Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Khaalis" data-source="post: 5826642" data-attributes="member: 2167">@ Yora and MinigiantThese views are why I say a magical version should be included. Some people, yourselves included, basically see the Ranger's relationship with Druids pretty much the same as the Paladin is as to the Cleric and the Bards is as to the Wizard.  That's fine, but my personal preference and one that people have been yelling for since early 2E is for a non-magical ranger (which we got in 4E, but it was too narrow). I can't count how many threads there were here and and on other boards (not to mention other products) over the years trying to make balanced non-magical, martial rangers.This is why I think the core build should be non-magical but at the same time present the option for a magical version as well. It also fits in the WotC design philosophy that they need "simple" classes as core and that magic is by default "more complex" than martial classes. Side note:[/b I personally disagree with the whole "we need a simpleton class". The old idea of "hey he's new, give him the fighter" line of thinking needs to die in a really BIG bonfire.</blockquote>