Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Indaarys" data-source="post: 8970728" data-attributes="member: 7040941">Part of the contention is that some, like me, think those things are better represented as their own class, rather than being compressed into the Ranger. Beastmaster for instance is explicitly its own literary trope, and the source material is deep enough to build out an entire class with. Compressing all of that into a subclass for a Class that also has to support Aragorn, Geralt, and a bunch of others robs both of their potential. Same goes for Shapeshifters and Druids. And incidentally, as it happens, both Druids and Rangers tend to suffer because the main creative bodies that pushed them as explicit character concepts never seemed to know what to do with them and still don't, despite the concepts growing beyond just their original material. That was one of my early assessments of the 5E Ranger. It really should have just been a 1/3 caster. Cause while I don't like the idea as the Ranger always being a spellcaster, Ive also still enjoyed the flavor and potential characters that came out of stuff like Horizon Walker or Gloomstalker, and Drakewarden was the most fun Ive had as a 5E Ranger. It doesn't have to be an either/or, but it also doesn't have to be a take it or leave it.</blockquote>