I hate the idea that spells are such an iconic part of the Ranger class because even in D&D fiction the most popular Rangers don't use them.
-
-
Replying to @alexandraerin
But I also hate the idea that you can reduce the Ranger class down to, essentially, a fighting style.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @alexandraerin
D&D's cosmology and core class structure actually has this neat little niche to put the ranger in.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @alexandraerin
You have the Fighter and the Cleric, right? And between them, the Paladin. Now, the Paladin's not just a Fighter/Cleric, of course.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @alexandraerin
Because that's what multiclass rules are for. The Paladin is not half Fighter and half Cleric, but all Paladin. Yet, it's at an intersection
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @alexandraerin
The Cleric speaks of the existence of higher powers, and the Paladin is the warrior who does the will of such powers.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @alexandraerin
So I figure the Ranger should be (roughly) to the Druid and Fighter (or Barbarian, even) as the Paladin is to the Cleric and Fighter.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @alexandraerin
Not an exact 1:1 for thing, because "Nature" or "The Wild" is not a god and is not like the gods.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @alexandraerin
That's not a conclusion for "what the ranger should be like", but it's a starting point.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @alexandraerin
And it's a better starting point than "ARAGORN!", whose abilities weren't the result of a "class" but a combination of unique features.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
@alexandraerin including being a Tolkien ubermensch whee
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.