Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 9855968" data-attributes="member: 6704184">IIRC it is like the 3.5 version with balance fixes to make it not weak alongside most classes, right? That is exactly whsy i wanted from 5e Ranger. And i say that as someone who hates 3.5e almost as much as some folks hate 4e. While i agree, i do generally think that it is better when a class gets its identity primarily from features and secondarily from spells. And the spells that enhance beasts...i think has to be general touch spells or the like. Too many rangers have no interest in a pet. Tbh i would love to be able to choose to have a pet at level 1, and have a simple feature if you do that lets you target the pet with spells that normally target "self", and then let the subclass upgrade that to you and your pet sharing spells or something. As a class it is pretty good. I played it as an archer with no concept of being a ranger as such and it was fine (other than requiring strength on its melee powers and dex on ranged) but it was just nothing like a Ranger IMO. its whole ID seemed to be "be lethal". Thats more fighter or assassin rogue than it is ranger. And that is the crux of the issue. When wotc makes an effective ranger, it is always thematically bland even thpugh there is no real need for it to be.</blockquote>