Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 5826689" data-attributes="member: 3400">I have no problem with a big tent approach. That sort of approach gives the local game the most freedom to do what they want without having to file off the serial numbers and reskin everything.That said, when it comes to disagreements in what a ranger (or other class) is, I think we need to look at the changes that spark the disagreements. There seems to be pretty broad consensus that the ranger is oriented toward fighting and surviving in the wilderness and that they should be appropriately set up to excel at doing so. There are nitpicks here and there about how this is done within the bounds of the shifting game mechanics even when the general gist of the ability remains intact - tracking % vs non-weapon proficiency vs skill ranks, surprise bonuses vs hide/move silently skills vs stealth skill, surprise bonuses vs spot/listen skills vs perception skill. But I think they are relatively minor.The greatest inter-edition conflict seems to come over combat mechanics and that seems to be where the greatest shifts are as well - probably none bigger than 2e's introduction of dual wielding. Maybe that's where 5e should focus its efforts when figuring out how to actually make players who favor different editions all happy.</blockquote>