Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JRRNeiklot" data-source="post: 1615136" data-attributes="member: 717">Actually, I'm playing 3.11 for workgroups.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":-)" title="Smile    :-)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":-)" />The 2 hit dice at first level was because rangers are tough.  They are not scouts, nor are they wilderness rogues.  They are warriors first and foremost.  They learn spells due to their intimate familiarity with nature.  They gain magic user spells because they are also scholars.  The only thing setting them apart from fighters should be feats.  And they should make up for this with their spells, and against monstrous humanoids (orcs, etc) they should put the fighter to shame.  Against all others, the fighter should be better, but only slightly.  The ranger should be equal to the barbarian and paladin in combat.  All this wilderness rogue, scout crap just makes me sick.The 1e ranger got it right, ever since then he's been slowly rogueified.  As someone else said, the ranger as he stands now has no place in D&D.  He is a fighter/rogue hybrid that can't fight well, and can't do rogue things well.  Sure, he can sneak up on someone, but surprise without sneak attack dice is hardly worth it.  There is already a very serviceable rogue, no need in forcing that role on one who was formerly a warrior.This is, of course, all my opinion only, if you want your ranger to be a second rate fighter or second rate rogue, go right ahead.</blockquote>

Verification