Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ZeshinX" data-source="post: 7966128" data-attributes="member: 6793656">Simple answer for me, though for a wildly different reason:&nbsp; I hate the 5e Ranger class (and WotC's attempts to &quot;fix&quot; it over the years).I've never liked (or particularly used) Ranger spellcasting.&nbsp; I've always viewed Rangers as guerilla-style warriors and played them as such (from 2e onward), rarely (if ever) tanking or engaging in melee unless desperate, rather skirting the edges of a fight and attacking surgically.The Rogue offers that kind of playstyle with plenty of abilities allowing for and supporting it (sneak attack being the obvious biggest one), without spells (and the Scout subclass really added to that).&nbsp; I found the 5e Ranger and its presented variants (even the spell-less one) still too...lacking.Not to say the Ranger as such is bad. It isn't.&nbsp; It's tough to have a class that does a little fighter, a little druid and a little rogue all in one without stepping on any of the toes of those classes.&nbsp; I just dislike how heavily the 5e Ranger leans on its spellcasting.It (and it's WotC-offered variants) just doesn't quite offer up what I look for there...but the Rogue does.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ZeshinX, post: 7966128, member: 6793656"] Simple answer for me, though for a wildly different reason: I hate the 5e Ranger class (and WotC's attempts to "fix" it over the years). I've never liked (or particularly used) Ranger spellcasting. I've always viewed Rangers as guerilla-style warriors and played them as such (from 2e onward), rarely (if ever) tanking or engaging in melee unless desperate, rather skirting the edges of a fight and attacking surgically. The Rogue offers that kind of playstyle with plenty of abilities allowing for and supporting it (sneak attack being the obvious biggest one), without spells (and the Scout subclass really added to that). I found the 5e Ranger and its presented variants (even the spell-less one) still too...lacking. Not to say the Ranger as such is bad. It isn't. It's tough to have a class that does a little fighter, a little druid and a little rogue all in one without stepping on any of the toes of those classes. I just dislike how heavily the 5e Ranger leans on its spellcasting. It (and it's WotC-offered variants) just doesn't quite offer up what I look for there...but the Rogue does. [/QUOTE]

Verification