Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lurker37" data-source="post: 4250028" data-attributes="member: 9522">No, because 3E fighters got split into two 4E classes, due to the concept of roles. 3E fighters could be defenders or strikers. So in 4E the fighter got split into a class for each role, and the striker killed the ranger and took all his weapon skills, and his name. ( If WoTC had just given both these classes brand new names, we wouldn't have half the trouble wrapping our heads around what they do, but then I guess it would be too much of a departure from the icons of D&amp;D. )The new defender class kept the name of Fighter. It wears heavy armour, goes toe to to with the enemy, and has lots of abilities to discourage any opponent it can close with from attacking other, less resilient party members, and swing at the Fighter instead. Standing back and using a missile weapon just doesn't work with that role - they need to get up close and personal to be effective.The lightly armoured, mobile finesse fighter now goes by the name of Ranger. Despite the name of 'Ranger', this class has no magic, no animal companion, and doesn't even necessarily know that much about nature.&nbsp; As a striker, their role is to inflict damage on the enemy, preferably without getting hit themselves. To achieve this they can either specialise in darting in and out of combat with a melee weapon in each hand, or standing back and letting fly with arrows et al.&nbsp; It's really just another type of fighter with a different role - dealing damage instead of keeping the enemy occupied. So if you want a non-magical Fighter specialised in Archery, you actually want a Ranger in 4E. It just feels weird because we're used to that class name having a lot of baggage it no longer has in 4E.By the same token, anyone wanting to play a woodsman with nature-themed magic and a trained attack lion/tiger/bear/(oh my!) is SoL for now.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lurker37, post: 4250028, member: 9522"] No, because 3E fighters got split into two 4E classes, due to the concept of roles. 3E fighters could be defenders or strikers. So in 4E the fighter got split into a class for each role, and the striker killed the ranger and took all his weapon skills, and his name. ( If WoTC had just given both these classes brand new names, we wouldn't have half the trouble wrapping our heads around what they do, but then I guess it would be too much of a departure from the icons of D&D. ) The new defender class kept the name of Fighter. It wears heavy armour, goes toe to to with the enemy, and has lots of abilities to discourage any opponent it can close with from attacking other, less resilient party members, and swing at the Fighter instead. Standing back and using a missile weapon just doesn't work with that role - they need to get up close and personal to be effective. The lightly armoured, mobile finesse fighter now goes by the name of Ranger. [I]Despite the name of 'Ranger', this class has no magic, no animal companion, and doesn't even necessarily know that much about nature.[/I] As a striker, their role is to inflict damage on the enemy, preferably without getting hit themselves. To achieve this they can either specialise in darting in and out of combat with a melee weapon in each hand, or standing back and letting fly with arrows et al. It's really just another type of fighter with a different role - dealing damage instead of keeping the enemy occupied. So if you want a non-magical Fighter specialised in Archery, you actually want a Ranger in 4E. It just feels weird because we're used to that class name having a lot of baggage it no longer has in 4E. By the same token, anyone wanting to play a woodsman with nature-themed magic and a trained attack lion/tiger/bear/(oh my!) is SoL for now. [/QUOTE]

Verification