Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TheCosmicKid" data-source="post: 7701238" data-attributes="member: 6683613">It really seems to me like you're missing the point here. Have you actually sat down and compared the 5E PHB ranger to this new UA ranger, side by side? The classes are very similar in outline and function. In no sense can the ranger be said to have changed &quot;role&quot;. In the big picture, WotC knows exactly what they want to do with the ranger. What changed were the details. Class abilities that didn't work quite as intended, or quite to players' satisfaction, were tuned up. In 4E terms, it's not like they're printing a new ranger that's a controller instead of a striker. It's like they're tweaking the existing ranger's striker abilities to be better at striking.I could argue at some length why lumping the D&amp;D classes into four discrete mechanical roles is not a great idea (for starters: is the fighter a defender or a striker?). But I think the whole topic of class roles is completely irrelevant to this discussion. You're letting it distract you into rambling about maguses, when it has nothing whatsoever to do with the 5E ranger, why players were dissatisfied with it, or why WotC decided to write a revision. You need to reexamine all of those things and reassess your stance from there.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TheCosmicKid, post: 7701238, member: 6683613"] It really seems to me like you're missing the point here. Have you actually sat down and compared the 5E PHB ranger to this new UA ranger, side by side? The classes are very similar in outline and function. In no sense can the ranger be said to have changed "role". In the big picture, WotC knows exactly what they want to do with the ranger. What changed were the [I]details[/I]. Class abilities that didn't work quite as intended, or quite to players' satisfaction, were tuned up. In 4E terms, it's not like they're printing a new ranger that's a controller instead of a striker. It's like they're tweaking the existing ranger's striker abilities to be better at striking. I could argue at some length why lumping the D&D classes into four discrete mechanical roles is not a great idea (for starters: is the fighter a defender or a striker?). But I think the whole topic of class roles is completely irrelevant to this discussion. You're letting it distract you into rambling about maguses, when it has nothing whatsoever to do with the 5E ranger, why players were dissatisfied with it, or why WotC decided to write a revision. You need to reexamine all of those things and reassess your stance from there. [/QUOTE]

Verification