Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jayoungr" data-source="post: 8256941" data-attributes="member: 6702445">This thread is full of people circling around describing the niche.&nbsp; If you're looking for a neat summary in a few words that makes you say &quot;Aha, bullseye!&quot;--I'm not sure that can be done.&nbsp; But I don't believe every class has to have that.Personally, I see the Ranger as being to the Fighter and Rogue what the Druid is to the Cleric and Paladin.&nbsp; Yes, the Druid is more mechanically distinct from the other two because of shapeshifting; I do think the Ranger could have used some similar unique &quot;banner&quot; mechanical feature, but I see that class occupying a similar thematic niche.&nbsp; I am also sympathetic to the wish to see a Ranger without spells, even though I'm also not bothered by the very idea of the Ranger being a spellcasting class, as some seem to be.As for why fuzzy can be a good thing, try substituting the word flexible.&nbsp; Not being tied to a rigid concept creates freedom for the player to be creative and for the character to become what the individual party needs him/her to be.&nbsp; Bards have also been criticized in this thread, but I have played in a lot of 5E parties with bards, and on the whole, I've loved the fact that those are characters who can slide in to fill whatever gaps are discovered.&nbsp; Is the party missing a blaster?&nbsp; A healer?&nbsp; Someone who can take some hits or pick locks?&nbsp; A bard can be any of those, depending on feat and spell choices.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jayoungr, post: 8256941, member: 6702445"] This thread is full of people circling around describing the niche. If you're looking for a neat summary in a few words that makes you say "Aha, bullseye!"--I'm not sure that can be done. But I don't believe every class [I]has[/I] to have that. Personally, I see the Ranger as being to the Fighter and Rogue what the Druid is to the Cleric and Paladin. Yes, the Druid is more mechanically distinct from the other two because of shapeshifting; I do think the Ranger could have used some similar unique "banner" mechanical feature, but I see that class occupying a similar thematic niche. I am also sympathetic to the wish to see a Ranger without spells, even though I'm also not bothered by the very idea of the Ranger being a spellcasting class, as some seem to be. As for why fuzzy can be a good thing, try substituting the word [I]flexible.[/I] Not being tied to a rigid concept creates freedom for the player to be creative and for the character to become what the individual party needs him/her to be. Bards have also been criticized in this thread, but I have played in a lot of 5E parties with bards, and on the whole, I've [I]loved[/I] the fact that those are characters who can slide in to fill whatever gaps are discovered. Is the party missing a blaster? A healer? Someone who can take some hits or pick locks? A bard can be any of those, depending on feat and spell choices. [/QUOTE]

Verification