Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6666129" data-attributes="member: 996">Maybe that's part of why they're thinking they need to re-imagine the Ranger?  Because, as it stands, there just isn't a lot to it, conceptually, beyond a Fighter/Druid with the Outlander background? Except that 5e does depend heavily on that kind of 'spotlight balance.'  It's not a step forward or back, it's just a matter of aligning with the rest of the game.  4e balanced the classes in the sense of giving them all these choices that were, generally, 'viable' (useful more often than not).  5e doesn't do that, it gives some classes, few or no choices at all (5e fighters  are going to be DPR machines, it's just a matter of how optimally you want to tune that machine), but those choices are generally useful (high DPR rarely fails contribute in combat), other classes it gives many choices, each of which may be limited and/or highly situational.  The 5e ranger is that that latter sort of design, it has spells and abilities that are more situational than the fighter's damage-grinding, and so will shine, some of the time.  Actually, all classes in 5e cast spells or have some other sort of supernatural ability.  Only 3 classes: the Barbarian, Fighter & Rogue, have any sub-classes in the PH that don't, for a total of 5 'mundane' non-casting sub-classes who would be 'useless' in this hypothetical high-level campaign you & Minigiant are considering.</blockquote>