Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gadget" data-source="post: 7662523" data-attributes="member: 23716">Back to the Ranger; I think part of the problem is that the archetype of the beast master subclass has never been that strong in the D&D Ranger class.  Sure they had the ability as a minor part of the class before, but the crux of the Ranger debate in the past has been spell/magic heavy vs. a more mundane hunter/tracker.  Trying to come up with more concepts might might conflict with the shamanistic/totem warrior Barbarian.  I think the designers were struggling to invent/include sub-class archetypes for all the two sub class classes.  While the Barbarian and its subclasses seem to work out okay, I sometimes wonder it would not have been better as a Fighter sub class; and while I'm sure we can come up with more ideas for barbarian subclasses, are they really that iconic beyond the 'Hulk smash' variant?  The Sorcerer suffers from the opposite plight: it seems they left many possible archetypes on the table and chose only two fairly narrow ones.  Yet I feel the class suffers by being hemmed in, both conceptually and mechanically, by the improved flexibility of the new pseudo-Vancian Wizard Specialist, the Warlock, and the new magic heavy Bard.</blockquote>