Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 8820089" data-attributes="member: 6704184">But Rangers and Rogues actually have a need for versatility baked into the underlying concept. Rangers especially. The Bard is a Jack of all Trades because D&amp;D at Some point didn’t know what to do with them, and now it’s stuck in a place it has no business in. The Bard stereotypes even fit a rogue more than the Bard! Why? Why is knowledge not a thing a class can be “the best” at? I enjoyed their unique mechanics in 3.5, in spite of overall performance, and they were very fun in 4e for a magical swashbuckler, but yeah no edition of D&amp;D has actually featured a Bardic PC option, IMO. Rogues are better at skills, especially at high level. Reliable Talent is much better than Jack of All Trades. They even have an extra feat so they have more “room” to spend a feat on skills. Rangers should have been “experts” from the beginning. It’s absurd to me that they don’t have more skill features than the Bard.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="doctorbadwolf, post: 8820089, member: 6704184"] But Rangers and Rogues actually have a need for versatility baked into the underlying concept. Rangers especially. The Bard is a Jack of all Trades because D&D at Some point didn’t know what to do with them, and now it’s stuck in a place it has no business in. The Bard stereotypes even fit a rogue more than the Bard! Why? Why is knowledge not a thing a class can be “the best” at? I enjoyed their unique mechanics in 3.5, in spite of overall performance, and they were very fun in 4e for a magical swashbuckler, but yeah no edition of D&D has actually featured a Bardic PC option, IMO. Rogues are better at skills, especially at high level. Reliable Talent is much better than Jack of All Trades. They even have an extra feat so they have more “room” to spend a feat on skills. Rangers should have been “experts” from the beginning. It’s absurd to me that they don’t have more skill features than the Bard. [/QUOTE]

Verification