Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 7680293" data-attributes="member: 5100">I agree that a Ranger is going to have a strong interest in the natural world. I just don't care for the idea that his abilities automatically come with the implicit baggage of being a &quot;champion&quot; of nature. There may be a high degree of correlation, but <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation" target="_blank">correlation does not imply causation</a>.I'm sure Aragorn would have been vexed by littering tourists. His powers didn't come from nature spirits, though. He was just a good steward of the land. His powers came from knowledge and study and could almost be considered more arcane than druidic (as far as you can make comparisons). While the Ranger class goes beyond Aragorn, you can't create a class that excludes him or makes building him problematic.Mechanically, Rangers have become nature Paladins. Conceptually, that is not at all the origins of the class. The only way to really &quot;fix&quot; the Ranger is, IMO, to move the mechanics towards the original concept, not to move the concept towards the mechanics. Overall, I really, really like where this UA is going. Really, my only issues are that I think you should be able to play a Ranger who doesn't have a pet and who does have a mystic tie to nature.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercule, post: 7680293, member: 5100"] I agree that a Ranger is going to have a strong interest in the natural world. I just don't care for the idea that his abilities automatically come with the implicit baggage of being a "champion" of nature. There may be a high degree of correlation, but [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation"]correlation does not imply causation[/URL]. I'm sure Aragorn would have been vexed by littering tourists. His powers didn't come from nature spirits, though. He was just a good steward of the land. His powers came from knowledge and study and could almost be considered more arcane than druidic (as far as you can make comparisons). While the Ranger class goes beyond Aragorn, you can't create a class that excludes him or makes building him problematic. Mechanically, Rangers have [U]become[/U] nature Paladins. Conceptually, that is not at all the origins of the class. The only way to really "fix" the Ranger is, IMO, to move the mechanics towards the original concept, not to move the concept towards the mechanics. Overall, I really, really like where this UA is going. Really, my only issues are that I think you should be able to play a Ranger who doesn't have a pet and who does have a [U]mystic[/U] tie to nature. [/QUOTE]

Verification