Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 6372188" data-attributes="member: 3400">I'm generally of a similar mind (though I don't mind spellcasting rangers at all). The 1e ranger was awesome. The 2e ranger was weak compared to the other fighter subclass on the same XP schedule - the paladin. The 3e ranger was clearly unfinished business. The 3.5 ranger finally hit his stride, and I'd say was even improved by Pathfinder, particularly with its alternate archetypes. And as far as 4e goes, the ranger was, I thought, one of its best classes.But in 5e? I'm thinking he's a bit lackluster compared to the paladin again, which has become pretty exciting compared to its 3e version. I like the exploration aspects of the class and I'm glad they've finally chosen to re-emphasize those. It seems like it has been a long time, maybe since 1e, that the ranger has seemed to fill that niche so well. But the rigidity of the action economy with the beastmaster just chafes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="billd91, post: 6372188, member: 3400"] I'm generally of a similar mind (though I don't mind spellcasting rangers at all). The 1e ranger was awesome. The 2e ranger was weak compared to the other fighter subclass on the same XP schedule - the paladin. The 3e ranger was clearly unfinished business. The 3.5 ranger finally hit his stride, and I'd say was even improved by Pathfinder, particularly with its alternate archetypes. And as far as 4e goes, the ranger was, I thought, one of its best classes. But in 5e? I'm thinking he's a bit lackluster compared to the paladin again, which has become pretty exciting compared to its 3e version. I [b]like[/b] the exploration aspects of the class and I'm glad they've finally chosen to re-emphasize those. It seems like it has been a long time, maybe since 1e, that the ranger has seemed to fill that niche so well. But the rigidity of the action economy with the beastmaster just chafes. [/QUOTE]

Verification