Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Greg K" data-source="post: 7680407" data-attributes="member: 5038">I am not a fan of this new variant.  I don't like spirit companion as a default option.The problem with the 5e ranger, in my opinion, is that the designers don't learn their lesson. They keep trying to force spellcasting or supernatural/mystical elements upon the class. We saw this back in 3e.  The designers presented an option in Complete Warrior that removed spells, but kept mystical abilities that duplicated some spells. For many people, it was unsatisfying, because when those players said that they want a ranger without spells, they meant a ranger without mystical abilities. So, in Complete Champion which came late in the 35 cyle, there was another variant without spells and mystical abilities that received bonus feats (and WOTC was very late to the party in presenting this option considering that it had been done by others in 3.0) .Now, in my opinion, spells and mystical abilities as elements are fine as options. However, as with animal companions, they are not something everyone wants in a rather class and should, therefore, not be hard coded into the class for all rangers. They should be something that players can ignore/opt out of for some other class option such as increased focused on combat style and/or using terrain for those that want a non-mystical hunter or guardian of the borderlands type of character.To this end, I think [MENTION=63508]Minigiant[/MENTION] in an above post was kind of on the right track. Then again, I have felt from the beginning that several of the classes need more decision points. One place I disagree with Minigiant is placing poultice under Path of War.  I can easily see the Path of Secrets using it as well as many outdoors man in fiction are shown to use it including the stealthy hunter types. I would, however want to see the path or archetype start at first level and, possibly, influence armor proficiency.  Whether the character should be proficient in Light armor or be proficient in Medium armor is another point of contention.  Some people want the Ranger to be the light armored wilderness warrior they see in certain media. Others want 1e's armored Guardian/Protector patrolling the borders of civilized lands for which Medium armor is appropriate.The key is to build the ranger as a wilderness expert, but with flexibility for DMs an players to tailor the class to the archetype they envision for the campaign rather than the designers trying to force a single vision of spells or mystical abilities.</blockquote>

Verification