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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Einlanzer0" data-source="post: 8247368" data-attributes="member: 6788934">The main problem with rangers is nothing other than peoples' fixation on the idea that classes must be mechanically "pure" and unique in some significant way, which is unnecessary in cooperative tabletop gaming and it's kind of a new trend inspired at least in part by video game logic (I'm not dissing gamers, I am one myself).Wizard vs sorcerer is a good example of this - they arguably have more thematic overlap than fighters and rangers, but because the subtle differences in how they handle spells run straight up through the spine of each class, players don't have as hard a time accepting them as separate classes.In contrast, rangers do not have this type of hard line with fighters or any other classes - they instead serve up a grab bag of warrior, beastmaster, archer, scout, and nature priest character archetype options drawing inspiration from multiple sources. It's the thematic grouping of these options in a single class that makes them unique, not a single overarching mechanic, and there is nothing wrong with that, just like how there is nothing wrong with the idea of a fully baked witch class that sits alongside the wizard or sorcerer with some variant options. People just think there is for some reason and it leads to all of these philosophical discussions about the ranger's place in D&D - guess what? Rangers are exactly as easy or hard to justify as at least 6 of the other 12 classes. Ultimately, all that matters is that the ranger has a cohesive set of competitive options and is fun to play. I think they did a great job with the ranger concept in 5e, just a sloppy job with the execution, which has unfortunately helped feed this type of debate.</blockquote>

Verification