dragon nuance naturally speaking premium 13

For example if you want to be a bit more arcane than the typical ranger a fighter/wizard multiclass still might fit your concept more than a Ranger. I think they dialed in on the nature survival aspect to help it keep a separate niche from other combos of those class abilities, and still leave room for more custom styles achievable trough the multiclass system. That 2e Ranger guide was one of my favorite resources they ever printed, I still have it just for nostalgia. I think it got muddied when all of the subclasses crept in to also try to scratch the multiclass itch to spread into the classic territory of another class (Arcane trickster, Eldritch Knight, etc.). It fills in the multiclass pretty good (fighting style, armor and weapon proficiency, half caster, stealth and evasion, etc.).

So to me the ranger has always just been the single class embodiment of an old school multiclass. So the fighter/cleric became the paladin, the fighter/magic-user/thief became the ranger, etc. Some of these became so common they were effectively archetypes unto themselves and started to appear as their own classes to make them more accessible than trying to master the multiclassing rules. So there were tons of fighter/magic-user/thief, fighter/cleric, fighter/thief, etc. There were only a few base classes, and multiclassing was a pain, but regularly done to expand your toolbox. I had the original box set as a kid and there were no rangers.

Dragon nuance naturally speaking premium 13