Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6772977" data-attributes="member: 996">Not at all, really.&nbsp; Prior to 4e, there was a clump of obviously-woodsy classes:&nbsp; the Druid, Ranger, &amp; Barbarian, and that was that.&nbsp; In 4e, 'primal' was teased out from 'divine' with a somewhat bizarre/arbitrary newly-invented 'primal spirits' (instead of losing-side-of-the-Dawn-War 'Primordials') rationalization and the Barbarian magick-ized to fit with the Druid, Shaman, Warden, and, later, ranger-like Seeker and ranger-sub-class Scout &amp; Hunter.&nbsp; We're back to the same woodsy club as in the past, and calling it 'primal' or making anything of it when the Ranger &amp; Druid have neo-Vancian spell abilities exactly like those of the Paladin &amp; Cleric seems kinda pointless.Maybe, but it'd be a comparatively new direction (outside of Essentials, the Ranger was never 'Primal').I agree, but it's a funny thing some of us feel that way.&nbsp; The original Ranger class was not at all suited to archery.&nbsp; It had the proficiency, but that was about it.&nbsp; The Fighter could specialize more heavily (once that became a thing), had a better attacks/round progression and could prioritize DEX more easily than a Ranger (who required multiple moderately high stats to qualify) - the Ranger worked all too well as a heavily armored melee type.&nbsp; Yet the Archer idea was pervasive, and there was even an Archer-Ranger &quot;NPC class&quot; in The Dragon back in the day.&nbsp; Then the Ranger went TWFing in 2e, got more spellcasting sooner and could opt for TWFing or Archery in 3e, and dropped casting to become a dedicated TWFer or Archer in the 4e PH.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6772977, member: 996"] Not at all, really. Prior to 4e, there was a clump of obviously-woodsy classes: the Druid, Ranger, & Barbarian, and that was that. In 4e, 'primal' was teased out from 'divine' with a somewhat bizarre/arbitrary newly-invented 'primal spirits' (instead of losing-side-of-the-Dawn-War 'Primordials') rationalization and the Barbarian magick-ized to fit with the Druid, Shaman, Warden, and, later, ranger-like Seeker and ranger-sub-class Scout & Hunter. We're back to the same woodsy club as in the past, and calling it 'primal' or making anything of it when the Ranger & Druid have neo-Vancian spell abilities exactly like those of the Paladin & Cleric seems kinda pointless. Maybe, but it'd be a comparatively new direction (outside of Essentials, the Ranger was never 'Primal'). I agree, but it's a funny thing some of us feel that way. The original Ranger class was not at all suited to archery. It had the proficiency, but that was about it. The Fighter could specialize more heavily (once that became a thing), had a better attacks/round progression and could prioritize DEX more easily than a Ranger (who required multiple moderately high stats to qualify) - the Ranger worked all too well as a heavily armored melee type. Yet the Archer idea was pervasive, and there was even an Archer-Ranger "NPC class" in The Dragon back in the day. Then the Ranger went TWFing in 2e, got more spellcasting sooner and could opt for TWFing or Archery in 3e, and dropped casting to become a dedicated TWFer or Archer in the 4e PH. [/QUOTE]

Verification