Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Argyle King" data-source="post: 6068094" data-attributes="member: 58416">You are certainly free to be a fighter and use a bow.&nbsp; That is still true -even in 4th Edition.&nbsp; I say the fighter is melee based not because of the defender role, but because viewing him differently makes me question why we bother having ranger as a different class.&nbsp; I actually agree that the fighter is the martial class.&nbsp; However, if that is so, how then do we define the ranger?Personally, I would have been happy having the ranger class become a theme in 5th Edition.&nbsp; A rogue with a nature lense or a fighter with a lightly armored skirmishing build would have worked fine.&nbsp; However, if ranger and fighter are both to be classes, I'd like to have more of a reason to have both instead of ranger simply being some kind of second-hand fighter crossed with a second-hand druid.&nbsp; You say you chose fighters up until 4th Edition -which made you choose a ranger if you wanted a ranged character.&nbsp; From my point of view, I didn't choose fighters at all in 3rd Edition if I wanted to play a game beyond level 4.&nbsp; While Pathfinder did some work toward fixing that, some of the problems still remain.&nbsp; While I very strongly disagree with some of the ideals which 4th Edition is based on, one thing I feel it got right was the fighter.&nbsp; Even after other books were released, the fighter remained one of my favorite 4E classes because of the flexibility it allowed.&nbsp; (My #1 favorite was the Warlord.)It is quite easy to make a 4E fighter deal damage and defend if that's what you want to do.&nbsp; It is also quite easy to make a ranged 4E fighter who is effective.&nbsp; You're not going to be nearly as good as a ranger who optimizes ranged combat, but I don't necessarily see that as a flaw in the game... especially in a game where we are choosing to have both ranger and fighter as core classes.&nbsp; My view is that either both classes have a reason to be there or they don't.&nbsp; If I regularly find that the concepts I have for a campaign cannot fit into that (or cannot be reasonably done even with multiclassing and similar options,) I start to feel I'm better served by playing a game which isn't D&amp;D.If you're talking pre-3rd Edition, I honestly have nothing to base what I'm saying on.&nbsp; I'm primarily familiar with 3rd Edition and 4th Edition when it comes to D&amp;D.&nbsp; I've dabbled in 1st Edition a little bit recently, and I've also played a rather large amount of Pathfinder in the last 5-6 months.&nbsp; Outside of the d20 family (if it matters) I primarily play GURPS 4th Edition and have quite often used it in conjunction with D&amp;D setting fluff and adventures.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Argyle King, post: 6068094, member: 58416"] You are certainly free to be a fighter and use a bow. That is still true -even in 4th Edition. I say the fighter is melee based not because of the defender role, but because viewing him differently makes me question why we bother having ranger as a different class. I actually agree that the fighter is the martial class. However, if that is so, how then do we define the ranger? Personally, I would have been happy having the ranger class become a theme in 5th Edition. A rogue with a nature lense or a fighter with a lightly armored skirmishing build would have worked fine. However, if ranger and fighter are both to be classes, I'd like to have more of a reason to have both instead of ranger simply being some kind of second-hand fighter crossed with a second-hand druid. You say you chose fighters up until 4th Edition -which made you choose a ranger if you wanted a ranged character. From my point of view, I didn't choose fighters at all in 3rd Edition if I wanted to play a game beyond level 4. While Pathfinder did some work toward fixing that, some of the problems still remain. While I very strongly disagree with some of the ideals which 4th Edition is based on, one thing I feel it got right was the fighter. Even after other books were released, the fighter remained one of my favorite 4E classes because of the flexibility it allowed. (My #1 favorite was the Warlord.) It is quite easy to make a 4E fighter deal damage and defend if that's what you want to do. It is also quite easy to make a ranged 4E fighter who is effective. You're not going to be nearly as good as a ranger who optimizes ranged combat, but I don't necessarily see that as a flaw in the game... especially in a game where we are choosing to have both ranger and fighter as core classes. My view is that either both classes have a reason to be there or they don't. If I regularly find that the concepts I have for a campaign cannot fit into that (or cannot be reasonably done even with multiclassing and similar options,) I start to feel I'm better served by playing a game which isn't D&D. If you're talking pre-3rd Edition, I honestly have nothing to base what I'm saying on. I'm primarily familiar with 3rd Edition and 4th Edition when it comes to D&D. I've dabbled in 1st Edition a little bit recently, and I've also played a rather large amount of Pathfinder in the last 5-6 months. Outside of the d20 family (if it matters) I primarily play GURPS 4th Edition and have quite often used it in conjunction with D&D setting fluff and adventures. [/QUOTE]

Verification