Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TwoSix" data-source="post: 8786367" data-attributes="member: 205">Legolas is a fighter.&nbsp; He has some nature-y stuff on account of being an elf in a world where &quot;elf&quot; does a ton of work.&nbsp; Same thing for Katniss Everdeen.&nbsp; She's a bow user who's good in the woods.&nbsp; She has high Dex, and stealth and survival proficiencies.&nbsp; But she doesn't do anything mystical, so she isn't a ranger.4e, sure, they'd be rangers, because rangers were explicitly martials who focused on ranged attacks.&nbsp; But in 5e, if we take the definition that WotC has given us, rangers are inherently mystical.&nbsp; A character who's good in the woods by reason of skill and training alone is not a ranger.&nbsp; The ranger class, in-game, isn't satisfying anyone because it's stretched too far, and thus it becomes too hard to pack a lot of flavor in.&nbsp; That means the tropes presented in the class have to be strengthened, both by having a stronger set of class exemplars AND by excluding the border cases from the class definition.&nbsp; No STRangers, no non-magical snare makers, no &quot;just a stealthy archer&quot;.&nbsp; And yes, &quot;fighter&quot; is also far too broadly defined.&nbsp; Way too far, like it could be split into 3-4 classes with subclasses no problem.&nbsp;&nbsp; We need better defined classes with tight mechanical niches and obvious tropes, not even more loosely defined classes with no coherence.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TwoSix, post: 8786367, member: 205"] Legolas is a fighter. He has some nature-y stuff on account of being an elf in a world where "elf" does a ton of work. Same thing for Katniss Everdeen. She's a bow user who's good in the woods. She has high Dex, and stealth and survival proficiencies. But she doesn't do anything mystical, so she isn't a ranger. 4e, sure, they'd be rangers, because rangers were explicitly martials who focused on ranged attacks. But in 5e, [i]if we take the definition that WotC has given us[/i], rangers are inherently mystical. A character who's good in the woods by reason of skill and training alone is not a ranger. The ranger class, in-game, isn't satisfying anyone because it's stretched too far, and thus it becomes too hard to pack a lot of flavor in. That means the tropes presented in the class have to be strengthened, both by having a stronger set of class exemplars AND by excluding the border cases from the class definition. No STRangers, no non-magical snare makers, no "just a stealthy archer". And yes, "fighter" is also far too broadly defined. Way too far, like it could be split into 3-4 classes with subclasses no problem. We need better defined classes with tight mechanical niches and obvious tropes, not even more loosely defined classes with no coherence. [/QUOTE]

Verification