Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6582615" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Really? Huh. I could've sworn there had been. Let's see...1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5e, 5e...nope, I guess you're right, there's sure not a missing edition there or anything. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Well, that's certainly a thing you've said. Consider: "I don't get the constant call for a martial Paladin. That's basically a fighter/cleric with some auras. Easily doable." Or better yet, if the spell-less ranger doesn't deserve to exist, why does the Ranger deserve to exist at all? Couldn't you just make a Fighter (or Rogue) subclass that added a "woodsy skill set" and call it a day (edit: since we already have caster Fighters and caster Rogues, I mean)? I would generally expect Ranger fans to be up in arms about that, yet it's precisely the same logic.The problem is that "fighter/rogue+woodsy" doesn't actually capture several of the things people look for, most prominently the animal companion. Rangers are a more narrow fundamental archetype, sure.* That doesn't mean that you can satisfactorily replicate the mechanical and thematic elements with classes that are more broad (like Fighter and Rogue). Rangers generally don't do anything with traps or locks or acrobatics, yet that sort of stuff is practically hardwired into the Rogue class, yet Rangers definitely are expected to have skills and features sunk specifically into areas like tracking, foraging, pathfinding, etc. which no form of Fighter offers.Well, about that...The irony is not lost on me. Particularly because Perkins is explicitly calling out Strider as a non-spellcasting Ranger, when relatively recently I had people telling me that Strider was the archetype of the spellcasting Ranger!Long story short: There's nothing logically wrong with the concept, the authors themselves think it's valid, and the reductivist logic that justifies ignoring it justifies removing all sorts of classes that most people don't seem keen on removing.</blockquote>

Verification