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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 8785260" data-attributes="member: 87792">Except no. Aragorn, the Ranger of the North is a fighter? Boromir's a fighter. Gimli's a fighter. If Aragorn is a fighter then it says something about how bad 5e is at handling classic fiction. And no Drizzt is literally the iconic ranger. If the Ranger as a class is not able to handle the literal person it was based on and the literal iconic 2e ranger then the Ranger as a class is not fit for purpose. And we're also at the point that the Ranger class does not even cover the D&D ranger. The 1e and 2e rangers could not cast spells before level 8 - and 1e was soft-capped at about level 10. This all-magic-all-the-time ranger doesn't cover historic D&D rangers; it is its own unique thing. The only ranger it's remotely close to is the 3.5 one (with the 3.0 one not even being very good at archery). And that's the problem with this playtest ranger. It does nothing really to represent any fictional archetype, not even that of a D&D ranger. And it is basically a bland collection of mechanics because it's trying to invent its archetype out of thin air, having rejected both its core inspiration as a class in Aragorn and even the iconic D&D ranger in Drizzt. As [USER=18]@Ruin Explorer[/USER] has been saying all along WotC doesn't know what to do with the ranger which is why it's an obviously mechanics first class.Would you therefore accept that as it's clear that the Ranger is unable to handle any sort of its fictional inspirations we rename the class Hedge Wizard because it's a caster who spends time in hedges and generally trying to get through life with wilderness lore and magic in medium quantities? That would free the Ranger name up to cover the actual ranger archetype that the current ranger is a miserable failure at covering and that all of Aragorn, Drizzt, and Katniss come under.</blockquote>

Verification