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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ruleslawyer" data-source="post: 2846746" data-attributes="member: 1757">QFT.As to the ranger: It's a hard call, this wilderness warrior archetype, as it lies at the crux of so many mechanical approaches. I actually think (much as I, like buzz, prefer the IH hunter) that WotC did a good job with choosing the class's abilities. He's a light fighter with a great skill selection, some spells that are supposed to add to his usefulness in the wild, and an animal companion (ditto). I sense that perhaps the problem is that everyone has their own take on what the ranger should look like. I think the ranger is balanced well, but that it's a difficult archetype around which to craft a crowd-pleasing class. F'rex, many people don't like spellcasting rangers. Others would think the Scout is too rogue-like. Still others wouldn't like a "team player" type like the Hunter. Still others (myself included) aren't fond of the Black Company sneak-attacking ranger. It's tricky.I do agree 100% with Felon that animal companions, special mounts, and familiars should *not* be class features, but feat or substitution level abilities. Most people involved in hack-and-slash play don't want them, and they're a beast (no pun intended) to work with in many campaigns. For instance, I would consider a ranger companion or familiar a serious liability in either of the published Dungeon Adventure Paths. (Druid companions work fine even in hack-and-slash play because they're crazy powerful, but I don't necessarily think that's a recommendation for the animal companion class feature.)</blockquote>

Verification