Rangers just pale in comparison to stuff like arcane archers, it’s ridiculous
If you're thinking in terms of pure combat then maybe - my experience says otherwise (my group's ranger is still the biggest damage dealer even compared to the party's new arcane ranger) but our arcane ranger is a new addition so we'll see how it goes.
But the Ranger is not designed as a "pure combat" class like the Fighter is. It's also geared for mobility and exploration and to balance that the combat features are a little less. Especially when you consider the utility of some of their spells both in and out of combat, especially since they can heal, trap, crowd control and more.
Rangers just pale in comparison to stuff like arcane archers, it’s ridiculous
If you're thinking in terms of pure combat then maybe - my experience says otherwise (my group's ranger is still the biggest damage dealer even compared to the party's new arcane ranger) but our arcane ranger is a new addition so we'll see how it goes.
But the Ranger is not designed as a "pure combat" class like the Fighter is. It's also geared for mobility and exploration and to balance that the combat features are a little less. Especially when you consider the utility of some of their spells both in and out of combat, especially since they can heal, trap, crowd control and more.
Rangers just pale in comparison to stuff like arcane archers, it’s ridiculous
Nothing in an Arcane Archer's toolkit compares to the usefulness of the ranger's spell list. If you're in it solely for the damage then yeah naturally Fighters are more geared in that direction.
The ranger spell list has a handful of cool spells, but they get crap for slots and outside of Hunter's Mark, which should be a feature, and the occasional Healing Spirit I never cast.
The really great spells don't even show up until level 9+, most campaigns don't even get to that point for months.
The ranger spell list has a handful of cool spells, but they get crap for slots and outside of Hunter's Mark, which should be a feature, and the occasional Healing Spirit I never cast.
The really great spells don't even show up until level 9+, most campaigns don't even get to that point for months.
I don't know what you're talking about. Ensnaring Strike, Fog Cloud, Pass Without Trace, Silence and Spike Growth are all low level spells with major tactical applications. And yes, their slots are relatively limited, but you're still talking about a character with near-fighter capabilities. Crossbow Expert + Hunter's Mark is great damage per round no matter how you slice it.
The problem is that Rangers lack any concentration buffs to go with all those nice concentration spells. Paladins, at least, have the benefit of a aura ability from 6th level onwards. It's no wonder so few people play pure melee Ranger builds. AND Rangers with maxed stats still get less spell slots compared to Paladins with maxed stats on top of that. So comparing half casters, Rangers still got the pittance of the inheritance.
The problem is that Rangers lack any concentration buffs to go with all those nice concentration spells. Paladins, at least, have the benefit of a aura ability from 6th level onwards.
Paladins are designed to fight up close. Rangers don't lose any effectiveness from a distance and also get proficiency in Dex saves and Absorb Elements to help with area spells. Actually, one of my (relatively small) peeves with the class is that there's really no incentive to ever go melee.
If concentration checks are a significant priority for you, War Caster or Resilient will give a big boost there.
It's no wonder so few people play pure melee Ranger builds.
That hasn't been my experience at all. Just about anything a melee build can do, a ranged build will do just as well or better.
AND Rangers with maxed stats still get less spell slots compared to Paladins with maxed stats on top of that. So comparing half casters, Rangers still got the pittance of the inheritance.
What? They have the exact same spell slot progression. Are you talking about spells known vs spells prepared? Because I'll acknowledge that area of the class really sucks, but it's not unique to rangers. Sorcerers and warlocks start with a criminally low amount of known spells too.
The new subclasses partially address that by granting additional spells, but the Player's Handbook subclasses still suffer there.
The problem is that Rangers lack any concentration buffs to go with all those nice concentration spells. Paladins, at least, have the benefit of a aura ability from 6th level onwards.
Paladins are designed to fight up close. Rangers don't lose any effectiveness from a distance and also get proficiency in Dex saves and Absorb Elements to help with area spells. Actually, one of my (relatively small) peeves with the class is that there's really no incentive to ever go melee.
If concentration checks are a significant priority for you, War Caster or Resilient will give a big boost there.
It's no wonder so few people play pure melee Ranger builds.
That hasn't been my experience at all. Just about anything a melee build can do, a ranged build will do just as well or better.
AND Rangers with maxed stats still get less spell slots compared to Paladins with maxed stats on top of that. So comparing half casters, Rangers still got the pittance of the inheritance.
What? They have the exact same spell slot progression. Are you talking about spells known vs spells prepared? Because I'll acknowledge that area of the class really sucks, but it's not unique to rangers. Sorcerers and warlocks start with a criminally low amount of known spells too.
The new subclasses partially address that by granting additional spells, but the Player's Handbook subclasses still suffer there.
Yes, sorry. Yes spells KNOWN. For no apparent reason, Paladins get to have more spells known than Rangers. Are they more studious in general? Are they closer to Wizards in general? This part makes no sense.
Concentration is a bigger deal for Rangers than for Paladins. As you correctly stated earlier, Rangers have more and rely on more concentration spells. Most of their powerful spells, from Hunter's Mark to Conjure Animals to Guardian of Nature, rely on concentration. Paladins mostly use spell slots for one off effects and smiting. And, ummm, what about Summon Greater Steed? Don't tell me that isn't a very sweet spell that often blows a whole Ranger subclass's abilities out of the water. No concentration despite being an super useful spell for both the Paladin and the party.
And you just acknowledged my point yourself. The ranged Ranger prominently can do everything the melee Ranger "can do and better" (your words). Unless somebody is playing Gloomstalker in a dungeon or underground campaign, most melee Rangers can't hold a candle to what Paladins can do for the party during combat. And like it or not, most modules and AL are designed around combat and to some degree social RP, not exploration. And speaking of social RP, Paladins also have much more incentive to max CHA, which makes them better social problem solvers than Rangers as well.
And do I even need to bring up the 20th level abilities of Paladins? Unless you're arguing that Rangers are mostly supposed to be played as archers and stay below level 20, I rest my case.
Yes, sorry. Yes spells KNOWN. For no apparent reason, Paladins get to have more spells known than Rangers. Are they more studious in general? Are they closer to Wizards in general? This part makes no sense.
Fortunately - and I recognize this doesn't help AL players at all, but AL isn't all there is to D&D - this has a really easy fix in your home game. Just bump up the number of spells a Ranger learns. This requires absolutely no design skills or playtesting, and even if you go a wee bit overboard with it, it's still naturally balanced out by the fact that having access to more spells doesn't mean you get to cast more of them each day.
But, even with the restrictive amount of Spells Known in the Player's Handbook, the spells a Ranger gets are so useful to the group on top of already fighting almost as well as a Fighter and having an extra skill proficiency over them that Rangers definitely pull their own weight. I've never been in a party where the Ranger was the weak link.
Concentration is a bigger deal for Rangers than for Paladins. As you correctly stated earlier, Rangers have more and rely on more concentration spells. Most of their powerful spells, from Hunter's Mark to Conjure Animals to Guardian of Nature, rely on concentration. Paladins mostly use spell slots for one off effects and smiting.
And yet Rangers are able to do their job well out of harm's way and many of their spells severely limit their enemy's ability to retaliate. If a Ranger casts Fog Cloud from 60+ feet away, what are the enemies gonna do? If the Ranger sticks Ensnaring Strike from a distance with a longbow, what's the restrained enemy going to do about it? When the Ranger turns a 40 foot diameter circle into difficult terrain that also damages them for moving, how are the enemies going to get near the Ranger to smack them around?
Secondly, it's absolutely not true that Paladins are less reliant on concentration. Bless or Shield of Faith will often be a better choice than straight up smiting. But even if that were true, the Paladin doesn't have any major options for crowd control and incapacitation. Having to concentrate is a fair price to pay for taking several enemies out of the fight, even temporarily.
And, ummm, what about Summon Greater Steed? Don't tell me that isn't a very sweet spell that often blows a whole Ranger subclass's abilities out of the water. No concentration despite being an super useful spell for both the Paladin and the party.
I mean, that's true, but if your entire argument is that Rangers suck because Paladins can summon a flying mount at thirteenth level, your main gripe doesn't even affect the majority of players because a lot of people don't make it that far. And by the way a Bard can do that too at an earlier level if they really want to.
But a flying mount isn't going to help the party sneak around or take a large group of enemies out of the fight and depending on how the DM understands and implements the mounted combat rules, they might not even get to use Extra Attack without being in melee range anyways.
And you just acknowledged my point yourself. The ranged Ranger prominently can do everything the melee Ranger "can do and better" (your words).
Sorry, I totally misread what you said. I somehow read it as "It's no wonder so many people play pure melee Ranger builds." I don't know why my brain short-circuited so hard.
And speaking of social RP, Paladins also have much more incentive to max CHA, which makes them better social problem solvers than Rangers as well.
Well yeah, but they have absolutely nothing going for them in the exploration department, and Rangers aren't any worse off than Fighters in the social department either.
And do I even need to bring up the 20th level abilities of Paladins? Unless you're arguing that Rangers are mostly supposed to be played as archers and stay below level 20, I rest my case.
Again, that's a mostly academic concern. For one thing 20th level abilities are all over the place and for another that's not going to be an issue for the vast majority of players.
IC, I think you're selectively listening to what I'm saying. My point is not that Rangers are crap. A well built Ranger can be very powerful. My point is that compared to their nearest neighbor in terms of spells and other overall utility features in a variety of situations likely to see play, they are noticeably behind Paladins if played as a melee build, assuming that the same players are choosing stats and feats proportionate in power. A Paladin at 6+ levels benefits more from Resilient or Warcaster than the Ranger due to their always on (and spell slot free) aura ability. And Rangers are supposed to spend a slot just to discover the presence of certain creatures types in a certain radius? I'm sorry, but how exactly does that compare to the always-helpful Lay on Hands ability (which also does not cost a spell slot)? Not even close unless you're in an outdoor campaign and you happen to have picked the right Favored Enemy category when building your character.
There are plenty of good reasons to play a Ranger, but the 1st level abilities of Paladins and the 20th abilities of Paladins are more useful all around, going by RAW. It's great to have a friendly understanding DM who knows the ins and outs of all the classes, but if you're stuck with one who is either unfriendly to you or doesn't know the rules well, most players will find a melee Paladin to be more useful and retain better survivability at all levels of play than a melee Ranger.
IC, I think you're selectively listening to what I'm saying. My point is not that Rangers are crap. A well built Ranger can be very powerful. My point is that compared to their nearest neighbor in terms of spells and other overall utility features in a variety of situations likely to see play, they are noticeably behind Paladins if played as a melee build, assuming that the same players are choosing stats and feats proportionate in power.
If that's what you're trying to argue, then I apologize, because I actually agree. Melee Rangers can do ok but they're not going to shine nearly as much as ranged Rangers or melee Paladins. In your initial reply to me you didn't mention the melee thing at all so I thought you were trying to argue Rangers aren't as good as Paladins in general.
And yeah I also recognize the 1st level of Ranger is pretty bad. Mike Mearls was actually tooling around with a replacement for Natural Explorer that provided some benefits regardless of whether the ranger was in their favored terrain or not in his Happy Fun Hour stream. I'm still holding out hope that they'll offer some official alternatives to some of the rough edges in the class, but I don't think we'll see anything in the immediate future.
Right. Sorry if I wasn't thorough enough in my initial response to your response. My issues are with the Ranger (generally) as melee characters. Ranged Rangers perform well compared to other ranged classes once they get their spells online. And if any Devs are reading this: Mind you, I would certainly look forward to a revision that included some more useful 1st, 10th, and 20th level features.
I think if they do another Player's Handbook type book like guide to everything, they might include variants to the core classes but I feel they are very much playing conservative on this since nothing that Mearl's had done has made it into a product besides subclasses and errata.
The ranger core kit/chassis is just weaker than the rest of the core classes when it comes to combat. The only thing I can think that they could do without adjusting the core class is make some Ranger specific feats and add some more ranger specific spells.
My fix for the beast master ranger would be to allow large beasts but make them medium in size just like how they made the large creatures playable races. Still need to see if there hp would be too high or attacks too strong but I think as long as its within the CR limitations it would be fine.
Secondly the best part of beasts is their special abilities they may have like certain things that have a DC to them. I would make the DC for those skills and abilites also tie in with you add your Proficiency Bonus to them so they don't seem so bad at higher level and would want to give up one of your attacks for, lets say your wolf to do the bite attack and have the foe make a Str check or be knocked prone. Giving the beast master a more reliable controller vs... yeah don't even bother rolling for that.. Most of the DC for the beasts are only a 11 and Lv 1 spellcasters usualy start at a spell DC of 13 or a little higher if you got good rolls. So having a wolf at Lv 10 with a DC str save of 11 is laughable when it could be a DC 15 at that level. The beast in all ways should be stronger than its wild not tamed counterpart and you would think the ranger would take advantage of the beasts capabilities and skills and help train them to be better. I would assume that the beast is proficient with All of its abilities like the example of knocking things prone. It is also because of that trait their CR is what it is, without that trait or causing someone to make a DC saving throw the CR of the creature would be lower.
I think if they do another Player's Handbook type book like guide to everything, they might include variants to the core classes but I feel they are very much playing conservative on this since nothing that Mearl's had done has made it into a product besides subclasses and errata.
The ranger core kit/chassis is just weaker than the rest of the core classes when it comes to combat. The only thing I can think that they could do without adjusting the core class is make some Ranger specific feats and add some more ranger specific spells.
WOW! I predicted the UA that came out and a new Book of Everything ... That UA did address all my concerns I hope it sees print. :)
I think if they do another Player's Handbook type book like guide to everything, they might include variants to the core classes but I feel they are very much playing conservative on this since nothing that Mearl's had done has made it into a product besides subclasses and errata.
The ranger core kit/chassis is just weaker than the rest of the core classes when it comes to combat. The only thing I can think that they could do without adjusting the core class is make some Ranger specific feats and add some more ranger specific spells.
WOW! I predicted the UA that came out and a new Book of Everything ... That UA did address all my concerns I hope it sees print. :)
It is coming out in print. Tasha's is confirmed to have the CFV.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
The ranger isn’t underpowered. Not even the beast master. The baseline ranger class is the most open to DM interpretation of any of the classes.
I feel like you're trolling here, or have a very different experience of rangers than practically everyone else in D&D 5e. Have you played a ranger? Have you played one with another damage dealing character? Have you played more than just a ranger? Do you still think rangers aren't underpowered?
If you answered yes, yes, yes, and yes, you have been doing something wrong. Rangers are underpowered, especially beast masters.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
If you're thinking in terms of pure combat then maybe - my experience says otherwise (my group's ranger is still the biggest damage dealer even compared to the party's new arcane ranger) but our arcane ranger is a new addition so we'll see how it goes.
But the Ranger is not designed as a "pure combat" class like the Fighter is. It's also geared for mobility and exploration and to balance that the combat features are a little less. Especially when you consider the utility of some of their spells both in and out of combat, especially since they can heal, trap, crowd control and more.
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Spells | Magic Items | Feats
Need help with Homebrew? Check out this FAQ/Guide thread by IamSposta
See My Youtube Videos for Tips & Tricks using D&D Beyond
The ranger spell list has a handful of cool spells, but they get crap for slots and outside of Hunter's Mark, which should be a feature, and the occasional Healing Spirit I never cast.
The really great spells don't even show up until level 9+, most campaigns don't even get to that point for months.
I don't know what you're talking about. Ensnaring Strike, Fog Cloud, Pass Without Trace, Silence and Spike Growth are all low level spells with major tactical applications. And yes, their slots are relatively limited, but you're still talking about a character with near-fighter capabilities. Crossbow Expert + Hunter's Mark is great damage per round no matter how you slice it.
The problem is that Rangers lack any concentration buffs to go with all those nice concentration spells. Paladins, at least, have the benefit of a aura ability from 6th level onwards. It's no wonder so few people play pure melee Ranger builds. AND Rangers with maxed stats still get less spell slots compared to Paladins with maxed stats on top of that. So comparing half casters, Rangers still got the pittance of the inheritance.
Paladins are designed to fight up close. Rangers don't lose any effectiveness from a distance and also get proficiency in Dex saves and Absorb Elements to help with area spells. Actually, one of my (relatively small) peeves with the class is that there's really no incentive to ever go melee.
If concentration checks are a significant priority for you, War Caster or Resilient will give a big boost there.
That hasn't been my experience at all. Just about anything a melee build can do, a ranged build will do just as well or better.
What? They have the exact same spell slot progression. Are you talking about spells known vs spells prepared? Because I'll acknowledge that area of the class really sucks, but it's not unique to rangers. Sorcerers and warlocks start with a criminally low amount of known spells too.
The new subclasses partially address that by granting additional spells, but the Player's Handbook subclasses still suffer there.
Yes, sorry. Yes spells KNOWN. For no apparent reason, Paladins get to have more spells known than Rangers. Are they more studious in general? Are they closer to Wizards in general? This part makes no sense.
Concentration is a bigger deal for Rangers than for Paladins. As you correctly stated earlier, Rangers have more and rely on more concentration spells. Most of their powerful spells, from Hunter's Mark to Conjure Animals to Guardian of Nature, rely on concentration. Paladins mostly use spell slots for one off effects and smiting. And, ummm, what about Summon Greater Steed? Don't tell me that isn't a very sweet spell that often blows a whole Ranger subclass's abilities out of the water. No concentration despite being an super useful spell for both the Paladin and the party.
And you just acknowledged my point yourself. The ranged Ranger prominently can do everything the melee Ranger "can do and better" (your words). Unless somebody is playing Gloomstalker in a dungeon or underground campaign, most melee Rangers can't hold a candle to what Paladins can do for the party during combat. And like it or not, most modules and AL are designed around combat and to some degree social RP, not exploration. And speaking of social RP, Paladins also have much more incentive to max CHA, which makes them better social problem solvers than Rangers as well.
And do I even need to bring up the 20th level abilities of Paladins? Unless you're arguing that Rangers are mostly supposed to be played as archers and stay below level 20, I rest my case.
Fortunately - and I recognize this doesn't help AL players at all, but AL isn't all there is to D&D - this has a really easy fix in your home game. Just bump up the number of spells a Ranger learns. This requires absolutely no design skills or playtesting, and even if you go a wee bit overboard with it, it's still naturally balanced out by the fact that having access to more spells doesn't mean you get to cast more of them each day.
But, even with the restrictive amount of Spells Known in the Player's Handbook, the spells a Ranger gets are so useful to the group on top of already fighting almost as well as a Fighter and having an extra skill proficiency over them that Rangers definitely pull their own weight. I've never been in a party where the Ranger was the weak link.
And yet Rangers are able to do their job well out of harm's way and many of their spells severely limit their enemy's ability to retaliate. If a Ranger casts Fog Cloud from 60+ feet away, what are the enemies gonna do? If the Ranger sticks Ensnaring Strike from a distance with a longbow, what's the restrained enemy going to do about it? When the Ranger turns a 40 foot diameter circle into difficult terrain that also damages them for moving, how are the enemies going to get near the Ranger to smack them around?
Secondly, it's absolutely not true that Paladins are less reliant on concentration. Bless or Shield of Faith will often be a better choice than straight up smiting. But even if that were true, the Paladin doesn't have any major options for crowd control and incapacitation. Having to concentrate is a fair price to pay for taking several enemies out of the fight, even temporarily.
I mean, that's true, but if your entire argument is that Rangers suck because Paladins can summon a flying mount at thirteenth level, your main gripe doesn't even affect the majority of players because a lot of people don't make it that far. And by the way a Bard can do that too at an earlier level if they really want to.
But a flying mount isn't going to help the party sneak around or take a large group of enemies out of the fight and depending on how the DM understands and implements the mounted combat rules, they might not even get to use Extra Attack without being in melee range anyways.
Sorry, I totally misread what you said. I somehow read it as "It's no wonder so many people play pure melee Ranger builds." I don't know why my brain short-circuited so hard.
Well yeah, but they have absolutely nothing going for them in the exploration department, and Rangers aren't any worse off than Fighters in the social department either.
Again, that's a mostly academic concern. For one thing 20th level abilities are all over the place and for another that's not going to be an issue for the vast majority of players.
IC, I think you're selectively listening to what I'm saying. My point is not that Rangers are crap. A well built Ranger can be very powerful. My point is that compared to their nearest neighbor in terms of spells and other overall utility features in a variety of situations likely to see play, they are noticeably behind Paladins if played as a melee build, assuming that the same players are choosing stats and feats proportionate in power. A Paladin at 6+ levels benefits more from Resilient or Warcaster than the Ranger due to their always on (and spell slot free) aura ability. And Rangers are supposed to spend a slot just to discover the presence of certain creatures types in a certain radius? I'm sorry, but how exactly does that compare to the always-helpful Lay on Hands ability (which also does not cost a spell slot)? Not even close unless you're in an outdoor campaign and you happen to have picked the right Favored Enemy category when building your character.
There are plenty of good reasons to play a Ranger, but the 1st level abilities of Paladins and the 20th abilities of Paladins are more useful all around, going by RAW. It's great to have a friendly understanding DM who knows the ins and outs of all the classes, but if you're stuck with one who is either unfriendly to you or doesn't know the rules well, most players will find a melee Paladin to be more useful and retain better survivability at all levels of play than a melee Ranger.
If that's what you're trying to argue, then I apologize, because I actually agree. Melee Rangers can do ok but they're not going to shine nearly as much as ranged Rangers or melee Paladins. In your initial reply to me you didn't mention the melee thing at all so I thought you were trying to argue Rangers aren't as good as Paladins in general.
And yeah I also recognize the 1st level of Ranger is pretty bad. Mike Mearls was actually tooling around with a replacement for Natural Explorer that provided some benefits regardless of whether the ranger was in their favored terrain or not in his Happy Fun Hour stream. I'm still holding out hope that they'll offer some official alternatives to some of the rough edges in the class, but I don't think we'll see anything in the immediate future.
Right. Sorry if I wasn't thorough enough in my initial response to your response. My issues are with the Ranger (generally) as melee characters. Ranged Rangers perform well compared to other ranged classes once they get their spells online. And if any Devs are reading this: Mind you, I would certainly look forward to a revision that included some more useful 1st, 10th, and 20th level features.
I think if they do another Player's Handbook type book like guide to everything, they might include variants to the core classes but I feel they are very much playing conservative on this since nothing that Mearl's had done has made it into a product besides subclasses and errata.
The ranger core kit/chassis is just weaker than the rest of the core classes when it comes to combat. The only thing I can think that they could do without adjusting the core class is make some Ranger specific feats and add some more ranger specific spells.
My fix for the beast master ranger would be to allow large beasts but make them medium in size just like how they made the large creatures playable races. Still need to see if there hp would be too high or attacks too strong but I think as long as its within the CR limitations it would be fine.
Secondly the best part of beasts is their special abilities they may have like certain things that have a DC to them. I would make the DC for those skills and abilites also tie in with you add your Proficiency Bonus to them so they don't seem so bad at higher level and would want to give up one of your attacks for, lets say your wolf to do the bite attack and have the foe make a Str check or be knocked prone. Giving the beast master a more reliable controller vs... yeah don't even bother rolling for that.. Most of the DC for the beasts are only a 11 and Lv 1 spellcasters usualy start at a spell DC of 13 or a little higher if you got good rolls. So having a wolf at Lv 10 with a DC str save of 11 is laughable when it could be a DC 15 at that level. The beast in all ways should be stronger than its wild not tamed counterpart and you would think the ranger would take advantage of the beasts capabilities and skills and help train them to be better. I would assume that the beast is proficient with All of its abilities like the example of knocking things prone. It is also because of that trait their CR is what it is, without that trait or causing someone to make a DC saving throw the CR of the creature would be lower.
WOW! I predicted the UA that came out and a new Book of Everything ... That UA did address all my concerns I hope it sees print. :)
It is coming out in print. Tasha's is confirmed to have the CFV.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Class variants are in the new book? I must have missed that. I very proud of my predictive abilities :P
yeah, I am super looking forward to updating my ranger
same!
The ranger isn’t underpowered. Not even the beast master. The baseline ranger class is the most open to DM interpretation of any of the classes.
so your argument is "it isn't weak, you just have to have a DM that lets do things that aren't written"?
I feel like you're trolling here, or have a very different experience of rangers than practically everyone else in D&D 5e. Have you played a ranger? Have you played one with another damage dealing character? Have you played more than just a ranger? Do you still think rangers aren't underpowered?
If you answered yes, yes, yes, and yes, you have been doing something wrong. Rangers are underpowered, especially beast masters.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms