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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9515302" data-attributes="member: 18">LOL you're proving my point 100%.This is exactly the problem. There's a gigantic mismatch between what a Ranger should be, and what a Ranger is, in D&D, and both 3E and 5E have the problem worse than 2E did (4E's Ranger was less of a mismatch, because 4E did things so differently). You're acting like people are just doing it to be difficult, when in fact it's the design of the Ranger that is essentially "being difficult".Nah. The description in both 2014 and 2024 is vague and meaningless, and the name Ranger is flatly the wrong name to give the class that exists in D&D 5E. Warden (ignoring its previous D&D usage) or Wilder (again ignoring previous D&D usage, but it was obscure) or something would have been more apposite and massively diminished expectations.If you try and push against player and cultural expectations, as the Ranger's design essentially does, rather than rolling with them, you're just pissing in the wind, and that's a great way to get drenched with piss!D&D has a bunch of classes that only exist to create a relatively slight difference. Sorcerer and Wizard being the prime example. Ranger should absolutely, as a chassis, be a Martial with Expertise, baseline extra mobility, baseline a non-magical way to increase damage done that's different to the further extra attacks of Fighters, or backstab or Rogues, and no baseline magic. Then 1-2 of the subclasses could be caster subclasses as per EK/AT etc. By ditching the half-caster stuff you could open up the design space a great deal, and then Beast Master, Trapper, etc. could fit in as non-caster Rangers.</blockquote>

Verification