. But yea, no, lets just let Draconic Bloodline/Storm Sorcery/Wild Magic stay as they are. Hell, at least Shadow Sorcery gets a free Darkness spell and Divine Soul gets the entire cleric spell list to choose from.
It's ok Ranger, you'll always be cool to me.. Unless druid gets another use for its wild shape charges.
Oath of Vengeance and Oath of Watchers also work pretty well as pseudo-rangers, especially if you focus on Dexterity. Oath of Vengeance gets hunter's mark, and can easily be flavored as having your Oath sworn for revenge against a "Favored Enemy" that wronged you.
They only changed the Bladesigner because they reprinted it. They're not going to reprint the subclasses in the PHB or in XGtE anytime soon, so unless they do so (which would be unprecedented) for some strange reason, they're not getting changes.
I agree that they should get additional spell lists, I'm just explaining the warped and nonsensical reason that WotC doesn't give them the spell lists.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
If the change was only because they were reprinting it, they would've left it alone like the reprints from the other books. Aside from the racial exclusivity (which nobody really paid attention to anyway), there was no reason to change its mechanics, but they did. I'm not complaining about it, If anything it makes me want to Bladesinger now. The ability to cast a cantrip as a part of your extra attacks without even needing to activate your bladesong really makes it feel like you're actually merging spell and sword.
Also yea, Vengeance is another one I'd consider for that, but can't say I've read over Watchers enough to really have an opinion on it. While we're on the subject of Paladins, are they ever going to actually make an Oath of Trickery/Treachery/Deception/Anarchy subclass? I've only played 5e and a bit of Pathfinder, but without looking it up I'm fairly certain that idea has existed before, right?
It's ok Ranger, you'll always be cool to me.. Unless druid gets another use for its wild shape charges.
I agree 100% that the change to Extra Attack is really good. They did slightly nerf Bladesong to make it less common, though.
However, they decided that something about the subclass was designed in a bad way, so they decided to change it in the reprint. It's not normally something that happens, but there hasn't really been a huge chance for them to do it until now. They had already reprinted most of the well-designed SCAG subclasses (the only one left out now is the Arcana Domain Cleric), and decided to fix one of the unbalanced subclasses that they wanted to reprint.
They once did a UA with the Oath of Treachery, but people didn't like it because it seems counterintuitive to have a subclass based on someone swearing an oath of betraying, as they would probably immediately become an Oathbreaker from betraying their oath. It also did poison damage, which is underpowered, so the idea was dumped. I do want an "Oath of Freedom/Liberty" paladin that is more chaotic than the others, but more fights for the personal rights and freedoms of others.
The Oath of Watchers is okay. It's not particularly memorable, but it's better than the Oath of the Crown and Oath of Glory as a paladin concept. It is also fairly well designed, with really good Channel Divinities, Auras, a great reaction ability, and potent and powerful "saving throw punishment" ability. For some reason, I kind of forgot that it existed until the book came out, but it's kind of cool and would fit as a replacement for a Horizon Walker ranger.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Eh, the proficiency bonus switch is something I don't think you would notice in most groups, since there' usually only one big combat encounter per long rest anyway. From a flavor standpoint, having abilities tied to proficiency makes more sense to me.
I actually really like Oath of Glory, and I would totally play it. The idea of someone swearing an oath to their own greatness and essentially believing in their own hype so hard that they get magic powers is incredibly funny to me. It also has a lot of roleplay potential if you planned on changing oaths halfway through the campaign. Maybe your starry-eyed young character swore an oath to heroism after reading about classic tales of good and evil and mighty heroes slaying evil villains and got sick of all of the black-and-white rhetoric?
It's ok Ranger, you'll always be cool to me.. Unless druid gets another use for its wild shape charges.
There's a big difference between two bladesongs a short rest and an amount each long rest equal to your proficiency bonus.
I really liked the idea of the Oath of Glory, but its mechanics don't emulate their theme. Greek Heroes didn't increase the speed of their allies or give temporary hit points.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Nobody's saying it didn't get nerfed, just that it wouldn't matter too much because for most campaigns, since there's only one large fight per session. It's a change that could be completely negligible, way better, or flat out worse, depending on how your group operates.
Yea that's fair about OoG though. I'm glad it's been reprinted as a non-theros class so I can just pretend it's about the classic hero stereotype and his group of friends being bolstered and not the lone greek hero they designed it from.
It's ok Ranger, you'll always be cool to me.. Unless druid gets another use for its wild shape charges.
well at least for the hunter ranger there also are not a whole lot of spells that would make sense, the subclass is not really oriented towards magic, only martial combat ability and with all the customization you have for what an hunter can do there is no single set of abilities that would fit every hunter the same way that the monster slayer ranger can (since it is more about combating magical threats, spell casters, dragons etc)
they could get a minor feature to make up for this lack of flexibility compared to other sub classes, such as perhaps getting additional hit dice, d4, equal to your ranger level (on top of your existing ranger hit dice) that can only be spent during short rests (in other words they would not count towards their hit point maximum or be able to be spent on stuff like abberant dragonmark or dwarven fortitude, it just allows the hunter to spend more hit dice during a short rests and have more hit dice to spend during short rests granting them greater longevity)
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
I'm not sure this is true for most campaigns. If you're in a dungeon, you will probably have several encounters in a day. Officially, the game is designed around an adventuring day of ~6 encounters with ~2 short rests. Of course no one sticks to this like clockwork and there will be slow days, but I wouldn't assume that most people have 1 big fight a day. I think your experience might deviate from the norm if that's what your games are always like. There are a lot of people who consider the bladesong limit to be a huge nerf.
I personally wouldn't want to play one at a level lower than 11 or so. Not because it's not balanced correctly, but because if I play a bladesinger I want to be using my bladesong in most fights because I picked bladesinger so I could bladesing.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
i think what seven over here is refering to is that they have several smaller encounters of easy or trivial difficulty but then one single encounter that is significantly harder than the rest. As for if that is the norm or not well the amount of games i actiually play is too pitiful for me to actually tell, the short rest restriction is still a huge deal and kinda stupid
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
In the campaigns that I have run and have taken part in a single encounter is fairly common during travel while multiple encounters between rest only seem to happen in "dungeons". Of course this is only when talking about combat encounters.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master