Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TwinBahamut" data-source="post: 5823479" data-attributes="member: 32536">Really, trying to make clear distinctions between any different kind of non-magical class is a pain. Actually, distinguishing between magical classes can also be a pain, though perhaps a different sort of one...Still, I think Rangers and Fighters can be made distinct enough, so long as you try to avoid turning the Fighter into a flavorless generic catch-all for everyone who holds a sword. The key difference between those two classes is simple enough. Fighters are warriors who stand toe to toe with enemies on the front lines of battle. They can use ranged weapons, but those are usually a back-up for the real specialty of melee combat. Rangers are skirmishers and sneaks who strike weakened foes, harass enemies from a distance, lay ambushes, and hunt their quarry. They use far more mobility, have more ranged attacks, and have more tricks, but can't hold up on the front line quite as long and are not as good at fighting alongside and protecting allies like the Fighter is.Really, if you ask me the problem isn't differentiating the Fighter from the Ranger, it is differentiating the Ranger from the Rogue. Honestly, I'd rather give the Rogue's Sneak Attack to the Ranger (at least as an alternative to their favored enemy/hunter's quarry ability), and work to build a totally different combat niche for the Rogue. Make the Ranger the "sneaky guy who is a tough warrior" and the Rogue the "sneaky guy who outsmarts his foes".</blockquote>

Verification