Conceptual Problem - Fighter vs. Ranger

[Salamandyr]

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

Why would it lose its appeal as a theme?

 

[Salamandyr]

I heartily agree with the original poster about how the fighter has been pigeonholed through the creation of other classes.

What I want the fighter to be: anyone who primarily overcomes obstacles through force of arms. This could be Conan, D'Artagnan, Li Mu Bai, Aragorn, Lancelot, etc. You can be stealthy, charming, devious or wise, born in the Wild or a castle, raised as a scion of wealth or in an impoverished monastery, but if your primary conflict resolution method is to use fist, foot, sword, or spear to overcome your obstacles, than your character sheet ought to read "Fighter".

Ranger, Barbarian, Knight, Warlord, Monk, Swashbucklers, Samurai; these are just niches, kinds of people who fight. What I'd like is for every one of these to be able to be represented by the Fighter class. If we must, I guess all of those can be classes too, but it's best to recognize that those classes are just further specializations, different flavors if you will, of the fighter, not different archetypes per se.

Fighter: One who fights.

 

[Khaalis]

I agree with Salamandyr. The simple "Core" class could be assumed to be the generic "soldier fighter" of old, in plate with weapon and shield. From there, all of the niche fighters would be different builds of the fighter, where the build grants optional substitution class abilities and a list of best feat options and/or required feats.

 

[Salamandyr]

I agree with Salamandyr. The simple "Core" class could be assumed to be the generic "soldier fighter" of old, in plate with weapon and shield. From there, all of the niche fighters would be different builds of the fighter, where the build grants optional substitution class abilities and a list of best feat options and/or required feats.

I would like to be able to make a ranger , or a knight, or an adventuring rogue like Conan, or a wandering monk like Kwai Chang Caine, all with the fighter class. Perhaps classes like the Ranger, Cavalier, (no real analogy to Conan, but think Barbarian), or Monk make it easier to make those characters, but they wouldn't really be necessary.

I heartily endorse just having all of them be themes.

 

[BobTheNob]

I like the idea that we move to the 4 core classes (Maybe 5 if you want psionics) and just have subtypes after that.

e.g.
Fighter with Subtypes Weapon Master, Warlord, Barbarian, Ranger...
Theif with Subtypes Burglar, Assassin, Bard...
Mage with Subtypes Illusionist, Soreceror, Beguiler...
Cleric with Subtypes (Pacifist Healer), Undead smiter, Inquisitor...
e.t.c. (Possibly even explore themes for some of that)

But in a nutshell, move it all back to a small handful to core classes, so we can get some clear definition with them constantly overlapping, then allow some sub-typing for individuality and that "this is why MY character is cool" effect

 

[Salamandyr]

In truth, there are really only three core archetypes, all else is just variations on a theme or combinations of the 3.

The Fighter, who overcomes using force of arms.
The Magician, who overcomes using magic
The Expert, who overcomes through skill

 

[Teataine]

My thoughts:

-a Fighter lives to fight (or fights for a living), the Ranger (and other classes) fight to live
-a Fighter should be competent with a broad range of weapons and combat situations, the ranger knows how to fight well, but that's it
-a Fighter is tied to civilization, he knows tactics, duels, man-to-man combat, skirmishes, the Ranger is tied to the wilderness, he knows how to fight and kill monsters
-the Fighter is a mercenary, the Ranger is a survivor


(Also, Conan is primarily a rogue/thief with some levels in fighter (and a ritual caster feat). Barbarian should be a theme/background. Rage is not enough to build a class around, maybe a prestige class. It should be an optional feature for martial classes.

Warlord, while a fully fleshed out class in 4E would likely also fare better as a variant fighter...but then I think that about most classes. I guess the Warlord can work on its own.)

 

[JohnSnow]

My thoughts:

-a Fighter lives to fight (or fights for a living), the Ranger (and other classes) fight to live
-a Fighter should be competent with a broad range of weapons and combat situations, the ranger knows how to fight well, but that's it
-a Fighter is tied to civilization, he knows tactics, duels, man-to-man combat, skirmishes, the Ranger is tied to the wilderness, he knows how to fight and kill monsters
-the Fighter is a mercenary, the Ranger is a survivor

So, in your mind the questing knight errant with no magical powers is a ranger rather than a fighter?

I think I'm coming down to the theory that "ranger" really ought to mean "fighter skilled in lore." Now, in another system, that would just mean "smart fighter" - but in D&D, that sort of screams for the ranger to be our core fighter/magic-user class. That's a niche I could get behind.

As an aside, I have a pet peeve for the implication that "skilled" equals "rogue." It seems to me that most fantasy fighters are usually highly skilled in a variety of things. Certainly, not all of them have lots of "book learning" (although some do), but if you go by the fictional examples, they're usually among the most accomplished people out there at the various adventuring skills.

It's not that common for fighters have rogue-y skills, sure, like picking locks and sleight of hand. But sneaking around? Watching for spies? Gathering information in taverns? Usually, it's the fighter who does all that. The rogue, if he's there, is your specified point-of-contact with actual criminals, not the common man.

 

[Nebulous]

From the way i see it, a Fighter could easily stay a fighter, and Warlords, Rangers, Knights, and Barbarians are kits that swap his abilities around and add background flavor.

 

[Teataine]

So, in your mind the questing knight errant with no magical powers is a ranger rather than a fighter?

Hm, no, I wouldn't say so.

When I say "mercenary" I mean someone who puts his life on the line in exchange for some payment or reward. It's what I mean when I say the fighter "lives to fight, or fights for a living". They joust, fight with swords, maces, spears, shields...

That's how medieval knights operated. They risked their lives and fought in return for feudal rights, lands, titles, women.

The questing knight is just a knight who has been sent (or called) out on a specific mission. In literature they still mostly fight other (evil) knights (and sometimes wizards). If they go out to kill a dragon, it's usually just that one dragon, they're not really skilled in monster killing, and they survive the wilderness through virtue of being tough as nails, not by knowing bushcraft and other survival skills.

The Ranger can hold his own in combat, but he's a scout, pathfinder, hunter, tracker first and warrior second. The Ranger doesn't seek out violent conflict, or initiate it as his primary way of solving problems. He doesn't seek employment as a fighting-(wo)man. If we're taking the 4E paradigm of evaluating each class (only) in terms of their combat role and functionality, I'd say the Ranger is primarily a sort of controller.

He manages the terms of engagement, allowing the party to surprise the enemy and avoid being surprised. He sets traps, and takes advantage of the (natural) environment. He knows stuff about the lay of the land and the things that live there. He allows the party to waste less resources while exploring, allowing them to enter combat with more gunpowder. He prevents the party from being poisoned and bandages the wounds afterwards, allowing for faster recovery. He's the one that warns the party about the deadly slime mold. The Ranger should also function as a striker against beasts and monsters through virtue of his knowledge. He's the guy that knows the mating call of the owlbears that drives them crazy. He has fought against worgs and cave bears and bigger things and can draw on that experience.

I think the two classes are pretty much orthogonal, and thus it's hard to compare them side to side.