D&D 4E 4e Essentials as a new edition and 4e's longevity

[Voadam]

Also the Ranger was just one of, if not the least interesting original class anyway not really using the AEDU structure well, and just doing as many attacks as possible. The essential version is here at least elegant.

That's funny, I really prefer the original 4e martial striker ranger and I like their AEDU set up with their ton of ED interrupt type powers as my favorite implementation of the class. It really makes a good striker warrior as a competent mobile D&D combatant different from the ninja rogues. Tastes vary.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Essentials as itself without the non Essential 4E parts though would just be a worse game lacking lots of the parts making 4E special like the Warlord.


I think the best 4E could have done was to release with the Ranger as the Essential Ranger (Hunter (and maybe also Scout)) to have a 2nd controller as well as the Essential Elementalist Sorcerer. (Instead of the original ranger, and the warlock (which could be later introduced))

...

Also the Ranger was just one of, if not the least interesting original class anyway not really using the AEDU structure well, and just doing as many attacks as possible. The essential version is here at least elegant.

Agreed. If I could pick classes from any edition of D&D that best demonstrate the "class fantasy" the ones that would definitely come from 4e would be the warlord, the elementalist, and the fighter as the tactical fighter (but might use the 2e and/or 5e fighter as well).

Also the monk and probably Thief as "least bad versions" and the Essentials Rangers as the non-casting rangers.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That's funny, I really prefer the original 4e martial striker ranger and I like their AEDU set up with their ton of ED interrupt type powers as my favorite implementation of the class. It really makes a good striker warrior as a competent mobile D&D combatant different from the ninja rogues. Tastes vary.

The only place I disagree is that I don't think that "martial striker warrior" and "ranger" are synonyms.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The only place I disagree is that I don't think that "martial striker warrior" and "ranger" are synonyms.

Well, what WOULD it be? Is it a defender? Doesn't seem like one. A leader? Hard to really fit it into 4e's concept of a leader, though maybe not impossible. I was never sold on the idea of 'martial controller' as a separate concept from defender, myself. The Seeker kind of tries to do 'range attacking bow controller' but I always felt like the thematics were a bit off on that one. In any case it would be hard to call it a 'ranger' in any classic D&D sense. Certainly you need a 'Robin Hood' type class, and the core PHB1 4e Ranger fills that niche really well! We had a lot of fun with that one, though I admit it is tactically less diverse than the other PHB1 classes OOTB.

 

[Voadam]

The only place I disagree is that I don't think that "martial striker warrior" and "ranger" are synonyms.

For a lot of D&D Rangers have been warriors with a little bit of wilderness and magic aspects. Druidicish alt-paladins can be a cool model that fits in well with a lot of D&D.

I really liked the 4e core martial striker warrior model though and it is my favorite. From Dragonlance Tanis Half-Elven as a warrior in leather with a bow works better for me conceptually as a 4e ranger than as a fighter.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Well, what WOULD it be? Is it a defender? Doesn't seem like one. A leader? Hard to really fit it into 4e's concept of a leader, though maybe not impossible. I was never sold on the idea of 'martial controller' as a separate concept from defender, myself. The Seeker kind of tries to do 'range attacking bow controller' but I always felt like the thematics were a bit off on that one. In any case it would be hard to call it a 'ranger' in any classic D&D sense. Certainly you need a 'Robin Hood' type class, and the core PHB1 4e Ranger fills that niche really well! We had a lot of fun with that one, though I admit it is tactically less diverse than the other PHB1 classes OOTB.

And here is where I feel the 4e power source trips over its own feet. Rangers are to me normally much more primal than the 4e PHB ranger who's kinda a "fighter-type (but not a Fighter) who's been in a scout troop for six months".

The power source definitely did great things for some classes (especially the barbarian and sorcerer which both needed to be more than effective subclasses if they were to be "real" classes) but forcing the ranger to pick a lane did them no good at all. And the hunter and scout of course haven't picked a lane, with primal stances that can be fluffed either as training from having studied the wilds or actual spirit help.

 

[pemerton]

From Dragonlance Tanis Half-Elven as a warrior in leather with a bow works better for me conceptually as a 4e ranger than as a fighter.

Isn't Tanis an archer warlord?

 

[Voadam]

Isn't Tanis an archer warlord?

Warlord could work too for primarily leadership stuff with a bit of martial, but he has been mistaken for a ranger for decades and leather and bow seems more iconically ranger.

I forget, do warlords have ranged weapon friendly options? When I played one it was all melee stuff I did for my own attacks that I remember.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Warlord could work too for primarily leadership stuff with a bit of martial, but he has been mistaken for a ranger for decades and leather and bow seems more iconically ranger.

I forget, do warlords have ranged weapon friendly options? When I played one it was all melee stuff I did for my own attacks that I remember.

Archer warlord (complete with longbow proficiency) was added in Martial Power 2. And possibly it's an iconic weapon combination, but it's one allowed for warlords and Tanis behaves like one.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

And here is where I feel the 4e power source trips over its own feet. Rangers are to me normally much more primal than the 4e PHB ranger who's kinda a "fighter-type (but not a Fighter) who's been in a scout troop for six months".

The power source definitely did great things for some classes (especially the barbarian and sorcerer which both needed to be more than effective subclasses if they were to be "real" classes) but forcing the ranger to pick a lane did them no good at all. And the hunter and scout of course haven't picked a lane, with primal stances that can be fluffed either as training from having studied the wilds or actual spirit help.

Meh, I think the strong thematic implications of role and power source is the primary reason 4e classes are so uniformly solid. I mean, ok, spinning a ranger as a mix of 2 sources is not some big problem. Maybe then it is less of a leap to controller? But then we're not talking martial controller either. Still I never thought there was some need to implement every permutation.