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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8709118" data-attributes="member: 18">The key thing about Rangers, which people overlook, is that they are beloved archetype for people NEW to TT RPGs. Especially women/girls (though not exclusively), who are still underrepresented.Why? Pets, bows and nature.So that's how I voted. D&D's Ranger shouldn't be a shoddy Aragorn knock-off or a Drizzt wannabe because honestly people who are into those archetypes actually rarely pick Ranger. But new players? The look the classes, and Ranger sticks out to them - and it's that nature, pets, bows combo. Stealth also factors in, but those three are the main things. Knowing about nature and being able to operate in the wilderness. Having cool animal companions. Shooting jerks with a bow. There's a reason Hunger Games and Katniss was so stunningly popular and she was only 2 out of 3 on these (nature and shooting bows). That's your modern Ranger archetype right there - Katniss Everdeen.And what's really bad is, people picking Ranger tend to end up disappointed. I won't critique particular editions, but I will say that most versions of the Ranger have been lacking in some way or another, often in an ill-conceived attempt at "balance" (which doesn't seem to impact other classes as hard).Also pets that force the Ranger to not act so they can act is just a silly idea (as more and more people seem to realize). Better to down-power the Ranger core chassis than have a pet who needs an Action to be commanded or the like.Oh and because it's a class beloved to people new to RPGs, stuff like Favoured Enemies, i.e. "weird D&D-specific kinda creepy-seeming stuff" should be outside the main chassis of the class and inside a subclass for people who want the "Classic Ranger" or whatever.</blockquote>

Verification