Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Seconded.But your argument about the history is also self-defeating. I mean, the druid WAS a subclass of cleric. That's the "origin" of the druid. What we would now call a domain. Druid is to Cleric as Illusionist is to Wizard (Magic User).
Not my experience at all. Though shapeshifting is popular it's by far not the only reason players choose to play Druids (Nature Clerics).But speaking only for the tables I have seen, people either want to play the druid for shapeshifting, or don't want to play it.
============================
Re: whether it should be Rangers or Druids that have animal companions as a thing: my preference is neither. Animal companions do nothing for me at all.
============================
Absolutely don't care for this at all; as it merely furthers and enhances the continuing wussification of what should be first and foremost a warrior class - a fighter with extras, equivalent but different as a class to a Paladin or a Knight or a Swashbuckler.Staffan said:If I were to do a minor re-design of the ranger, I would:
* Slightly expand their spell list with some more niche spells.
* Make them prepared casters.
* Have some of the sub-classes give bonus spells like the paladin oaths.
This would put them in a position where they would be able to adapt to different circumstances by swapping out prepared spells, and thus reward them for scouting an area before going into a dangerous situation. Need to go somewhere with sheer cliffs or otherwise vertically problematic terrain? Prep spider climb. Going into a swamp known for its poisonous snakes? Protection from poison. Looking for a particular thing? Locate object. Need to be extra sneaky? Pass without trace.
Lan-"everlasting fan of the heavy-metal tank Ranger as a character concept"-efan