Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Marandahir" data-source="post: 9403128" data-attributes="member: 6803643">I don't think v5.2 is wrong to allow the Beast Master Ranger to share their actions rather than sacrifice them, choosing one or the other. This was the biggest issue with the v4.0 Martial Power Beast Master and the v5.0-5.1 Beast Master. The 4e Shaman was an interesting idea of a spirit guide with supernatural abilities. They tried to meet it with two Barbarian Paths (5.0-5.1 Totem Warrior aka 5.2 Wild Heart and XGE's Ancestral Guardian) and 1 Druid Circle (XGE's Dreams), but I think a Ranger with spirit guides would be a VERY interesting subclass. I think this speaks to the fact that enough Rangers have companions of sorts that you can build it into a lot of Ranger archetypes and stretch out the archetypes based on categories of companions (Beasts, Swarms, Drakes, etc - I still REALLY want to see a Mounted Ranger as it's literally a defining feature of Rangers in many fictional spaces), but enough lack it that if you're carving out that design space, you need something equally as potent for all the other Rangers to get. It makes me think of the calls for a Spell-less Ranger -- balancing that is super tricky. In a system more akin to Skills & Powers or 13A, maybe you could get a Companion, Spells, or Weapon Mastery & Maneuvers, or some shallow amount of multiple, but not all at depth. I was re-reading Brandes Stoddard's History of the Classes: Ranger series on Tribality this morning to remember the journey the class went on, and it reminded me of what Mearls discussed back in the Revised Ranger article - of the 3-pointed triangle of good Ranger design - Skirmisher, Wanderer, and Guardian. I'd add to it that in parallel, the Ranger is a balance of Rogue, Druid, and Fighter (or even Paladin). Make any angle on either of these triangles too obtuse, and the class starts to fall apart. It's not just a Druid Gish, nor is it just a Rogue/Druid. You'd be better off with subclasses of Rogue or Druid or Fighter if it was, or with using the Multiclass system. Of course, in a theoretical more CharOp tinkering system, you could tailor your Ranger to lean more one way or another. I just think that in past editions, this lead towards class identity bleeding out a bit. I'd rather see subclass options that lean one way or another or the third thematically (much like how the War Domain or College of Valour lean warrior for classes otherwise sort of in the middle). I like the Warden/Magician and Protector/Thaumaturge options for Druid & Cleric and wonder if options like this for all classes separate from subclass would be useful to help players further customize their characters.</blockquote>

Verification