On melee I kinda like flurry but not for damage, but for athletic skill checks like trip and grapple, because the flurry just reduce the MAP against the enemy and does not matter from where it comes, and because of skill increases in the system works (they get increase earlier than your strikes and reach legendary) and that they target saves, makes that in flurry even the worse MAP have a really good chance of success.
I do have a player that like Ranged Flurry with Alchemist dedication, his main strategy was the hunted shot and then a quick draw bomb in max map to debuff.
The iterative penalty reductions have made worlds of difference in turning misses into hits or crits. You want to talk how a +1 or +2 makes a load of difference in the system, how about ignoring a -6 to your future attacks.First off, thank you for the dialogue.
Oh, I completely agree as should have been evident by the specifics of my response. Let me reiterate: Paizo apparently felt that Flurry is so good that entire class has been designed around burning actions and reducing a Ranger's ability to get extra attacks. In fact, the original Playtest Ranger didn't have Hunted Shot/Twin Takedown, they had the two action version, which would have left the Ranger with only 1 action. That tells us how much Paizo was trying to slow down iterative attacks under Flurry.
My question/probe is about the frequency that you get these extra attacks. As I said, I don't believe that on balance, the Flurry Ranger is getting enough of them to out damage an equally buffed/built fighter.
Are you saying Quickened doesn't give a bonus action to Stride or Strike?Unless it's cast before combat starts, the Ranger doesn't start the round with Haste in effect. So unless the Ranger is delaying for the buff, that first round is not quickened.
Are you saying we can't utilize Mature Animal Companions for free actions on Hunted targets? What game are you playing?Yes, it gets one free action. That's not enough to get a benefit from Flurry. So if the Ranger has to move from target to target, the Companion is spending its one action moving as well, and not attacking. In addition, unless the animal makes two attacks, it does not get any benefit from Flurry.
He doesn't on weaker encounters, because it's a waste of spell slots, but as I said, on-level or above? Mass Haste for all. Fighter included. And most enemies at our level will take several of those hits a round before they go splat.So this is exactly what I was alluding to...
Well, most creatures that are on-level last for an average of 3 rounds per person, a little less or more depending on creatures and dice rolls, and it takes less than a round to get in range and slaughter most of the time. 2 out of 3 rounds getting full attack actions isn't terrible. Multiple Hunt feats certainly help reduce the actions needed throughout a combat as well. Have there been instances where the Ranger couldn't Twin Takedown? Sure. But in those instances, the Fighter has done far, far worse.
That's true. Sometimes the Bard goes first and casts before the Ranger can act. Other times the Ranger delays to see what the enemies do, or the other players, as well as to benefit from buffs prior to engaging. Ignoring proper tactics would probably make it less likely to occur, and trust me, when the Ranger decides to ignore tactics, he pays for it dearly.
I actually did not realize that a Ranger's Animal Companion benefits from the Ranger's Edge on hunted targets. Whoops. Regardless, that wasn't the point of the Animal Companion, it's more of a flanking buddy than an offensive powerhouse addition. It also doesn't do that if the Ranger takes Animal Companions from, say, Beastmaster dedication.
PFS would be hardpressed to make anything group-centric viable outside of Bards, so on that front, I better understand the skepticism.
It also doesn't do that if the Ranger takes Animal Companions from, say, Beastmaster dedication.
The 1st level Ranger Animal Companion feat is what triggers the ranger's hunted prey abilities for his companion. But it does apply to any animal companion even an extra one he gets from Beastmaster.
The key wording is merely "animal companion"
It also doesn't do that if the Ranger takes Animal Companions from, say, Beastmaster dedication.The 1st level Ranger Animal Companion feat is what triggers the ranger's hunted prey abilities for his companion. But it does apply to any animal companion even an extra one he gets from Beastmaster.
The key wording is merely "animal companion"
Yes, but it specifically requires the 1st level Ranger Animal Companion feat to get that benefit. I couldn't, for example, take Twin Takedown at first level, and take Beastmaster Dedication at 2nd level, and expect my Hunter Edge to apply to my Animal Companion, because I didn't take the 1st level feat version.
Yes, but it specifically requires the 1st level Ranger Animal Companion feat to get that benefit. I couldn't, for example, take Twin Takedown at first level, and take Beastmaster Dedication at 2nd level, and expect my Hunter Edge to apply to my Animal Companion, because I didn't take the 1st level feat version.It also doesn't do that if the Ranger takes Animal Companions from, say, Beastmaster dedication.The 1st level Ranger Animal Companion feat is what triggers the ranger's hunted prey abilities for his companion. But it does apply to any animal companion even an extra one he gets from Beastmaster.
The key wording is merely "animal companion"
Yes you need both. So you would need to be human to take that extra 1st level class feat via your ancestry and you are away...
I think another factor to this also is table variance. If you have a lof of battles involving lots of weak creatures, precision is better since they wont live long enough to unleash the flurry you need, where if you're able to just take a comfy place to stand and shoot 3-4 times against the same boss turn after turn, flurry will probs do more.
Imo, I favor precision because a lot of the battles at my table are mobile, and I rarely get spots I can shoot from amd just het clean line of effect to all the time. Additionally, I like consumables, so precision lets do stuff like draw and drink a potion, then shoot, and not lower my damage per turn too harshly
1. The Companion is a crit magnet. In 10+ years of PFS, i've only failed to kill the BBEG in a scenario one time. That time was a PF2 game with two other Rangers. I think both were Precision with Companions. Each companion was taken out in one hit. their accompanying Rangers were subsequently killed (one permanently).
There is a level 13 ancestry feat to help with this
Ferocious Beastswhich means your animals will last for 2 hits minimum
:)
Yeah its a real problem. Low AC on animals does make them vulnerable to critical hits and going down very quickly. You really do need to maximise their defense. For higher levels that is just not possible for some types of animal.
Plus Rangers get less of the top level specialisation feats to boost their companion. For a Ranger the best way is to take the level one Ranger feat and any other Ranger feat you need to add extra feature to your animal, but mostly go up the Beastmaster Archetype. It costs one extra level one feat, but you get a better result and a second companion.
The build I did was:
1) Animal Companion recommend Bird, Dromaeosaur, Scorpion, Wolf
2) Beastmaster a second Animal
4) Mature Animal Companion
6) Skirmish Strike for more action efficiency
8) Incredible Companion for Nimble Animal Companion
10) Disrupt Prey or multiclass and get the more flexible fighter or swashbuckler AoO version that isn’t limited to your prey
12) Double Prey primary means less actions wasted hunting your prey. You want Side by Side too but what do you give up
14) Specialized Companion for Daredevil
16) Specialized Companion for Ambusher
I find this a bit distasteful but there it is. Fortunately a Ranger can get away with very few of his class feats if he wants.
Regardless, that wasn't the point of the Animal Companion, it's more of a flanking buddy than an offensive powerhouse addition.Right, you were talking about Flurry and it's ability to out damage the Fighter. And yes, adding a perma-Flanking buddy makes Flurry really pay off.
However, again, IME, this doesn't work consistently for a couple of major reasons
1. The Companion is a crit magnet. In 10+ years of PFS, i've only failed to kill the BBEG in a scenario one time. That time was a PF2 game with two other Rangers. I think both were Precision with Companions. Each companion was taken out in one hit. their accompanying Rangers were subsequently killed (one permanently).2. As Ranger, I've found my AC to be too low to stand in the face of bosses for consecutive rounds. Survival compels me to kite. Again, once in the last three levels, I had a flanking PC who somehow survived a boss round and I stayed put to attack four times.
The point is that unless the GM is purposely not attacking the Companion or the Ranger, both are at risk. Now maybe if the party has a healing font, a Ranger can get away with not moving, but I haven't been so lucky.
Put those two together and, IME, I can't (nor my companion) stand in one spot long enough to consitently leverage Flurry and Flanking.
1. Companions do require feats to keep them consistent throughout play. You can't just invest the base feat into them and expect it to function just fine up to level 20. It's not like Power Attack or Twin Takedown. Ironically, our Animal Companion has more AC than the Ranger and is on-par with our frontliners. It took a couple feats and specific specializations, but it can be done. If an Animal Companion is getting one-shot, so would any other frontline character in their place. Their HP isn't much more, especially in the beginning levels, that they wouldn't also be getting one-shot. At best we can argue that they don't have things like Shield Block, but then again, would a Ranger or Barbarian? Probably not.
2. Rangers don't have much defensive skills by design, they aren't tanks and shouldn't be played like tanks. In fact, that's what our Ranger player did in the earlier levels (and with a Rogue character in another campaign) and just about got killed (multiple times with both characters). Two other players did the same exact stupid tactics later in the campaign and nearly got killed just the same. I almost did the same once as well, but I remembered my tactics and utilized them to good enough effect to not leave me hanging out to dry.
Comparatively speaking, at best, you might utilize Sentinel dedication with Outwit Edge, and that will put you one less than a Shield Fighter, and well above Barbarian or on-par with Monk (for a time), but honestly, it's not worth the damage loss from going even a simple Precision Edge with an Archer dedication feat or something. It wouldn't be bad if your group really lacks a survivable front-liner who needs to be decent with skills, but it won't ever replace a Champion or Monk, for example.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hear what you're trying to say, but then you aren't really playing a Ranger, unless the definition means you only have Hunt Prey and Trackless Step.
This really doesn't track for me. There where 62 archetypes for ranger so the class was far from a monolith of set abilities. With careful combination of archetypes, you can replace almost every set ability it had, making it similar to the situation here. Plus 3.5 had ranger variants,\ and 2 had kits...
I find this a bit distasteful but there it is. Fortunately a Ranger can get away with very few of his class feats if he wants.I hear what you're trying to say, but then you aren't really playing a Ranger, unless the definition means you only have Hunt Prey and Trackless Step. And really any class can "get away" with very few of the class feats. To me, that build isn't anything close to any previous iteration of Rangers. It might be fun for someone, but I could say that about any random build.
shrug
The distasteful part was building the character I wanted from another archetype as the parts I wanted weren't in class and they should have been.
I have no problem with playing a switch hitter Ranger bastard sword with a secondary bow or even pole arm/bow. The support in class for a two weapon fighting I find optional amd not a core part of the ranger. Certainly much less core than an animal companion.
I Agree on everything but scorpion, because it's a STR one.Its AC will be 45 by lvl 20, as any dex one, but its attack will be +29 compared to +33. You won't hit a thing.
Anyway, it's sad that the companion progression is senseless, because STR companions are not allowed to have armor, and their damage is slightly better than the DEX ones ( and we all will end with that specific progression I quoted, because it's the only one worth it ).
Yep well understood. I just like its grab attack. A pity they haven't done that right on the snake.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The distasteful part was building the character I wanted from another archetype as the parts I wanted weren't in class and they should have been.Not sure I agree. The animal companion in 3.5, wasn't even combat viable. The Ranger in AD&D never had a companion, or an option to get one. Not until Boon Companion could you have any real hope of sending your companion in combat. I don't think 3.5 even had a Boon Companion feat, but I could be wrong.
The support in class for a two weapon fighting I find optional amd not a core part of the ranger. Certainly much less core than an animal companion.A Beast Master build isn't core or legacy to a Ranger concept. Personally, I think they should have made it part of a Druid Class a la the PF Hunter.
Where as TWF at least goes back to 3.5
Of course, the Ranger, in any game, can be whatever the game designers call a Ranger. The question is whether that particular design delivers what people are looking for.
My gaming roots go back a long way before edition 3.5. My concept of a Ranger is based not any particular game designers interpretation of it but from stories, literature and media more widely.
TWF is a mechanical distraction added to the Ranger to make it different from a Fighter with the Survival skill.
Animal Companions are regular features in popular culture.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IDK I've always found the animal companion to feel more like a distraction than anything else. Iterations of the ranger that force the animal companion on the player have always been my least favorite and have always felt more like they bogged the concept down than added real value to it.
Arguably that's one of the big problems the ranger struggles with. It's sort of a mishmash of ideas cobbled together from a bunch of different fantasy characters, stories and archetypes that don't necessarily make sense together outside of its own zeitgeist. As a result, the "appropriate" interpretation of the class varies wildly from person to person and game to game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that, from that point of view, PF2 has done an excellent job.
You can have an Animal Companion if you want. But if you do it costs - a lot. So its good, but there are other things you can do instead.
As opposed to older editions where it cost very little in comparison, so you would be a mug to pass it up.
My experience.
Precision seems better for bow users. One big bow hit really slams hard. Bow users seem built to land one big hit per round with a little additional damage from an occasional additional hit. Half-strength damage and d8 with deadly from crits is setup well for the big hit.
Flurry is good for a melee build with an animal companion. Use a couple of sawtooths or goblinslicers, build up the runes, move into position with animal companion and gangup, go to town. Flurry is about maximizing each hit and your number of attacks. Multiclass into rogue for sneak attack. You can build up per attack damage nicely.
I haven't tried a 2-h weapon precision build. But that looks interesting as well.
Ranger is one of the most versatile melee classes. Probably the most well-rounded martial class in the game. A precision ranger with a 2-h weapon and a bow can switch hit nicely.
For my 2cents I think that the whole animal companion thing comes from maybe video games like Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2 and world of Warcraft where the guy with a ranged weapon, traps, stealth, tracking also has an animal companion. E.G survival Hunter and Beast Master Hunter in WoW and well all kinds of different builds in GW2. Even the Warden in ESO has a bear.
I think it comes from Beastmaster myself. A warrior who can use beasts for combat was always a very cool trope. But maybe the inspiration eventually came from World of Warcraft. 2E rangers I don't recall having animal companions. It became a thing in 3E as a standard part of the class.
Some kind of animal companion is likely a fantasy trope in a lot of books.
|
I'm glad that the first opportunity we have to come up with to debunk actual play is "He's not playing fairly to the rest of the group."
I was merely going by your description and your words made it sound like the ranger was receiving benefits that the fighter wasn't. If they are both equally buffed, then fine, sorry I misunderstood.
The fact of the matter is, we play a game with a lot of variable, that being the dice. So it is possible that a flurry ranger would out-pace the damage of a THW fighter. However, there are A LOT of math nerds 'round these parts and their analysis says it is highly improbably.
Also, consider our propensity for confirmation bias. We like to say "every time I go to the drive thru they get my order wrong." In reality its not every time, but our confirmation bias focuses on the failures. It might seem like the ranger is out damaging the fighter, but is he really? There are a lot of variables that we cannot see, so we have to assume that you are aware of them and honestly reporting that in your game, it is happening. But, that is a far cry from it being universally true. The math just doesn't support it. So I don't think anyone is saying you are "BadWrongFun" more that your experience is uncommon and does not match that of the rest of the community.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The animal companion in 3.5, wasn't even combat viable
I've been with your comments until this. While there were certainly some under-powered companions even when optimized for their options, there were also a number of them that were melee monsters. The pouncing large cat in armor with the enlarge collar and Str/Dec/Con buffs was certainly on par with most of the PCs, just to name one.
Though I also admit that a good portion of the out of control companion builds were empowered by GMs who either didn't understand the companion rules or just didn't enforce them. It was a bit concerning how many companion players got frustrated at my org play tables when I actually required them to follow the rules and not let them do things like hive-minding the character and the companion and making them actually roll checks for untrained tricks. Often the player would be bragging to the table before we started how awesomely over-powered their build was and that they would "handle the combats." Yeah, any character can be OP if the GM allows you to ignore the rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For my 2cents I think that the whole animal companion thing comes from maybe video games like Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2 and world of Warcraft where the guy with a ranged weapon, traps, stealth, tracking also has an animal companion. E.G survival Hunter and Beast Master Hunter in WoW and well all kinds of different builds in GW2. Even the Warden in ESO has a bear.
Your understanding of history doesn't go back far enough. :-)
Andre Norton's The Beastmaster was published in 1959. The protagonist is a Navajo Indian veteran of the recent war with the alien Xik. He, with his team of genetically altered animals, emigrates to the planet Arzor, and the adventure begins. Granted this is science fiction in the sense that it takes place in our future and has other elements normally associated with that genre, the protagonist, Hosteen Storm, is very clearly what most people think of as a Ranger. As for other historical references, Rogers' Rangers, a military unit, predates the American Revolution. Ethan Allen's "Green Mountain Boys" were a similar unit. Robin Hood was a Ranger. On Hârn, the Uthriem Roliri are a group of human rangers founded in the second century TR (about five hundred years ago). The setting is intentionally rules independent, but as in Hârnmaster (HM) there are no classes, there are no specific skills or requirements associated with the group (everything in HM is a skill) you can build your ranger pretty much however you want. "Rangers are mostly self-supporting, living off the land for much of the year. Some earn coin as military scouts, expedition guides, cartographers, and gargun hunters. Many are skilled herbalists who generate income selling valuable herbs to apothecaries."
Note: the gargun are Hârn's "orcs". Nasty, brutish, and (mostly) short.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My concept of a Ranger is based not any particular game designers interpretation of it but from stories, literature and media more widely.Tolkien invented the fantasy Ranger. I am not aware of any before him. Sure, there were "huntsman" in some stories, but Tolkein's Ranger's were not simply huntsmen. I would submit that all popularized renditions of the Ranger sprang from LOTR.
AD&D was probably the first game to popularize Tolkein's creation. And while I'm not going to argue that was the only way to codify a Ranger, it was the first and became the foundation on which all others were built. I think a developer came in to the Playtest Ranger thread and tried to bash one of the early versions of the Ranger by misrepresenting its Aligment as "lawful good' and trying to act like that was a reason the old Ranger was bad because no one wants to be limited to lawful good.... except that version of the game only had good, neutral, and evil. So like so many others, he simply twisted the history for his own purpose and for his own narrative.
The point is that there was one source for the Ranger. Everything else got labeled a Ranger simply because neither Tolkein nor TSR could copyright the idea and stop others from making derivative works. So if a person was only exposed to the derivative/variant or they liked some other incarnation, then they would obviously think their version was representative.
This may be a popular narative but there is much about it that is just not true. For starters Rangers go back way further than Tolkien. Lets take Robin Hood for example. Also many implementations of Aragon don't actually use the Ranger class.
TWF is a mechanical distraction added to the Ranger to make it different from a Fighter with the Survival skill.Anyone can TWF. It wasn't limited to the Ranger or any other class. 3.5 just gave Rangers a discount on a few of the feats. Sure, it was a way to differentiate the class from the other martials, but the Ranger also got an Archery discount, so I could easily argue the Archery was a distraction.
Animal Companions are regular features in popular culture....
Anyone can TWF. It wasn't limited to the Ranger or any other class. 3.5 just gave Rangers a discount on a few of the feats. Sure, it was a way to differentiate the class from the other martials, but the Ranger also got an Archery discount, so I could easily argue the Archery was a distraction.
I'm not sure why you are going down this path I'm not say archery or animal comanion or two weapon fighting are core to a Ranger. But of these two weapon fighting is a very recent add.
Rangers should not be limited or defined by one trick. Except for knowledge of the wilds.
Animal Companions are regular features in popular culture.
Yes, for Disney Princesses, and anyone who lives in the woods and needs a companion. That doesn't mean everyone who has an animal companion is suppose to be Ranger.
I like to include women/girls and other people who like Disney Princesses in my games from time to time. Lets try to be a bit inclusive please.
Again not saying it is essential, just that it is one core option that needs to be well covered.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can have an Animal Companion if you want. But if you do it costs - a lot.
That's right. That's same feeling I get when trying to create any cohesion with this class. It cost me a lot and I ultimately still don't get there so there is not really a feeling of satisfaction.
As opposed to older editions where it cost very little in comparison, so you would be a mug to pass it up.
Then I would argue that:
1. Paizo needed to make those things that you could do, fun.
2. If those things that the class does aren't fun, then it's the wrong class for you.
IMO, the class is spread too thin. Snares? Really?
I'm not arguing that Paizo did a great job all over with the Ranger. The class has this wierd action economy going with Hunted Prey that I have very mixed feelings about.
Snares? I don't mind it as as concept. I'm glad that they are trying this direction. But I'm yet to see any implementation of it I would say is very good.
|
|
I think the Ranger suffers from the two-weapon fighting trope that essentially started with AD&D*. For some reason that has stuck as a ranger thing probably to the detriment of the class. By the time we get to PF2E there really isn’t any reason for the Ranger to have any more affinity for TWF than any other martially-inclined class including druid, monk, and rogue. There’s really no reason for a fighter not to be the best TWF. At this point, the best TWF is probably the Ranger with the Dual Weapon dedication to get immediate access to the fighter’s TWF feat.
*for the most part, none of the literature rangers are the same as a game ranger. Sure they have similarities, but a ranger can resemble a rogue, and combining that with terrain skills and Robin Hood could easily be a ranger. Aragorn certainly had ranger features, but so many that he couldn’t be a fighter with some cross-training.
The Beastmaster movie predates WoW, Guild Wars, and Xena so it’s closer to a progenitor than they are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Re: TWF. I think that plays into the mixed perceptions thing. I know a lot of people who think TWF is integral to the ranger's identity.
But personally, I always found it a really awkward combat style for them. I feel like a class that thematically should always be ready to pull out a bow or climb a rope or tree or rock wall or grab a torch would prefer something that leaves a hand free when they're pushed into melee combat.
For me I think the 'ideal' ranger melee setup would be something that is comfortable enough to fight with one hand occupied. A ranger with a sheathed sword or axe and a longbow at the ready (or vice versa)... unfortunately, that style of ranger is sort of a pain to build (no in class feat support for melee fighting styles that aren't TWF) and ends up not being very satisfying to build or play from my experience.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow! This thread has gone a bit off topic, but I guess that is rather normal.
2 cents to some of the above:
Robin Hood was not a rogue. He fought in the Crusades and used a longsword and bow. Just because he “stole” from the nobility doesn’t default him to being a rogue. Conan stole stuff all the time and just try to convince me he is a rogue. Robin Hood would be most likely a fighter although ranger works perfectly fine as he stuck to lighter armors per any media depiction.
Drizzt Do’Urdan from older D&D novels is the main reason we see TWF as well as animal companions for rangers (even though his panther wasn’t a class feature at the time).
Aragorn is totally a ranger. In the movies he wears heavier looking armor and uses a two-hander at the end, but I look at that more as dressing for the job as king of an army. Otherwise, he sticks to lighter gear, is good with a bow, and is very comfortable in and knowledgeable about flora and fauna.
Side note to OP: My player ended up going with a rogue: thief racket. Lol
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is another one of those threads that makes me question if I'm on the Pathfinder 2e forums, rangers seem perfectly effective and thematically coherent as being focused on hunting tropes, with a few DNDisms.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I'll give you Robin Hood, but I stand by the rest of what I said. Tolkien did *not* invent the ranger out of the blue. There are historical precedents that predate him. Unless of course your whole world view encompasses DND and Tolkien and not much else.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Drizzt Do’Urdan from older D&D novels is the main reason we see TWF as well as animal companions for rangers
No, the TWF thing long precedes Drizzt. It was a primary feature as early as 1E AD&D back in the late '70s. It was an aspect that separated them from fighters of which they were a subclass. As far as the animal companion thing, while it was not a class feature until much later and Drizzt probably had some impact on that development stream, we saw quite a few rangers being depicted along side various wildlife long before he started swinging those scimitars.
For instance, who's the best basketball player of all time. If you are "young" you will probably say Lebron James. Ask your Dad and he will probably say Michael Jordan. Ask your grandfather and he may say Bill Russell.
Robin Hood was not a rogue. He fought in the Crusades and used a longsword and bow.Sorry, he did not fight in the Crusades. That was just made up in a recent movie.
To be fair, historically Robin's lore is all over the place. Most historians cannot even definitively nail down his time closer than a two century window (13-15th centuries), or that he even existed at all as opposed to a romantic extrapolation of multiple figures. Depending on what lore you use he could just as easily be a rogue, ranger, or fighter. In general much of his appearance differs across the sources, though most seem to agree that he was an accomplished archer that was at odds with local law enforcement. Even some more famous aspects like the Maid Marion, the involvement of the crusades with King Richard his brother John and the Sheriff of Nottingham are not universal. There isn't even any evidence of Robin's pedigree with some suggesting he was noble while others a mere commoner. Most of what we know about this figure has gone through multiple retellings with each one adding more romanticism to his legend. He is as likely a candidate for "father of the modern ranger" as anyone else.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My prior historical research and subsequent paper on the subject of Robin Hood would seem to be at odds with your interpretation in many ways. but, the beauty is that this is all just opinion and yours and mine and everyone else's don't need to agree, nor should they.
I seem to recall a meme mentioning something about opinions being akin to something or other, hmmmm...