Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8527335" data-attributes="member: 29398">Except if it's to be a class-based game isn't it logical to expect that variation to largely be rooted in the classes themselves, with only sub-variations within each class?And one could argue neither is a Ranger any more.&nbsp; A spellcaster with a pet is a Wizard with a familiar.&nbsp; An ace swordsman is a Fighter.My point is that to preserve and enhance difference between classes (as opposed to within them) your initial concept e.g. spellcaster-with-a-pet should point you directly to the class that does spellcasting* first; and that being able to also sneak Ranger abilities into this otherwise-already-strong-enough character without having to multiclass is a loophole in the design.&nbsp; It comes back to my point about having and eating cake at the same time: if you want to play a Ranger and a caster in the same character then you should have to multiclass, and accept the various drawbacks that multiclassing presents.* - I should note here that I see Rangers as 1/4 casters at best; they might work better as non-casters but the 5e version would - as usual - need some help.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 8527335, member: 29398"] Except if it's to be a class-based game isn't it logical to expect that variation to largely be rooted in the classes themselves, with only sub-variations within each class? And one could argue neither is a Ranger any more. A spellcaster with a pet is a Wizard with a familiar. An ace swordsman is a Fighter. My point is that to preserve and enhance difference between classes (as opposed to within them) your initial concept e.g. spellcaster-with-a-pet should point you directly to the class that does spellcasting* first; and that being able to also sneak Ranger abilities into this otherwise-already-strong-enough character without having to multiclass is a loophole in the design. It comes back to my point about having and eating cake at the same time: if you want to play a Ranger and a caster in the same character then you should have to multiclass, and accept the various drawbacks that multiclassing presents. * - I should note here that I see Rangers as 1/4 casters at best; they might work better as non-casters but the 5e version would - as usual - need some help. [/QUOTE]

Verification