Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Einlanzer0" data-source="post: 6872429" data-attributes="member: 6788934">But it's important to note there's a double standard here. What you said above is true for a lot of other classes as well. The Ranger is merely the one that gets singled out for it. One reason why is because people perceive it to lack a unifying mechanic (other than beastmaster), but that's not really a legitimate argument. Not only is the ranger not unique in this aspect, but it's also a false dilemma in the context of class design. Possessing a singular, unique, overarching mechanic isn't what should arbitrate what is or isn't worthy of being a class. It's all about the theme, baby, and how well you can flesh out a set of abilities that fits into that theme well. The problem with the ranger lies only with its execution in 5e, not with the class concept itself. The chief problem is that it tries to be too many things at the same time, which makes all of its various mechanics and abilities seem half-developed.While I'm sure we'd disagree on some of the details, I think that Necron has exactly the right approach here.</blockquote>