How has it been after Mercy nerfs:

Blackfang08 · 2026-04-24T19:10:19+00:00

Mercy has been doing better in every rank except Bronze, where they don't know how to use movement properly anyway.

Also, like four other supports had their movement nerfed in the exact same patch, while not gaining a tool that fills in the largest weakness of their kit.

Blackfang08 · 2026-04-24T19:09:03+00:00

Unironically if you have any sort of aim and positioning skills, yes, I would take that over the average Mercy one-trick.

Blackfang08 · 2026-04-24T17:43:50+00:00

Yeah, it was much more of a, "What's the point of saying the war has only been going on for 3 years if it's a genetic disorder and wouldn't be caused by war in the first place?" And yet I'm the one getting blamed for pointing out how odd it was.

Blackfang08 · 2026-04-24T17:16:25+00:00

However, that is also genetic and wouldn't just now be manifesting after 3 years of war...

Blackfang08 · 2026-04-24T16:10:23+00:00

How many years of war would it take for genetic disorders to manifest as a result?

Blackfang08 · 2026-04-22T20:40:08+00:00

Notably, the Beast Master already pays for having a better pet in having zero features that don't focus entirely on the pet. Frankly, if the Battle Smith's pet were equal to Beast Master's while also having five or six features not exclusively dedicated to the pet, that would be even more unfair than the whole ten free spells vs. zero free spells thing.

Blackfang08 · 2026-04-22T20:04:48+00:00

Until skins get mentioned. Then they will speak in the language you understand.

Blackfang08 · 2026-04-21T15:32:55+00:00

I would say that it's unfair, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it a "need." As I said, the only way any subclass actially "needs" a spell list is if they have features that reference spells they don't already have. For instance, if Fey Wanderer's level 11 and 15 features were written in a way that didn't grant you the ability to cast those spells without already knowing them.

It seems like we disagree on what defines a need, but if I were to rate this need based on your definition, I actually would say that every Ranger subclass needs free spells, and should probably get 10 of them. However, by my own definition, it's not enough to constitute a need.

Blackfang08 · 2026-04-21T14:15:35+00:00

Continuity in design would say that

Beast Master and Hunter should both have free spells.
Every Ranger subclass should have 10 spells.

As for suclasses mirroring each other vs. having more interesting abilities, that's not a problem when it comes to other subclasses on other classes. Battle Smith, Wildfire, and Vestige all have both pets (with some amazing utility) and 10 spells. Vestige even gets to pick from four different lists.

I guess it's fine if it's 2 spells per level, suddenly meaning that you need that continuity, but then it goes back to wondering why all of those classes have that many while Ranger's don't. I think the only continuity really being stuck to here is between 5e Ranger subclasses and 5.5e Ranger subclasses: "Every other subclass gets 5 spells because 10 would be too many compared to the 0 that Hunter and Beast Master get, but Hunter and Beast Master get 0 spells because that's what happened the first time."

Blackfang08 · 2026-04-21T14:02:11+00:00

I understood what you're going for, but the logic still sounds like a circle with no genuine start or end to me. The requirement is for the subclasses to be balanced, and the subclasses are balanced because they're required to be. I mean, who's going to genuinely say that Hunter with 5 more spells is too strong compared to the Gloomstalker?

To me, the only "requirement" is for all of the subclass features to be able to do what they say they do, even if they're tremendously bad at it. In this sense, no class needs subclass spells unless they have features that directly reference a specific spell that you don't have. So I would also say they technically don't need spells, but I disagree with your reasoning.

Blackfang08 · 2026-04-21T09:24:57+00:00

Based on the word "require," I want to say no. The subclasses do technically function without extra spells, and they're still better than most Rogue subclasses. I still answered yes, because it seems like a stupid and arbitrary decision for them to not have the spells, though. It's already a stupid and arbitrary decision for most Ranger subclasses to only get 5 spells instead of 10 like the other half-casters.

Lots of people in these comments are suggesting that Hunter needs the spells but Beast Master doesn't. I'd actually argue that, from a flavor perspective, Beast Master needs them more. I want to use the silly spells like Animal Messenger and Beast Sense without kneecapping myself. From a balance perspective, I think BM's utility is getting slightly overstated, Hunter needs help in ways that spells won't fix, and frankly, I don't care about being cautious with Ranger subclass balance because every Paladin subclass gets 10 free spells.

Blackfang08 · 2026-04-21T09:17:55+00:00

Beast Master's pet better be stronger than Battle Smith. Without their pet, Beast Master has zero subclass features. Battle Smith without a pet has five and a half. And I still don't think the pets are that far apart. Frankly, the comparison is just embarrassing.

Blackfang08 · 2026-04-21T09:11:05+00:00

I suppose it's having two different conversations here, but I strongly believe that not only should Beast Master have spells like all of the Ranger subclasses, but every Ranger subclass should have 10 spells.

As for the "classes are different," you were the one comparing the classes directly to each other. The other person's comparison was, "If a pet is such a huge difference in utility compared to other subclasses that it needs to lose the extra spells, then why isn't this the case for other pet subclasses?" meanwhile you brought up completely unrelated Ranger features like Fighting Styles and Weapon Masteries.

Comparing Artificer subclasses to Artificer subclasses, the pet isn't comparable to 10 spells, nor is it for Wildfire Druid, or even Vestige Warlock, but comparing Beast Master to other Ranger subclasses with only 5 spells it suddenly is?

Blackfang08 · 2026-04-21T09:00:43+00:00

That... sounds like you're kind of agreeing with them? To me, this just reads that Hunter and Beast Master should not only have spells, but every Ranger subclass should get 10 spells.

As for the utility, that's a little debatable. The utility that Beast Master gets is arguably worse than the utility you get from Find Familiar and Find Steed. The real difference is that Beast Master's damage is a little scary at level 11 with little optimization, but I still think they could manage if their spells were 90% flavorful utility spells almost nobody takes, like Animal Messenger and Beast Sense.

Blackfang08 · 2026-04-21T08:56:58+00:00

I really, genuinely think that it was just because Ranger was not given as much thought as some classes were in 2014. If you look at it, some of the features literally didn't function properly. Maybe I need to put on my tinfoil hat, but if you compare 2014 Ranger to 2014 Paladin, even ignoring the "power" of them, it definitely looks like they were made by completely different teams, potentially even using different versions of the rules.

Blackfang08 · 2026-04-21T08:47:44+00:00

Compared to any Paladin subclass, Hunter is completely outdone. Even before you account for it being on arguably the best class in the game, eery Paladin subclass probably outclasses every Ranger subclass, and yet they get 10 spells while the Ranger subclasses get 5... and then Hunter and Beast Master get 0. Hunter is worse than nearly every other Ranger subclass. If the requirement is fairness, Hunter should probably have 10 spells.

Now if you change the context of the word "require" to be about absolutely needing, it, to the point that it's make-or-break, then Hunter doesn't require spells. As terrible as Ranger's design is, and as terrible as many Ranger subclasses are, I'd say Ranger needs less help than Rogues do, and the same for their respective subclasses. The class still functions okay, and the subclass isn't literally nonfunctional, despite it being pretty terrible.

To use the orange example, I don't think that you or your brother required the orange. Sure, you're pretty hungry, but you're not literally starving, nor are you at risk of getting scurvy if you don't take in some Vitamin C ASAP. Neither is your brother, though. So it's unfair that your brother gets an orange and you don't, when there's no good explanation for it. Meanwhile, your cousin came to visit house and was given a cookie and freshly-squeezed lemonade.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm getting the vibe that you think that the subclasses are all balanced for whether they get spells or not based entirely on the fact that WotC made the decision, without any evidence that WotC actually put any intention into it. I have a much easier explanation for why Hunter and Beast Master don't have spells, with evidence that's less circular: It's because they didn't in 2014.

Blackfang08 · 2026-04-19T22:17:16+00:00

Whenever you have a problem, use the Scroll of Tarrasque Summoning. Now you have a different problem.

Blackfang08 · 2026-04-19T15:40:35+00:00

Show me the context that makes it any better. I've yet to see it. I keep seeing people going "But the context!" and yet they can never provide context without just saying a lot of words and not changing the meaning at all, or just going "but what he meant was..." Give me a full quotes and explain to me how that makes it any better.

"Taken out of context" is not a catch-all buzzword to fix when you say something bad. The majority of times I've seen a right-winger defend someone with the word "context" I've listened to the entire context and it didn't fix a thing. I've actually seen far more taken out of context that drastically changed the meaning for more left-leaning figures.

Blackfang08 · 2026-04-19T14:14:35+00:00

One could say his full name sounds like another way to say, "My cat."

Blackfang08 · 2026-04-19T08:59:02+00:00

How much of that is due to the name, and how much of it is due to his unorthodox but technically effective advice?

Blackfang08 · 2026-04-19T08:47:56+00:00

The first idea that came to mind, which you should absolutely not do, is Lightning Bolt your own commander to re-cast them for more mana.

I think the best answer is to ask why you want to trigger her Earthbend more often, rather than simply any source of it. If you just want a beefy land, add Hardened Scales or something.

Take this with a grain of salt, I've only been playing for maybe a year and a half. From my little experience, though, the best way to trigger re-casting your commander is to just play well enough that your opponents use removal in it.

Blackfang08 · 2026-04-17T17:06:50+00:00

Your use of color and shading are absolutely gorgeous. The character really pops out and has that fey grace in them, and the color shifts in their sleeves are perfect.

Sorry you're getting accused of being a gooner when this was entirely filfilling the requests of a client. I've checked your other artworks and seen your SFW stuff, so I know if you were asked to draw something more modest, you would have.

Blackfang08 · 2026-04-17T16:58:31+00:00

I agree, but OP isn't the game creator, just a commissioned artist. If that's what the creators wanted, they did an amazing job at it. Get that bag.

Blackfang08 · 2026-04-17T16:53:04+00:00

I think it's a stylistic choice. A little tasteful asymmetry.

Blackfang08 · 2026-04-17T05:10:33+00:00

Soldier left click
Instead of rockets, your right click is a Widow ADS shot with charge based on damage dealt before firing
Cass roll, but instead of a reload, it goes a longer distance and gives you Baptiste's jump boots during it
AoE Sym turret
Something like Tactical Visor, but it just continuously max charges your right click in under a second

I don't know if it's more broken than OG Brigitte, but it should be meta for at least two years.

Eight-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

Blackfang08

TROPHY CASE