Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 7375859" data-attributes="member: 6795602">Thanks for being more specific1. The Ranger Class in 5e is generally viewed as being bad and while the subclasses in Xanather's helped the basic concept of an outdoors warrior that gets magical abilities for being so close to nature is lacking.4. Of course it will be a very generic Ranger subclass and will not be able to cover concepts like beastmaster rangers and such. For that we would need a full class and I hope one day they release a variant ranger class that works for all this. 5. I'm a little leery about whether the important abilities will come together early enough. I think they will but I could be mistaken.1.&nbsp; I see part of the issue.&nbsp; That shouldn't say lacking but instead should say solid.5.&nbsp; I was concerned the abilities may not come together fast enough but I was still very hopeful they would.4.&nbsp; Subclasses are good for specific concepts not super broad ones.&nbsp; Saying a single fighter subclass can't make every type of ranger imaginable is not selling the subclass short, it's acknowledging a simple fact.So yes I do think the generic nature magic wilderness guy that's more fighter than wizard is a very good concept and one a fighter subclass can nicely fill until we get an actual class that can take on most all the ranger concepts out there.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 7375859, member: 6795602"] Thanks for being more specific 1. The Ranger Class in 5e is generally viewed as being bad and while the subclasses in Xanather's helped the basic concept of an outdoors warrior that gets magical abilities for being so close to nature is[B] lacking[/B]. 4. Of course it will be a very generic Ranger subclass and will not be able to cover concepts like beastmaster rangers and such. For that we would need a full class and I hope one day they release a variant ranger class that works for all this. 5. I'm a little leery about whether the important abilities will come together early enough. I think they will but I could be mistaken. 1. I see part of the issue. That shouldn't say lacking but instead should say [B]solid[/B]. 5. I was concerned the abilities may not come together fast enough but I was still very hopeful they would. 4. Subclasses are good for specific concepts not super broad ones. Saying a single fighter subclass can't make every type of ranger imaginable is not selling the subclass short, it's acknowledging a simple fact. So yes I do think the generic nature magic wilderness guy that's more fighter than wizard is a very good concept and one a fighter subclass can nicely fill until we get an actual class that can take on most all the ranger concepts out there. [/QUOTE]

Verification