Conceptual Problem - Fighter vs. Ranger

[Falling Icicle]

I think the fighter should kill the warlord and take his stuff.

 

[El Mahdi]

I think it's important to look at these classes from what their backgrounds likely are. Though there may be some disagreement abou this, I see them this way:

Warrior: A Warrior with a military background of at least an infantry soldier. Understands military force structure, defences, and tactics, as well as being versed in the most common fighting forms of the time.

Knight: A Noble Warrior, with much the same combat skills as the above warrior, but concentrates much more on Equestrian combat. Command skills can be common to both the Knight and Warrior. The symbol of a Knight is not their sword or armor, but their spurs.

Paladin: A Mendicant Knight. A Knight that has taken vows of poverty, piety, and yes...chastity, in the service of a god. They have a special connection to their deity and gain special favor for their sacrifice.

Fighter: A warrior without a military background. Combat skills learned from Sword/Fencing teachers. Professional Duelists, Body Guards, and even some Mercenaries fall into this category.

Monk: an oriental warrior dedicated to both mind and body perfection. They have skills in common with military warriors, but are at the same time much less and much more than a straight warrior. They are not historically, a warrior that focuses exclusively on unarmed combat. Such focus has only been during specific historical periods and always as a result of the political climate of the time.

Ranger: A Woodsman. Can fight much like a Fighter but is most at home in the wilderness. Their skills are tracking, hunting, and scouting. They may be part of a military group but only as a scout - not as a Warrior on the battlefield.

Barbarian (Berserker): A unique Warrior of Germanic (Barbarian) origin. Outlawed in many places and times. They escue the use of armor (except for Hides, such as Bear or Wolf hides), and work themself into a rage (either by psychological means or through the use of "herbal" agents).


I would really like to see the classes get back closer to their roots and original inspirations, rather than continuing in the direction they have been going. A direction that has strayed far from their origins.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I would like ranger as a theme....

 

[Jack Daniel]

Of course the sane and logical thing would be to have only one Fighter class, and relegate paladins, barbarians, rangers, cavaliers, and warlords to mere sub-classes, kits, or themes.

Unfortunately, that will never happen. Since WotC took over D&D, the idea of a small and parsimonious number of classes which can be modified to suit particular flavors (or, heaven forbid, merely roleplayed as such) has been entirely alien as a class design philosophy. And so, instead of 2nd edition's kit bloat, 3rd and 4th edition have class bloat, and so will 5th.

In a perfect world, there would be fighters, mages, clerics, rogues, and an optional fifth class for psionicists. EVERY character class in D&D can theoretically be modeled as a sub-class of one of these.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Of course the sane and logical thing would be to have only one Fighter class, and relegate paladins, barbarians, rangers, cavaliers, and warlords to mere sub-classes, kits, or themes.

Unfortunately, that will never happen. Since WotC took over D&D, the idea of a small and parsimonious number of classes which can be modified to suit particular flavors (or, heaven forbid, merely roleplayed as such) has been entirely alien as a class design philosophy. And so, instead of 2nd edition's kit bloat, 3rd and 4th edition have class bloat, and so will 5th.

In a perfect world, there would be fighters, mages, clerics, rogues, and an optional fifth class for psionicists. EVERY character class in D&D can theoretically be modeled as a sub-class of one of these.

Please do not be so quick to blame WotC for class bloat. There were scores of optional classes available way back in the beginning - it's just that most of them got published. And what didn't get into AD&D or Unearthed Arcana wound up in Dragon Magazine - it just wasn't "official". (Or balanced.)

There has been a demand for new classes since the beginning.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Please do not be so quick to blame WotC for class bloat. There were scores of optional classes available way back in the beginning - it's just that most of them got published. And what didn't get into AD&D or Unearthed Arcana wound up in Dragon Magazine - it just wasn't "official". (Or balanced.)

There has been a demand for new classes since the beginning.

2e had whole books creating classes, Nina hand book barbarian psionic chronomacy (just the ones I have)

 

[variant]

I would like ranger as a theme....

I disagree. It is a popular class and it would lose a lot of its appeal as a theme.

 

[TwinBahamut]

They should remove Barbarian. I never saw the point of the class.

What? Why?

Somewhat awkward name aside, the Barbarian is a fairly distinct concept both in terms of story archetype and in terms of game mechanics. It's a berserker, the class for the poorly equipped tribal warrior who flies into a murderous rage that drives his power beyond normal human limits. It's the class of Cuchulainn, the hero of Irish legend who becomes an invincible, rampaging monster through his "warp spasm" technique. It's the class of the iconic viking berserker whose rage and violence let them turn aside flames and swords in battle.

In game terms, the rage mechanic is rather distinct from anything used by the more disciplined Fighter class. It is also a fun mechanic, that evokes a lot of flavor quite easily and is very appropriate to the class concept. Outside of the problematic name (just Berserker would be better) and the pointless illiteracy mechanic in 3E, it's almost what I would consider an ideal D&D class.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

What? Why?

Somewhat awkward name aside, the Barbarian is a fairly distinct concept both in terms of story archetype and in terms of game mechanics. It's a berserker, the class for the poorly equipped tribal warrior who flies into a murderous rage that drives his power beyond normal human limits.

This is a fairy new reimagination of the class and really needs to go away or be renamed berserker, as it in no way represents a barbarian from any culture, save Norse.

 

[Khaalis]

IMHO, a very simple way to discern the difference is...

Fighter = Possibly better named "Soldier". Master of arms, armor, battle tactics, 'civilized' warfare and personal combat.

Ranger = Possibly better named "Scout". Wilderness warriors and trailblazers, master of terrain, tracking, survival and more wild, less 'civilized' forms of combat.