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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 9487778" data-attributes="member: 6877472">Yeah, Bards are a whole separate discussion.  I honestly don't mind them having the option to be full casters- the idea of music and performance being tied to magic, and perhaps even being an earlier form of magic, speaks to me, and in 3.5 I came very close to becoming a Sublime Chord, a Prestige Class that allows a Bard to cast up to 9th level spells.That having been said, I don't care for the precise way it was done.  Much like how Eldritch Knight vs. Bladesinger rubs the wrong way, comparing Arcane Trickster to the Bard makes me feel that the Bard gets a much better deal- especially considering the sorts of abilities they can get on top of the base class from their Subclasses.  I get that 5e isn't in the business of making balanced character classes, but the fact that the Bard gets a fantastic skills package and is far more versatile than the Rogue and gets full caster privileges with the added benefit of being able to poach the spell lists of other classes just feels a bit...extra, I suppose.And I fully understand people who would like to play a half caster Bard, or even a Bard without spells at all, but instead having various magical songs/performances they can use to bolster their allies.And certainly, I do understand people who don't really feel the Bard has earned it's niche, beyond being a legacy class- if you want an adventuring Performer, well, that's a Background you could apply to a Rogue or a Sorcerer, or what have you.Believe it or not, I'm going to tie this back into the thread topic.  Some classes in 5e feel superfluous- half-baked concepts that don't really need to be a full class.  You could have had a "Bardic Soul" Sorcerer subclass just as easily as a Bard class, if that's the thing you wanted to do.And the Scout Rogue shows that being an "extreme explorer" or "wilderness warrior" is something that could be accomplished on the subclass level, or even conceptually with a background.  The Ranger feels like a multiclassed build disguised as a class, with very little that feels iconic or truly it's own, let alone something that deserves a niche.In AD&D (both versions), one didn't need a Ranger to survive in the wilderness.  In 1e, the Barbarian was better at such things.  In 2e, with one exception, anyone could pick up Survival skills (Tracking, btw- anyone could take it, but non-Rangers took a -5 penalty while the Ranger got bonuses).Almost anything the Ranger ever had that was unique was shared with another class, taken from another class, or taken away.Bonuses to fight certain foes?  Removed in 4e, never to return.  Sure, it was a problematic feature (as can be favored terrain) because of it's campaign dependence, but there are ways it could be made to work- having less monster types out there would do wonders, for one.  Or taking a page from the 3.x Horizon Walker, where you get neat abilities you can apply universally because you have mastered dealing with certain situations (Desert Horizon Walkers are immune to fatigue everywhere, not just in deserts).Two-Weapon Fighting?  Even in 2e, anyone could do it, and the Ranger's "no penalties" ability could be replicated as soon as the Complete Fighter's Handbook came out.Hide in Shadows and Move Silently?  Thief skills.  Sure, they were better in the wilds than a Thief was...but the Complete Thief fixed that too.Animal Companions?  Well, just about every class has flirted with the idea in some form.Shapeshifting?  Never as good as what the Druid got.Spellcasting?  An afterthought until 3.x started to put Ranger-only spells in splatbooks, most of which we haven't seen since.Etc., etc..  The Ranger is an idea, loosely defined and even it's archetypes are varied- Robin Hood, John Rambo, Aragorn, most fantasy Elves, Natty "Hawkeye" Bumppo, Davy Crockett, Hiawatha, Tarzan, and many more are characters the Ranger class is meant to evoke, even though the precise way they do it can vary wildly.And few of the names listed have the sorts of "primal/supernatural/druidic/magical" powers that would truly let them stand out in a fantastical world.Heck, some of those characters could be Barbarians just as easily as Rangers.To truly make the Ranger a worthy class, you really need to carve out a niche for them.  Level Up does this by making the Ranger's contributions truly matter, by making survival in the field an issue for even high level characters.5e does not do this.  In fact, it goes out of it's way to try and avoid anyone having niche protection.  I could make a Druid with an Outlaw or Urchin background with proficiency in Stealth and Thieves' Tools (or Sleight of Hand in 2024, I guess) and call him a Thief.  In fact, the Druid's abilities might make them truly impressive thieves!Sure, I probably won't have reliable single-target damage in the same way, and I don't have automagical abilities to make skill checks (which I feel are kind of problematic for the game anyways, really, YMMV), but I have other abilities to make up for them.Is the "class fantasy" the same if I'm infiltrating enemy bases and scouting in the form of an owl or using pass without trace?  Maybe not, but the end result is at least comparable.So what we're left with is not the end goal, but the precise path one takes to get there as being the major difference between some classes.In 5e, the main draw to a class isn't what makes that class unique, so much as how it accomplishes it's goals.  And with so many ways to accomplish the goals of classes like the Ranger, the class is always going to be lacking something some people want.You can't fix the Ranger for everyone.  You can only adapt it to suit a subset of players.  For example, looking at the poll, I see that half of the people who voted want a Ranger without spells.If you printed a PHB where the Ranger has no spells (hint: this happened once before), you're going to have (presumably) half the people saying "where's my magical Ranger?!".Sure, some say, you could have a magical Ranger subclass.  But if it ends up being another 1/3 caster subclass with access to spells that aren't going to matter a whole lot by the time you get them (pass without trace at 7th level!  Wow, amazing!), I don't know how many people would be happy with it.Now maybe if full caster classes were less prevalent, having a handful of spells would feel cooler, I don't know.  But at that point, you're not redesigning a class, but the entire game.</blockquote>

Verification