Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hexmage-EN" data-source="post: 8785214" data-attributes="member: 79428">&quot;It's not what players expect&quot; is a massive assumption here.I started in 3.5, so if anything the initial nonmagical 4E Ranger was the anomaly. It got followed up by the explicitly magical Seeker class before the magic-using Ranger returned in Essentials (when WotC was likely trying to win back older players who were put-off by 4E). Given that early 5E was essentially the attempt to disown 4E and return to &quot;Iconic&quot; D&amp;D, it seems half-caster Rangers are what WotC has seen the majority expects.Me personally, I feel like two-weapon fighting fits the Ranger less than magic does. The Ranger fights at range, and the Fighter is a melee attacker. Melee Rangers and Ranged Fighters are playing against type.I'm admittedly also biased in that the Fey Wanderer, the most magical Ranger of all, is my favorite Ranger subclass by far</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hexmage-EN, post: 8785214, member: 79428"] "It's not what players expect" is a massive assumption here. I started in 3.5, so if anything the initial nonmagical 4E Ranger was the anomaly. It got followed up by the explicitly magical Seeker class before the magic-using Ranger returned in Essentials (when WotC was likely trying to win back older players who were put-off by 4E). Given that early 5E was essentially the attempt to disown 4E and return to "Iconic" D&D, it seems half-caster Rangers are what WotC has seen the majority expects. Me personally, I feel like two-weapon fighting fits the Ranger less than magic does. The Ranger fights at range, and the Fighter is a melee attacker. Melee Rangers and Ranged Fighters are playing against type. I'm admittedly also biased in that the Fey Wanderer, the most magical Ranger of all, is my favorite Ranger subclass by far [/QUOTE]

Verification