Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TheCosmicKid" data-source="post: 6669299" data-attributes="member: 6683613">And most of the &quot;unique options&quot; you mention are not distinct classic fantasy archetypes the way the &quot;resourceful woodsman&quot; is.&nbsp; Artificers and psions are very setting-specific.&nbsp; Warblades are conceptually fighters, however mechanically different they behave.&nbsp; Ditto warmages for sorcerers.&nbsp; Swordmages and bladesingers are multiclass characters pretty much by definition.&nbsp; And I'm honestly not sure what you think distinguishes shamans from druids or nature clerics such that those classes are a poor match for the archetype.That really just leaves the warlord.&nbsp; Never much cared for the 4E name, but that &quot;mundane leader guy&quot; archetype, along with the &quot;swashbuckler&quot; archetype, are the two things that are conspicuously missing from the 5E PHB.&nbsp; So if you want a new version of that class, I'm with you.&nbsp; But it doesn't have priority over the ranger, and it was never going to.&nbsp; And I don't see much profit in grumbling about that.&nbsp; This conversation, as I understand it, is about improving the ranger, not going back in time to pluck it out of the PHB in favor of classes we like better.&nbsp; So do you have productive things to say about how the ranger's archetype can be represented mechanically?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TheCosmicKid, post: 6669299, member: 6683613"] And most of the "unique options" you mention are not distinct classic fantasy archetypes the way the "resourceful woodsman" is. Artificers and psions are very setting-specific. Warblades are conceptually fighters, however mechanically different they behave. Ditto warmages for sorcerers. Swordmages and bladesingers are multiclass characters pretty much by definition. And I'm honestly not sure what you think distinguishes shamans from druids or nature clerics such that those classes are a poor match for the archetype. That really just leaves the warlord. Never much cared for the 4E name, but that "mundane leader guy" archetype, along with the "swashbuckler" archetype, are the two things that are conspicuously missing from the 5E PHB. So if you want a new version of that class, I'm with you. But it doesn't have priority over the ranger, and it was never going to. And I don't see much profit in grumbling about that. This conversation, as I understand it, is about [I]improving[/I] the ranger, not going back in time to pluck it out of the PHB in favor of classes we like better. So do you have productive things to say about how the ranger's archetype can be represented mechanically? [/QUOTE]

Verification