Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovarwa" data-source="post: 7686917" data-attributes="member: 75153">Hi,It might not have been a bad idea to add ranger-like subclasses for rogue, fighter, barbarian and druid to the one we already sort of have for paladin.  Rangers have traditionally been a warrior class, but D&D5 seems to add a touch of spellcasting to martial subclasses and a touch of combat to spellcasting subclasses, so it makes sense to see "rangers" that run the gamut from warriors with a touch of magic to wild mystics who can fight a bit.I also don't think there was anything in particular that made ranger.2 and ranger.3 especially good.  It's all about Drizzt, for better or worse.  AD&D1 came out tool long before Drizzt, and D&D4 was very much its own thing.  A "good" ranger class or subclass is one that doesn't feel gimped compared to other warrior classes, is at home in the wild, and can scratch that Drizzt itch, for those who caught what Drizzt's got.A ranger must:* Be comfortable in the wild, and be able to help a party survive the wild.* Be competitive in combat.By tradition, a ranger might:* Be good at ranged combat.* Excel at fighting with 2 weapons.  (This got folded into the ranger class due to Drizzt, even though this technique seems to have been a local thing.  Also, oddly enough, Drizzt could not have trained as a ranger, since his mentors lacked the alignment that was then required.  But nevermind.)* Have an animal companion.  High level rangers got this in AD&D1, pre-Drizzt.* Cast spells.  AD&D1 rangers eventually could do this, to a very limited extent.Anyway,Ken</blockquote>

Verification