Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 6764890" data-attributes="member: 5100">Absolutely. I just don't think it's something every ranger shares. Sounds perfect for a subclass.Agreed. Having come to that realization, myself, I started trying to figure out what I can compromise on and what I can't.I prefer a spell-casting Ranger. I loathe the "druidic paladin" trope. If the spell-casting speaks to most people (especially the folks at WotC writing the fluff) as being druidic paladins, then dump it or put it into a subclass. If it can be done neutral or favoring "I USE nature, not serve it", then that would be ideal. Again, I'd prefer spell-casting, but moving it to a subclass would be a (tough, last-ditch) concession I could make. It's also better than druid-paladin.I have no interest in having a ranger with a pet -- at least, I wouldn't want every ranger to have one. But, I can see it as a valid character concept. For lack of a better home, it wouldn't suck as a subclass of ranger.I like Favored Enemy or some other variation that makes me dangerous to whomever I've chosen to hunt. I think it should be core to the Ranger, because, well, hunter. But, I could live with it being a subclass feature. I wouldn't want to give on much else, though.I see the Ranger as being physically somewhat tougher than fighters. In hit point terms, they don't need a higher hit die, but I wouldn't object. The d8 hit die granted to the 3.5 ranger instantly made it "not a ranger", though. I really, really, really, extremely like the 2d6 hit die from latest UA ranger. That one mechanic, combined with the myriad of interactions with things like short rests, captured the ranger's toughness better than anything I've seen before. If it's a balance issue, I could live with it being 2d4, but it wouldn't be my first choice. As far as infringing on the barbarian's schtick, the barbarian can take a hike; the ranger is a significantly longer history (the 3E-5E barbarian doesn't share anything besides the d12 with the 1E version) and has first pick. At the very least, the barbarian doesn't have to be the only tough guy.I want stealth. It shouldn't be as good as Rogue (and isn't, if the rogue chooses), but it should be there -- and better in the wilds. The PHB ranger hit the right balance. It should not improve or decrease, unless there's a subclass to make them better in the wilds.I want hard to surprise. Again, the 5E PHB did well. If there was a lobby to make it better, I wouldn't object, but wouldn't join.I don't get the TWF thing. No relation to being a wilderness warrior. I have now interest in it, and it has some tradition. Archery had some implied tradition in 1E. The way 5E handled fighting style is darn good. If you're going to lock them in, though, TWF can't be it. I actually wouldn't be terribly happy being locked into archery, but it at least makes some sense.Does anyone actually object to rangers being able to track? If there's only one thing that can be safely said to be core to the ranger, it's got to be tracking.I do not want druid-paladin. I think I've said that, already, but it deserves its own point. There is no negotiation on this. In fact, I really don't even want to see it as a subclass option, unless I can get everything else I want out of the deal and then proceed to ignore the subclass in my game.That's the one.</blockquote>

Verification