Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thornir Alekeg" data-source="post: 4048610" data-attributes="member: 15651">I don't think Rangers were made more open.  How does removing their magic abilities make them more open?  I think people are cheering because the magic aspect of the Ranger never quite made sense when people thought of Ranger types in fantasy literature.  I know Dr. Awkward already mentioned this: People need to recall that 4e is built around the idea that Classes have an expected Role and the game is designed and balanced around this idea of roles.  The fighter class is a Defender.  The lightly armored, mobile melee combatant is not a Defender, but a Striker.  As long as you can fulfill the concept of the character, how much does it matter whether you call it a Fighter or a Ranger?in 3e, people wanted to use the fighter to create many different styles of fighters because they got the bonus feats that allowed them to do so.  We do not know how the Fighter is going to end up structred in 4e.  My guess is that their abilities will be designed to make them fill a more standard concept, rather than the multitude of variations on the same concept that could be done in 3e.  Is that better or worse for the game?  I would not try to judge until we see the entirety of the rules. One more thing people need to keep in mind when discussing 4e making things more confined:   It seems like that would be the ultimate in opening the game up if that is really what people desire - it just isn't the base assumption of the game.</blockquote>

Verification