Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gadget" data-source="post: 6688419" data-attributes="member: 23716">Hmmm...yet another variant Ranger.  It seems that the devs struggle to get this right.  IIRC, the Ranger was not in the public play test, so they did not get much feed back from the General public.  There is such a diversity of views on what he Ranger is, I guess this is inevitable.  One of the Ranger's problems has been that in many games, the exploration pillar where a lot of the Rangers specialty and flavor lives, is glossed over a lot.  You have to have some flash in the combat pillar to really get noticed.  Now I know this is not a universal truth, but I think it happens often enough to cause problems in many players' perception of the class.For what it's worth, I don't feel the Ranger's schtick is to be 'gish' class, at least in the strict definition of "Warrior who fights with both blade and spell" sense.  Nor do I feel a 'nature paladin' is a fit either (that could be the oath of ancients paladin), as that is just smacks of forced symmetry and filling in the matrix.  Most of the Ranger's magic has been to reinforce the utility abilities and skills the archetype has in a D&D sense and give the class some ommph; especially in a system that traditionally has skills that lag far behind other character abilities.  In this sense I like that the Ranger has its own spell list, tailored for him, rather than borrowing from the Druid list (though there is some overlap).  If you look at most of the Ranger spells as 'cool things a Ranger can do because...reasons(skill, training, talent, etc), then they start to make more sense.  Admittedly this does not work for all of the Ranger's spells, but this is D&D after all.</blockquote>

Verification