Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8785076" data-attributes="member: 18">WotC have consistently had no idea what a Ranger is, or what to do with, or how to make really anyone happy with Ranger for three editions now. It's one of the very few classes which was a total mess (thematically, at least) in 4th edition, as well as in 3E and 5E.If they would like, "pick a lane" as people say, and drive it with the Ranger we could at least say "This is WotC's vision of the Ranger!", and agree with it or not. But we can't even say that. WotC are just sliding all over the road like someone about to get arrested for being 5x over the legal limit.If they're supposed to be reliant on magic, and magic to be a major part of what a Ranger is, that needs to be part of the lore of the Ranger class, rather than being a brief aside, despite being the entire core and crux of their abilities, which it demonstrably is, people have argued well that it is.Like, check it out if you have Beyond: <a href="https://www.dndbeyond.com/classes/ranger" target="_blank">Ranger</a>The Ranger description goes for five paragraphs of flavour and really building the class up before briefly mentioning (literally two fairly short sentences!) that they can do magic! Then we get another two paragraphs with magic unmentioned! PICK A LANE!What is this class? Is it a nature magician who also does some fighting and skill stuff? Okay, if so, fine, but that's not how you're presenting it in terms of descriptions. It's not what players expect. But it is how it exists in the rules. Even moreso in 1D&D than 5E, this is a nature magician who can fight more than anything else.What's particularly striking to me is that new players love the Ranger concept (which doesn't really include magic, note, it's a brief aside at most), but then the actual mechanical class, they often find very off-putting. Far too much of the class' power is in the spells, and the spells are boring and weird and don't at all seem like anything Katniss, Aragorn, or Drizzt would do. Or even in most cases a videogame hunter-type (who tend to have flashier abilities). That you see no difference  is fine for you, but then if you really feel that way, why don't we give Fighters some spells to cover the abilities, and just re-theme them, for example? Why don't we do that with all classes? I mean Rogues would gain a gigantic advantage if they could cast some spells and we could theme them as Rogue abilities! Why not? Why is it fine here and not there?TLDR: The real "magic problem" with Rangers is that it's not part of their D&D/class lore in any real/serious way, and no iconic or memorable Ranger-type characters in fiction - which is a common archetype, note much more common than, say, Bard! - use Ranger-style magic at all. YET the Ranger class in 5E is totally reliant on magic to do its job (as has been well argued).</blockquote>

Verification