Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 7114293" data-attributes="member: 6704184">[MENTION=17607]Pauper[/MENTION] I know all of that old school info, and I played a handful of rangers in 3.5 and 4e (pre-3e I was all about bards and rogues). I'm not particularly concerned with when the animal companion became part of the Ranger's identity. Just a quick note, though. The BM option came into 4e exactly because people felt it was part of the ranger's identity, and spoke up to that effect when wotc put out a ranger with no companion. The ranger has a pet in 5e in part due to that, in part bc people wanted it when surveyed, and in part bc the pet is part of the identity of the concept, in TTRPGs and video RPGs, from WoW to Dragon Age and beyond. I don't care what the identity used to be, I care what it currently is. One of the most requested changes in DDO for years was giving rangers a pet, until finally they gave rangers quicker access to a decent summon animal spell, and put a feat in the game to boost summoned and controlled allies. Even still, a lot of people want there to be a specialization that boosts use of that feature for rangers. Beyond all that, the revised class functions really well, is very fun to play, and surveys well with the broader DnD playing base. All on it's own, no need to multiclass. The hunter sits just fine alongside the newer conclaves, and fills a different role from them. It does what people want from a ranger, and does it well. Have you actually played it, or been at a table with it?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="doctorbadwolf, post: 7114293, member: 6704184"] [MENTION=17607]Pauper[/MENTION] I know all of that old school info, and I played a handful of rangers in 3.5 and 4e (pre-3e I was all about bards and rogues). I'm not particularly concerned with when the animal companion became part of the Ranger's identity. Just a quick note, though. The BM option came into 4e exactly because people felt it was part of the ranger's identity, and spoke up to that effect when wotc put out a ranger with no companion. The ranger has a pet in 5e in part due to that, in part bc people wanted it when surveyed, and in part bc the pet is part of the identity of the concept, in TTRPGs and video RPGs, from WoW to Dragon Age and beyond. I don't care what the identity used to be, I care what it currently is. One of the most requested changes in DDO for years was giving rangers a pet, until finally they gave rangers quicker access to a decent summon animal spell, and put a feat in the game to boost summoned and controlled allies. Even still, a lot of people want there to be a specialization that boosts use of that feature for rangers. Beyond all that, the revised class functions really well, is very fun to play, and surveys well with the broader DnD playing base. All on it's own, no need to multiclass. The hunter sits just fine alongside the newer conclaves, and fills a different role from them. It does what people want from a ranger, and does it well. Have you actually played it, or been at a table with it? [/QUOTE]

Verification