I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
(Psi)SeveredHead said:
What is and is not a class is completely and utterly arbitrary, so I don't know that your determination of what should and should not be a class is any more valid than anyone else's.
D&D 5E Ranger's favored enemies and spells.
- Thread starter variant
- Start date
What is and is not a class is completely and utterly arbitrary, so I don't know that your determination of what should and should not be a class is any more valid than anyone else's.
Warbringer
Explorer
You say hat like its a good thing. There should be a determination of what is a class and what isn't, and clearly there isn't if the grab-bag arcanist (Mage) is anything to go by
Savage Wombat
Hero
I'm gonna take a stab at this:
The reason a ranger dual-wields (well, really the post-facto justification for it) is that a ranger is intended for sneaking as well as fighting. Therefore, no shield, and no oversized weapons. In the real world, a fighter with a single weapon is a disadvantage against a foe with a shield, and a fighter with two weapons is at a serious advantage against a foe with no shield. So a ranger would draw his short sword or other one-handed weapon, and then draw his dagger in his off hand, Florentine style.
The focus on "two long swords" is really a power-gamer's desire to not have to buy weapon focus in two different weapons.
P.S. I always thought the reason they gave 2e rangers 2WF was that they wanted a reason to force them to wear light armor.
The reason a ranger dual-wields (well, really the post-facto justification for it) is that a ranger is intended for sneaking as well as fighting. Therefore, no shield, and no oversized weapons. In the real world, a fighter with a single weapon is a disadvantage against a foe with a shield, and a fighter with two weapons is at a serious advantage against a foe with no shield. So a ranger would draw his short sword or other one-handed weapon, and then draw his dagger in his off hand, Florentine style.
The focus on "two long swords" is really a power-gamer's desire to not have to buy weapon focus in two different weapons.
P.S. I always thought the reason they gave 2e rangers 2WF was that they wanted a reason to force them to wear light armor.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Warbringer said:
Good. Bad. It's just the way it is. There is no objective line in the sand that anyone can draw and say "everything on this side of the line should be a class, and everything on THAT side of the line should not be a class." It depends upon the goals you want to accomplish. A class is a tool.
The Ranger as a distinct class is saying, "This is a certain kind of character you can be in our game and in the imaginary world. Here's the things that define it." It's also saying, "Drizzit is in the game," and "If you liked 1e/2e/3e/4e because of rangers, you might like 5e," and "There are people in the wilderness in D&D defending civilization against monsters, and they are different from the people in town in D&D defending it against opposing armies and internal lawbreakers," and a bunch of other things, too.
Are those goals worth whatever decrease in organizational elegance occurs as a result of silo-ing Ranger abilities separate from other class's abilities? I'd say "probably," but that's because I don't hold elegance in very high regard (it doesn't match how people THINK).
Salamandyr
Adventurer
No, it's cause swinging around two full length swords is really badass. You don't even have to buy weapon focus in 5e.
Li Shenron
Legend
Salamandyr
Adventurer
There's really only a need for 3 classes, based on problem solving focus...
Fighter-solves problems by hitting them
Magician-solves problems with magic
Trickster/Expert-solves problems with skills.
Pretty much everything else is optional.
Fighter-solves problems by hitting them
Magician-solves problems with magic
Trickster/Expert-solves problems with skills.
Pretty much everything else is optional.
Li Shenron
Legend
Well
The first ranger of the Strat Rev 1 vol2 was a survivor. He had high stats, a bonus HD, was the only one who could track. and dealt bonus damage equal to his level to most nondemonic humaninod enemies (back in the days when enemies had low HP). And you could barely surprise him.
No spells or animals until level 8. He didn't need them.
Before level 8, the old school ranger massacred enemies. He'd sneak up on the foe, surprise them, and carve them a new breathing hole 4th-edition-style.
But after level 8, the monsters start cheating. Spells and deadly eye rays and fire breath. So the ranger metagamed and got magic. ESP, healing, and animal scouts.
The ranger is the metagamer of warriors. And if D&D Next is going to have tons of cheating monsters with their magic, breath weapons, eye rays, poison, invisibility, scrying, and fogs, the ranger needs countermeasures.
The first ranger of the Strat Rev 1 vol2 was a survivor. He had high stats, a bonus HD, was the only one who could track. and dealt bonus damage equal to his level to most nondemonic humaninod enemies (back in the days when enemies had low HP). And you could barely surprise him.
No spells or animals until level 8. He didn't need them.
Before level 8, the old school ranger massacred enemies. He'd sneak up on the foe, surprise them, and carve them a new breathing hole 4th-edition-style.
But after level 8, the monsters start cheating. Spells and deadly eye rays and fire breath. So the ranger metagamed and got magic. ESP, healing, and animal scouts.
The ranger is the metagamer of warriors. And if D&D Next is going to have tons of cheating monsters with their magic, breath weapons, eye rays, poison, invisibility, scrying, and fogs, the ranger needs countermeasures.
Similar Threads
