Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 7680799" data-attributes="member: 92511">I am with you 100% that an answer to the purpose of the class is essential to effectively constructing a usable, fair, and well-received class. As usual, I believe your premise, the questions presented here as the road to finding that answer, are flawed and would not produce the result you seem to think they will/should as regards a D&D ranger.I take and give no stock to the concept of "party roles." The role of the ranger in the party is the same as any other character...to survive and attempt to succeed in the challenges one encounters in a life of adventure. A "good" class should give you some means to do something in a variety of areas, if significantly better in some than others. A class doesn't have a "role", the character (what the player wants them to do) has whatever he/she needs to do in the scenario/circumstances/challenge presented...and yes, sometimes that is nothing/staying out of the way...and that's ok!Again, question that has no merit/baring and similar answer...the same reason you have any other class in the party, because they are a character at the table...a player read it/liked it/wants to play make-believe as one. That is the only reason ANY class is "brought along." The players get to choose their characters and the group needs a reason to be formed/find themselves "working" together. Setting one of the rangers primary traits, as "officially" presented in the PHB, as being an "independent adventurer" was a HUGE mistake, imo, in what is a group-based game/activity.Now, here is where you can get into some meat. This is the question that needs answering for any class to...well, justify being a class in the first place. "What do you do?" = the class. Now, as 5e is set up, you can do whatever that is in a variety of ways, the "How you do what you do" which are, then, your subclass options.Yes. What unique features the ranger has [to "bring to the party," if you like] is, indeed, a critical and foundational question. It seems, over and over, one of the ranger's biggest problems is that they have too much about them that has been/were once unique...too many different abilities that shape and color people's preferences of what they are "supposed" to be.Obviously, whatever is chosen will make sense for the ranger to have...or they wouldn't be part of the ranger.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" /><img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm    :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" /> The list of what makes sense is very long, as I just pointed out, in the ranger's case.I have. Many/multiple times with a variety of answers over the years. They just rarely seem to be the answer you want everyone to come to. Namely, that being a ranger musts needs mean you have water breathing, poison immunity, and animal summoning/control... iow, that early and significant spell-use is fundamental to the class.I simply disagree and have debated this across a variety of threads. It is great for an archetype. It absolutely belongs and needs to be an option. Magic-using rangers absolutely have a place as a subclass, even more than one! But I am not ever going to agree/create a ranger that is dependent, in its base, on magic or animal companions or anything other than themselves.</blockquote>

Verification