D&D General What is the Ranger to you?

doctorbadwolf said:

and the Fighter is both the best tank and in the top tier of damage dealers.

Click to expand...

To be fair, the Fighter (Slayer) was explicitly a Striker sub-class, and the design prevented any cross-pollenating of it's striker function to the Fighter (Weaponmaster or Knight) and almost completely prevented the reverse (a Slayer might spend a feat to swap /one/ Power Strike for a Fighter Encounter power that had some Defender utility even without Combat Challenge).

(OK, also to be fair, "Tank" and Defender are not the same thing. Defender is more active with mechanical support, Tank just connotes toughness, which the Slayer had in ample degree.)

Tony Vargas said:

To be fair, the Fighter (Slayer) was explicitly a Striker sub-class, and the design prevented any cross-pollenating of it's striker function to the Fighter (Weaponmaster or Knight) and almost completely prevented the reverse (a Slayer might spend a feat to swap /one/ Power Strike for a Fighter Encounter power that had some Defender utility even without Combat Challenge).

(OK, also to be fair, "Tank" and Defender are not the same thing. Defender is more active with mechanical support, Tank just connotes toughness, which the Slayer had in ample degree.)

Click to expand...

Two things.

A) I nowhere refered to the Slayer. I was talking about the PHB Fighter, later renamed the Weaponmaster. Sadly the wotc forums CharOp threads discussing the damage output of the Fighter when built for maximum DPR are all lost, but it wasn't a controversial opinion to place the Fighter in the top tier. It isn't going to beat the other top teir strikers, who are all actually strikers, but it can beat strikers below that level pretty handily.

2) Tank refers to damage absorption, which is what the person I replied to brought up.


Also, as an aside, the idea that a class can be identified by "being the best at straight up combat" is so completely unteneble to me that it boggles me that the Fighter continues to exist. That isn't a concept, on any level or axis.

Tony Vargas said:

...nod, unless the Fighter were in a duel, then his defender features did absolutely nothing.

Click to expand...

Sure but a class isnt JUST those, See a Brash Strike is a bit like the Berserker Fury ability... but for a single use case, it turns off some defensiveness in favor of a pop to your to hit and damage without an ally being involved.
You take the +2 to hit and -2 ac if you are the tough guy flavor with decent high Con, I suspect the Hammer/Mace or Axe requirement probably wont hurt your feelings. And that is just an at-will. Unlike the Berserker the fighter doesnt lose his defenderisms because of it.

doctorbadwolf said:

Two things.

A) I nowhere refered to the Slayer. I was talking about the PHB Fighter, later renamed the Weaponmaster. Sadly the wotc forums CharOp threads discussing the damage output of the Fighter when built for maximum DPR are all lost, but it wasn't a controversial opinion to place the Fighter in the top tier. It isn't going to beat the other top teir strikers, who are all actually strikers, but it can beat strikers below that level pretty handily.

Click to expand...

Yes I remember that, and I think even if your group doesnt charop it has enough feat support and powers to bring on some real pain.

doctorbadwolf said:

Also, as an aside, the idea that a class can be identified by "being the best at straight up combat" is so completely unteneble to me that it boggles me that the Fighter continues to exist. That isn't a concept, on any level or axis.

Click to expand...

I disagree.
It's "best at combat, with weapons, without magic." In the advertising sense of best - that is, no one else can definitively prove that they're /better/ (within those restrictions). So the Monk can be better at combat without weapons, and everyone else can be better at combat with magic.

...hm...

OK, let me rephrase that...

I disagree.
The Fighter concept is not "best at straight up combat," it's the archetypal warrior-hero who does not use magic, himself, but bravely goes on a dangerous journey to return with a valuable prize, and gets the girl.

(OK, yeah, that's pretty binary, but it's an old archetype, cut it some slack.)

And that familiar, relatable archetype has made the fighter the most popular class in the game, throughout it's history. (I'd like to think that while 'human' and 'fighter' have always been the most popular, naming your human fighter 'Bob' is maybe a new thing... Church of the Sub-Genius propaganda of some kind, perhaps?)

Tony Vargas said:

I disagree.
The Fighter concept is not "best at straight up combat," it's the archetypal warrior-hero who does not use magic, himself, but bravely goes on a dangerous journey to return with a valuable prize, and gets the girl.

(OK, yeah, that's pretty binary, but it's an old archetype, cut it some slack.)

And that familiar, relatable archetype has made the fighter the most popular class in the game, throughout it's history. (I'd like to think that while 'human' and 'fighter' have always been the most popular, naming your human fighter 'Bob' is maybe a new thing... Church of the Sub-Genius propaganda of some kind, perhaps?)

Click to expand...

That still isn't a concept. At all. The rogue is also that, but also other things. Most fighter subclasses are that, but also have an identity.

The fighter was popular in previous editions because it was simple and it was the only class that could be excellent at weapon use. In modern dnd its part tradition, part "here is the most basic, simple, learn to play class", and part "if you prefer a blank slate to put your own concept onto with no input from the book, play this class."

Obviously in 4e, just the addition of a role adds an actual concept to the fighter. They're a protector, a frontline tough guy who keeps enemies away from their allies. It's a thin concept, but at least it's mechanically interesting and very effective.

But in 5e, there isn't really anything there.

IMO the rogue is a better fit for the archetype you're talking about. The fighter is that guy's sidekick who is there to comment on the hero's actions and troubles and thus inform the listener/reader/audience.

I've always felt mechanically classes boil down to being a mixture of Combat, Skill, and Spells*. With things like Champion and Berserker being pure combat and most Wizards and Sorcerers being pure spells with Thief being pure Skill (I know not completely true but bear with me).

Arcane Trickster gets a dash of magic. Bard gets more than a dash of skill, but still less than a Rogue. Valor Bard gets a dash of Combat too.

Ranger for me stands at the center of the venn diagram of all three (with subclasses able to specialize further in an area) This is why I've always had a tough time seeing them as purely a fighter or rogue subclass. Either of those loose too much from the other or from the Spells category.

So I still see the D&D Ranger more easily implemented as it's own class than anything else purely from a mechanical perspective.

*Note, I used to be firmly in the camp of the spell-less ranger and I'm still a huge fan of the 5e Scout Fighter form UA, but my mind was changed in regards to the D&D Ranger in no small part due to posts on this very forum.

doctorbadwolf said:

That still isn't a concept. At all. The rogue is also that, but also other things. Most fighter subclasses are that, but also have an identity.

The fighter was popular in previous editions because it was simple and it was the only class that could be excellent at weapon use. In modern dnd its part tradition, part "here is the most basic, simple, learn to play class", and part "if you prefer a blank slate to put your own concept onto with no input from the book, play this class."

Obviously in 4e, just the addition of a role adds an actual concept to the fighter. They're a protector, a frontline tough guy who keeps enemies away from their allies. It's a thin concept, but at least it's mechanically interesting and very effective.

But in 5e, there isn't really anything there.

IMO the rogue is a better fit for the archetype you're talking about. The fighter is that guy's sidekick who is there to comment on the hero's actions and troubles and thus inform the listener/reader/audience.

Click to expand...

I do think there's been a rise in the prominence of the Rogue archetype. Han Solo is a much more popular archetype than Conan these days. The noble warrior was much more popular before a rise in individualism.

For example in the movie Tombstone the main character is the Wyatt Earp warrior, but the movie is entirely stolen by Kilmer's portrayal of the roguish Doc Holiday despite him being objectively the sidekick.

doctorbadwolf said:

That still isn't a concept. At all. The rogue is also that, but also other things. Most fighter subclasses are that, but also have an identity.

Click to expand...

Sure, the archetypal hero is a concept. It just subsumes redundant concepts like rogue, ranger and the like, but D&D deigns to give them classes, anyway. ;P

The fighter was popular in previous editions because it was simple and it was the only class that could be excellent at weapon use. In modern dnd its part tradition, part "here is the most basic, simple, learn to play class"

Click to expand...

I really don't think so. In 3e, for instance, the fighter was /not/ the simplest class and the only one that could be good with weapons - the Barbarian was simpler and very effective at swinging weapons around, and it was the ideal "training wheels" class because it had mountains of hps and rage taught you to manage resources - /but the fighter was the most popular class/. In 4e, almost any striker played simpler than a defender - an Archery Ranger was the simplest thing you could play - but the Fighter was the most popular class.

Obviously in 4e, just the addition of a role adds an actual concept to the fighter. They're a protector, a frontline tough guy who keeps enemies away from their allies. It's a thin concept, but at least it's mechanically interesting and very effective.

Click to expand...

It was always there, though: the fighter's job was to stand in the front, preferably two of 'em in a 10' corridor, forming a 'wall' to protect the valuable characters. In porting that to primitive AIs, game designers came up with Aggro, and then sometime in the 3e era, people started noting that the fighter /didn't have that/, even though the way the fighter had always been was /why/ it was invented. ::sigh::

But in 5e, there isn't really anything there.

Click to expand...

Consequence of being designed (unnecessarily) for "simplicity," I guess. That and stretched thin covering the basic bone-simple old-school pre-everything-cool fighter, the 4e Weaponmaster (and it's 6 or so builds and 400 powers) and Warlord (and it's 6 or so builds and 300 powers) and 3e & Essentials Knight and 3e featastic customizeable fighter (and it's 11 bonus feats) and 2e DPR-king fighter, /and/ old-school Fighter/Magic-User, all in only 3 subclasses and two bonus feats.
Yeah, y'might have a point there.

IMO the rogue is a better fit for the archetype you're talking about. The fighter is that guy's sidekick who is there to comment on the hero's actions and troubles and thus inform the listener/reader/audience.

Click to expand...

... OK... I can think of an example or two...
either way, actually. Tough hero with sneaky side-kick or vice-versa.

BookBarbarian said:

I've always felt mechanically classes boil down to being a mixture of Combat, Skill, and Spells*. With things like Champion and Berserker being pure combat and most Wizards and Sorcerers being pure spells with Thief being pure Skill (I know not completely true but bear with me).

Arcane Trickster gets a dash of magic. Bard gets more than a dash of skill, but still less than a Rogue. Valor Bard gets a dash of Combat too.

Ranger for me stands at the center of the venn diagram of all three (with subclasses able to specialize further in an area) This is why I've always had a tough time seeing them as purely a fighter or rogue subclass. Either of those loose too much from the other or from the Spells category.

So I still see the D&D Ranger more easily implemented as it's own class than anything else purely from a mechanical perspective.

*Note, I used to be firmly in the camp of the spell-less ranger and I'm still a huge fan of the 5e Scout Fighter form UA, but my mind was changed in regards to the D&D Ranger in no small part due to posts on this very forum.



I do think there's been a rise in the prominence of the Rogue archetype. Han Solo is a much more popular archetype than Conan these days. The noble warrior was much more popular before a rise in individualism.

For example in the movie Tombstone the main character is the Wyatt Earp warrior, but the movie is entirely stolen by Kilmer's portrayal of the roguish Doc Holiday despite him being objectively the sidekick.

Click to expand...

Id posit that Wyatt and Doc are both Rogues. Not their fault the class isn’t named that well.

Conan definately isn’t a 5e Fighter, IMO. 4e he’s a ranger, 3.5 fighters aren’t even a class, their a math chassis and a vehicle for defining a character via feats. I don’t care about older editions that much, but ODND barely had anything that wasn’t a fighter that could use weapons, so it’s hard to pare it down.

doctorbadwolf said:

Rogues are better at non magical noncombqt solutions than anyone else in 4e, and the Fighter is both the best tank and in the top tier of damage dealers.

4e did what you’re saying the game should do.

Click to expand...

It's possible. My group's issues with 4E were plentiful. We didn't play more than a few months before bailing. I won't say that I have exhaustive knowledge of the edition. Conceptually, I think what I said about the roles is valid. It's entirely possible it didn't play out that way, though, especially in the "revised" edition (actual name escapes me).