Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6172742" data-attributes="member: 1465">Probably a good solution would be to make a Ranger class that has subclasses similar to the current Barbarian, Druid and Monk, i.e. each subclass focusing on a different aspect & concept (spellcasting druid vs wildshaping druid, raging barbarian vs magic/shamanistic barbarian, magic/elemental monk vs martial artist), where one of these subclasses is also further customized: the Totem Barbarian also picks a totem animal, the Elemental Monk also picks an element, the Land Druid also picks a terrain.Actually, the subclasses are even more flexible: you don't have to pick an element or totem animal and stick with it, you can mix them up and pick individual features of that subclass, but if you want you can focus on a specific chosen image (or the DM can house rule that in her fantasy world, you have to pick one only).So we could have a Ranger class that has one subclass which grants spells, another which focuses on scouting, and another which grants favored enemies, with this latter subclass that contains the further choice of which favored enemy (mixable or not).The problem however, is that a lot of players want all these things in a Ranger. They don't want to be only scout, or only have favored enemies, they think of a Ranger as all of these things. So the designers might end up creating a Ranger class more like the Druid, who always get both spells and wildshape, and subclasses only expand/empower one of them, but there is no wildshape-less Druid for instance. If they made a Ranger class which requires a specific subclass in order to cast spells, then a Ranger player may have to give up other essential Ranger elements to get spells. It might also be hard to balance a spellcasting subclass vs a completely spell-free subclass. However, if they are specifically asking feedback on this, it means they are willing to listen and eventually put more design effort to make this work. After all, there have been several fantasy settings with spell-less Rangers. What I think should better be left out of the Ranger picture for good, is weapon styles. This is only a recent legacy, 2WF was tossed in the 3e Ranger only because of Aragorn, and archery was added in 3.5 only because some players weren't interested in 2WF, but weapons styles aren't really a necessary Ranger concept. Feats already take care of weapon styles. I think it'd be better to take them out from the favored enemy packages (although there is some feeble narrative image there: maybe bows & arrows is after all the best way to fight a dragon since getting close is suicidal, maybe dual wielding is the best way to fight a horde so you can drop mooks faster etc.).</blockquote>

Verification