Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bacon Bits" data-source="post: 8116134" data-attributes="member: 6777737">I think 2e's class has defined what a ranger is. That's the iconic version of the class. Lightly armored, thief skills, TWF as a showcase ability, druid spells only, favored enemy, tracking is fairly potent, animal companions can be had through taming. This is the first version of the class that does everything we think of today as ranger-like. 5e + Tasha's is looking VERY nice. It might beat out 2e, but for now I put it in second.4e is certainly the most powerful version of the class. Ranger was big old can of whoopin' in 4e. But that's kinda all it got. 1e was kinda the same way. If you fought a lot of &quot;giant class&quot; giants and humanoids, they dealt a ton of damage. Otherwise they were just fighters with weird hit dice and a treasure restriction that necessitated a bag of holding. These two are tied for third.3.5e and 5e feel to me to be tied for coming close to 2e's flavor, but in having critical flaws holding them back. 3.5e is that edition's power balance problem, and 5e is the poorly designed first level. This is 4th place.3e feels like the shell of the class. The first draft. Bad, and not able to compare to the other classes, and far too frontloaded for a game with a la carte multiclassing. 5th place.As far as I'm aware, that's it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bacon Bits, post: 8116134, member: 6777737"] I think 2e's class has defined what a ranger is. That's the iconic version of the class. Lightly armored, thief skills, TWF as a showcase ability, druid spells only, favored enemy, tracking is fairly potent, animal companions can be had through taming. This is the first version of the class that does everything we think of today as ranger-like. 5e + Tasha's is looking VERY nice. It might beat out 2e, but for now I put it in second. 4e is certainly the most powerful version of the class. Ranger was big old can of whoopin' in 4e. But that's kinda all it got. 1e was kinda the same way. If you fought a lot of "giant class" giants and humanoids, they dealt a ton of damage. Otherwise they were just fighters with weird hit dice and a treasure restriction that necessitated a bag of holding. These two are tied for third. 3.5e and 5e feel to me to be tied for coming close to 2e's flavor, but in having critical flaws holding them back. 3.5e is that edition's power balance problem, and 5e is the poorly designed first level. This is 4th place. 3e feels like the shell of the class. The first draft. Bad, and not able to compare to the other classes, and far too frontloaded for a game with a la carte multiclassing. 5th place. As far as I'm aware, that's it. [/QUOTE]

Verification