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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ashrym" data-source="post: 7865853" data-attributes="member: 6750235">The design space for 5e started with "classes from core PHB's" which is why ranger.  What type of ranger was the discussion 7 years ago at this point and the spell casting ranger is what made it in.  Other criteria were popularity, the ability to support a basic archetype, whether the overall class covered multiple archetypes, whether the concept could already be covered in the other classes, and the actual popularity of the classes.The non-magical huntsman / woodsman / scout / forester / yeoman / any other name for the same thing is obviously an archetype.  The criteria uses, playtesting materials, and feedback led to not having a base class like that.  It doesn't really matter which reasons, it's just one of those things where some fans were on the wrong side of the tent wall when all was said and done.That also means there are classes I don't agree met some of the criteria, but that's what we ended up with based on the playtest.  The same is true for other people, some of whom may or may not agree with my opinions.My comment earlier was what I do to cover it.  It was not meant to represent me telling you what to do or to imply your opinion is not valid.  If that was accidentally implied then you have my apologies.  My characters start concept first, mechanics second.  I have my concept in mind, then I select the class, background, race, feats, subclasses, multi-classes, weapon styles, and any other choice to match what I think represents that concept within the rules.  I don't need additional special features to roleplay the concept for the character to be validated.  I add that through the existing features.Fighters are great for that.  An everyman largely blank template to add anything I want to build the actual character concept works very well for me.That doesn't mean it wouldn't be possible to build an actual subclass, or possibly even a class if the variety in subclasses can be demonstrated to be worth it.See my comment earlier in this point.  I'm saying the 4e ranger came up to bat and struck out based on the criteria being used for inclusion into 5e.  Not that it was a bad concept, but that there was only so much room and WotC was trying to represent what focused more on what made the big tent bigger. It sucks if a person was really a fan of the 4e ranger just like it sucked for fans warlords and fans of some 3e classes going into 4e.</blockquote>

Verification