Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Nah, I’d definitely make it as a ranger class.sounds like two subclasses one for fighter one for rogue.
Nah, I’d definitely make it as a ranger class.sounds like two subclasses one for fighter one for rogue.
why it seems so easy to just get rid of it, its points in its favour are things that should be universal it eats an aspect of play worse than a bard and it lacks any archetype other than lone wander of the wilds which is not a class idea but a character idea, why not kill it and let something else grow?Nah, I’d definitely make it as a ranger class.
Because if a fighter pursued archery, she'd be a ranger instead. That's just where the line between the classes exist.Except that it placed arbitrary restrictions on the concept of a ranger in a pointless effort to mechanically differentiate it more from a fighter. Why, for example, would no ranger be able to use a two-handed weapon effectively? Likewise, why would a fighter not be able to pursue archery effectively?
I don't think anyone is saying that classes should be able to do everything - but I think that the difference in do-able things between classes perhaps shouldn't hinge on specific weapons. 4e went all-in on their particular formulation of class roles - a bold move. But it was one that made liking the game a more difficult prospect for some D&D fans, myself included. I really disliked that aspect of 4e.Because if a fighter pursued archery, she'd be a ranger instead. That's just where the line between the classes exist.
If you want to do both, that's what multiclassing is for.
Classes can't do everything, or they shouldn't exist. Fighters also can't cast spells or use ki without multiclassing, but that's not an issue for anyone I know of. 4e just draws the lines very close together: the fighter is for strength-based combat styles, not all weapon styles.
You might not have liked it - but it isn't a wrong way to design a game, or even really a weakness since it fits well with the rest of the system.I don't think anyone is saying that classes should be able to do everything - but I think that the difference in do-able things between classes perhaps shouldn't hinge on specific weapons. 4e went all-in on their particular formulation of class roles - a bold move. But it was one that made liking the game a more difficult prospect for some D&D fans, myself included. I really disliked that aspect of 4e.
Sold pretty well and has its share of fans isn't a lot of proof either considering D&D lost its 800 lb gorilla status under 4e before 5e. That doesn't exactly say that it was the right way to design a game either.You might not have liked it - but it isn't a wrong way to design a game, or even really a weakness since it fits well with the rest of the system.
In other words "I don't like it" is not a design criticism. Or even "many people don't like it," unless you can prove "most people don't like it." And since 4e sold pretty well and has it's share of fans, I'd need proof to accept the last point.
but arcane archer is a fighter subclass and give them the outlander background and guess what we have a ranger.Because if a fighter pursued archery, she'd be a ranger instead. That's just where the line between the classes exist.
If you want to do both, that's what multiclassing is for.
Classes can't do everything, or they shouldn't exist. Fighters also can't cast spells or use ki without multiclassing, but that's not an issue for anyone I know of. 4e just draws the lines very close together: the fighter is for strength-based combat styles, not all weapon styles.
In 5e it is. In 4e, it would be a ranger.but arcane archer is a fighter subclass and give them the outlander background and guess what we have a ranger.
it lacks a solid hook so cutting it from the line up would work.
4e could have merge ranger a rogue and nothing bad would have come of it or at least the backlash would be no worse than what was already there.In 5e it is. In 4e, it would be a ranger.