Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ZeshinX" data-source="post: 8046364" data-attributes="member: 6793656">I've always viewed Rangers as guerilla-style warriors, using &quot;dirty&quot; tactics and harrying their opponents.&nbsp; Their affinity for terrain and wildcraft existed mostly to serve that need, that approach to fighting (know the terrain and use that knowledge against the enemy), rather than any particular faithful devotion to nature itself.&nbsp; They have a vested interest in protecting said nature, since to them, it's another tool or weapon, no more or less critical than the bow and/or sword they carry...and it's home to them.The rangers of Gondor (as depicted in the Lord of the Rings films) are a good example of that.&nbsp; They're far less effective once it becomes a stand-up brawl (since their lower numbers can't exactly support that type of more &quot;proper military&quot; engagement).&nbsp; Rangers can be effective combatants in such a brawl given sufficient numbers, but that's not utilizing them to their best effect, since their training implies that guerilla-style, ambush type of warfare and large numbers typically works against that.This is why I'm not a fan of rangers in 5e...they lean too much into the spellcasting/druidic elements and not remotely enough into their (what I view as their primary facet) martial nature.&nbsp; I always felt their spellcasting should have been part of an archetype, not core to the class, and should have been more utilitarian in scope (Entangle, Fog Cloud, effects that deal with terrain and manipulating it) rather than enhancing their combat output (Hunter's Mark and the like).There's plenty of interpretations of the class, each as perfectly valid as the next.&nbsp; I do find the 5e Ranger misses the mark, as the base class plays into pillars that are not particularly interesting (exploration is the most hand-waved...it's enough to have a Ranger present than to play it out in dull minutae) and, more or less, forces the interpretation of a druidic/spellcasting warrior on to it.&nbsp; I'd rather the spellcasting be shunted into an archetype that supports that vision of the ranger, an archetype that supports the guerilla tactics, etc.&nbsp; The base class should be the platform from which the various interpretations spring.&nbsp; The 5e Ranger only kinda/sorta does it.&nbsp; Some of the revisions started to address that, but they gave up too soon.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ZeshinX, post: 8046364, member: 6793656"] I've always viewed Rangers as guerilla-style warriors, using "dirty" tactics and harrying their opponents. Their affinity for terrain and wildcraft existed mostly to serve that need, that approach to fighting (know the terrain and use that knowledge against the enemy), rather than any particular faithful devotion to nature itself. They have a vested interest in protecting said nature, since to them, it's another tool or weapon, no more or less critical than the bow and/or sword they carry...and it's home to them. The rangers of Gondor (as depicted in the Lord of the Rings films) are a good example of that. They're far less effective once it becomes a stand-up brawl (since their lower numbers can't exactly support that type of more "proper military" engagement). Rangers can be effective combatants in such a brawl given sufficient numbers, but that's not utilizing them to their best effect, since their training implies that guerilla-style, ambush type of warfare and large numbers typically works against that. This is why I'm not a fan of rangers in 5e...they lean too much into the spellcasting/druidic elements and not remotely enough into their (what I view as their primary facet) martial nature. I always felt their spellcasting should have been part of an archetype, not core to the class, and should have been more utilitarian in scope (Entangle, Fog Cloud, effects that deal with terrain and manipulating it) rather than enhancing their combat output (Hunter's Mark and the like). There's plenty of interpretations of the class, each as perfectly valid as the next. I do find the 5e Ranger misses the mark, as the base class plays into pillars that are not particularly interesting (exploration is the most hand-waved...it's enough to have a Ranger present than to play it out in dull minutae) and, more or less, forces the interpretation of a druidic/spellcasting warrior on to it. I'd rather the spellcasting be shunted into an archetype that supports that vision of the ranger, an archetype that supports the guerilla tactics, etc. The base class should be the platform from which the various interpretations spring. The 5e Ranger only kinda/sorta does it. Some of the revisions started to address that, but they gave up too soon. [/QUOTE]

Verification