Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="haakon1" data-source="post: 2869209" data-attributes="member: 25619">Wilderness Rogue is pretty close.&nbsp; I think it fits a little better than Scout.&nbsp; I think the best thing to fill this &quot;gap&quot; between classes and the archetype would just be a Fighter variant that's not as crippled on Skills . . . a soldier who can track and survive in woods, rather than a rogue with super-sneaky woodcraft.&nbsp; I get it that Rogue is the Skill class, and Fighter is the Feat class, but is there no compromise out there?Anyhow, I think I meant the &quot;feel&quot; of Rangers in AD&amp;D, rather than the actual mechanics.&nbsp; The giant fighting stuff didn't come up to often, and magic users spells only came in at levels that most characters didn't live to see.&nbsp; The wilderness scout feel is the idea I'm looking for -- the archetype of it.Two-weapon fighting makes the ranger 2nd Edition (Drizzt), and lots of emphasis on Favored Enemies (though adapted from AD&amp;D) is what makes it 3e.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="haakon1, post: 2869209, member: 25619"] Wilderness Rogue is pretty close. I think it fits a little better than Scout. I think the best thing to fill this "gap" between classes and the archetype would just be a Fighter variant that's not as crippled on Skills . . . a soldier who can track and survive in woods, rather than a rogue with super-sneaky woodcraft. I get it that Rogue is the Skill class, and Fighter is the Feat class, but is there no compromise out there? Anyhow, I think I meant the "feel" of Rangers in AD&D, rather than the actual mechanics. The giant fighting stuff didn't come up to often, and magic users spells only came in at levels that most characters didn't live to see. The wilderness scout feel is the idea I'm looking for -- the archetype of it. Two-weapon fighting makes the ranger 2nd Edition (Drizzt), and lots of emphasis on Favored Enemies (though adapted from AD&D) is what makes it 3e. [/QUOTE]

Verification