Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kalshane" data-source="post: 6565405" data-attributes="member: 9505">The complaints that 5E doesn't support spell-less rangers and sneak attack-less rogues is a head-scratcher to me. I can't vouch for Chainmail or BECMI, but from 1st Edition on, the thief/rogue has had backstab or sneak attack in some form. So why 5E is being blamed for not having a rogue without one of the iconic rogue abilities that's existed since the beginning seems really odd to me. Likewise, the ranger since its first appearance has had spells by default (outside of 4E).There's been a lot of good suggestions for how to make a &quot;spell-less ranger&quot; in this thread, that have been summarily dismissed because the word &quot;ranger&quot; doesn't appear anywhere on the resulting character sheet. That seems unnecessarily picky, to me. I was converting a ninja/wujen from my first 2E campaign, just to see if I could make it work, and the resulting character was a re-flavored Shadow Monk/Fey Warlock of the Tome. No mechanical changes, just changing the fluff. Did it replicate the original character exactly? No. But the feel of the character was the same.5E gives a lot of options and flexibility between the backgrounds, classes, sub-classes and feats. Do they replicate everything one could think of? No. Do I think there could stand to be more options, particularly for classes like the Sorcerer? Yes. But there's still a big toolbox to play with, even if it doesn't have every specialized tool possible.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kalshane, post: 6565405, member: 9505"] The complaints that 5E doesn't support spell-less rangers and sneak attack-less rogues is a head-scratcher to me. I can't vouch for Chainmail or BECMI, but from 1st Edition on, the thief/rogue has had backstab or sneak attack in some form. So why 5E is being blamed for not having a rogue without one of the iconic rogue abilities that's existed since the beginning seems really odd to me. Likewise, the ranger since its first appearance has had spells by default (outside of 4E). There's been a lot of good suggestions for how to make a "spell-less ranger" in this thread, that have been summarily dismissed because the word "ranger" doesn't appear anywhere on the resulting character sheet. That seems unnecessarily picky, to me. I was converting a ninja/wujen from my first 2E campaign, just to see if I could make it work, and the resulting character was a re-flavored Shadow Monk/Fey Warlock of the Tome. No mechanical changes, just changing the fluff. Did it replicate the original character exactly? No. But the feel of the character was the same. 5E gives a lot of options and flexibility between the backgrounds, classes, sub-classes and feats. Do they replicate everything one could think of? No. Do I think there could stand to be more options, particularly for classes like the Sorcerer? Yes. But there's still a big toolbox to play with, even if it doesn't have every specialized tool possible. [/QUOTE]

Verification