Is a fighter-ranger hybrid dumb? (help me build)

[Garthanos]

I am ambivalent - ie would accept either Warlord or Bard as reasonably valid design for a PC version of Aragorn.
The kings magic we see Aragorn involved in ranging from enhanced healing to oath binding magics (that could be rituals). The singing he does is as much a normal act of singing than something used to rally the people.
I think you have more options open using Warlord as a model than Bard ... but you really only need just enough and bard does have enough powers skinnable with a martial light to work.

I like this rendition.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan...276987-d-d-4th-edition-stats.html#post5188602

The two weapon archer ranger is Legalos from top to bottom. .. insisting because Aragorn is the Ranger that he needs to be "a ranger" is I think us/me being stubborn. A real life ranger is/was someone engaged in border patrol likely requiring survival and fighting skills that is all. (ie add nature skill to any class in the game).

 

[Samir]

1. Everything in Middle-Earth was magical simply through the essential magic of the setting.

Same with the 4e core setting, but that doesn't necessarily mean a Swordmage fights the same way a Ranger does.

2. Just because the bard is an Arcane class doesn't mean that a bard character is casting spells. Just change the fluff.

3. The powers I chose are all "weapon" powers with no truly magical effects. Jinx Shot unbalances an opponent, War Song Strike grants temp hp to the next ally that hits the target, etc. Chalk it up to inspiration.

Let me clarify: I'm not saying you can't template Aragorn as a Bard. You can really template anything as anything if you refluff it. An attack without fluff is just a die roll, after all; it's the fluff that makes it a sword strike, a loosed arrow, or a burst of lightning.

It's possible to say "Legolas would be a Warlock, because we refluffed Eldritch Blast into an arrow shot IMC"--and that's a perfectly valid re-skin, but if we're not talking about core 4e, then really no class is a better representation of Aragorn, Legolas, or the Cookie Monster than any other.

Keeping that in mind, it's my opinion that the core 4e Warlord fits the bill without any kind of refluffage. (Is that a word?)

 

[Klaus]

Same with the 4e core setting, but that doesn't necessarily mean a Swordmage fights the same way a Ranger does.


Let me clarify: I'm not saying you can't template Aragorn as a Bard. You can really template anything as anything if you refluff it. An attack without fluff is just a die roll, after all; it's the fluff that makes it a sword strike, a loosed arrow, or a burst of lightning.

It's possible to say "Legolas would be a Warlock, because we refluffed Eldritch Blast into an arrow shot IMC"--and that's a perfectly valid re-skin, but if we're not talking about core 4e, then really no class is a better representation of Aragorn, Legolas, or the Cookie Monster than any other.

Keeping that in mind, it's my opinion that the core 4e Warlord fits the bill without any kind of refluffage. (Is that a word?)

If refluffage wasn't a word, it is now.

One of the things that I noticed about the Valorous Bard when it first came out is that it out-warlorded the warlord, being a better combat leader. And, to keep it from being too arcane, my build has multiclass feats for Fighter, Warlord and Ranger.