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: 6347792" data-attributes="member: 18">That's what people are asking for here...It's not exactly unreasonable! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Another approach would probably be to simply remove the spells and give a Ranger the class features of both Hunter AND Beastmaster (and, perhaps, an extra attack at 10). That'd probably work as a quick fix for the issue.As for "A Fighter with a Background!", well, variant, who I rarely agree with, is quite right, imo, to simply say "no" - Historically, Rangers have a bunch of abilities which Fighters can't emulate and which are non-magical (not every ranger has all of these).Animal CompanionAnimal Friendship/Wild Empathy (Animal Handling is the weak-sauce version of this)Pass Without TraceMove through Difficult TerrainUltra-TrackingFavoured TerrainFavoured EnemiesExtra skillsQuarryEvasion/Improved EvasionImproved Stealth-type abilitiesNow, in 5E, some of those are MIA, but that's because Rangers have so many spells. Take away the spells, and there's space for them to come back. Others are present, but available only to Rangers, not Fighters (improved Tracking and Stealth abilities, for example).In general the "You could just play a themed Fighter!" logic that is used in this sort of dismissive argument (not so much by the OP, but certainly by some others here) is very faulty, because by the same logic, you could eliminate most classes, if you just ignore the specific stuff they get - I mean, Bard can be F/M/T MC, Ranger can be F/Druid MC, Sorcerer and Warlock are just themed Wizards, Paladin is just a F/Cleric MC, Barbarian is just a themed Fighter, etc. etc.Sure, one could, but the reason those classes have existed since the 1970s is that people WANT specifics, they want separate classes. Wanting a non-magic Ranger isn't unreasonable, and sub-class would be the best way to deliver it. That it's not in the main PHB is unsurprising given that, 5E, for better or worse, seems to want most classes to have access to magic, either by default, or via a sub-class. As you say, it's very likely to be something we see later.</blockquote>

Verification