Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Plane Sailing" data-source="post: 12636" data-attributes="member: 114">While we were waiting for dribbles of 3e news to appear at Erics unofficial 3e news, way back when, each character class that had new info appearing left people saying &quot;wow, I can't wait to play fill-in-the-blank&quot;. The only exception was the ranger, which pretty much left people saying &quot;is that all?&quot;. They were the only class that didn't recieve significant improvements in their abilities from previous levels.They are the only class that doesn't get a major ability at 2nd level (except for Sorcerers, perhaps). Nearly all the other classes get something good at 2nd level to encourage you to stick with the class, Rangers don't. Ranger spells are pretty much as boring as could be (a far cry from the early days of the ranger, who got unrestricted access to clerical and wizard spells!). Especially compared with his near-neighbour the Paladin. At least the Paladin had some unique spells on his list.The Ranger class, more than any others, seems to lack a clear, defining concept. It seems like a mish-mash of ideas that nobody really cared about during playtesting.I'm not saying that people can't have fun playing a ranger. I'm not saying that people can't be successful playing a ranger. Of course they can. it is just astonishing that they could make a character class that is so Blah.FWIW in my next campaign I'll be replacing the ranger entirely with the Woodsman class from Wheel of Time. I think this is what the D&amp;D Ranger should have been. They actually use pretty much the same opening paragraph to describe the class, but in this case the class deserves the introduction.Cheers</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Plane Sailing, post: 12636, member: 114"] While we were waiting for dribbles of 3e news to appear at Erics unofficial 3e news, way back when, each character class that had new info appearing left people saying "wow, I can't wait to play fill-in-the-blank". The only exception was the ranger, which pretty much left people saying "is that all?". They were the only class that didn't recieve significant improvements in their abilities from previous levels. They are the only class that doesn't get a major ability at 2nd level (except for Sorcerers, perhaps). Nearly all the other classes get something good at 2nd level to encourage you to stick with the class, Rangers don't. Ranger spells are pretty much as boring as could be (a far cry from the early days of the ranger, who got unrestricted access to clerical and wizard spells!). Especially compared with his near-neighbour the Paladin. At least the Paladin had some unique spells on his list. The Ranger class, more than any others, seems to lack a clear, defining concept. It seems like a mish-mash of ideas that nobody really cared about during playtesting. I'm not saying that people can't have fun playing a ranger. I'm not saying that people can't be successful playing a ranger. Of course they can. it is just astonishing that they could make a character class that is so Blah. FWIW in my next campaign I'll be replacing the ranger entirely with the Woodsman class from Wheel of Time. I think this is what the D&D Ranger should have been. They actually use pretty much the same opening paragraph to describe the class, but in this case the class deserves the introduction. Cheers [/QUOTE]

Verification