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="Don Durito" data-source="post: 8119365" data-attributes="member: 6687260">Not the Ranger's fault the Fighter is a one trick pony.Give the Fighter some decent class features.  Or make Ranger a subclass of Fighter and make the Fighter's subclasses define how the Fighter approaches the other pillars.But to make a game and say how it's about three pillars and then make a class that's about the one pillar that everyone's good at really is poor design.Even keeping them separate classes - there's plenty of things you could give the Fighter that hardly stretch the concept.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The ability to gather rumours in settlements from other warriors in bars.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Advantage on Social checks when dealing with guards, warriors and mercenaries (they'll listen because he's clearly one of them).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The ability to train 0 level characters into level 1 Fighters in a very short amount of time. (Exalted's Tiger Warrior Training or the Seven Samurai training peasants to fight)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">They could have two backgrounds - one picked from a list that defines where they learnt their fighting (eg. Soldier, Guard etc) and one more general one.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The ability to gain expertise on the leadership skill when leading soldiers or battles (the skill doesn't exists but it should).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Practically anything Warlordy about inspiring allies.</li> </ul>But the two editions which had the highest votes in the Which Edition had the best Ranger thread?" are 1E (In which the Ranger was every bit as good a warrior as the Ranger - not almost as good as in 2nd edition, but as good - and 4E in which the two classes were differentiated by how they fought - although due to the way roles worked in 4E, a Ranger would probably wipe the floor with a Fighter in a 1 on 1 fight).  So it doesn't seem that the idea of Rangers as lesser combatants is what people want from the class in general.  It's the direction that 3E went because 3E was dumb like that and clearly really would have prefered to be a point buy trade-off system.</blockquote>

Verification