Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kobold Boots" data-source="post: 6103686" data-attributes="member: 92239">On Ranger v. FighterRangers in 1e had spells if their attributes were high enough and they had high enough levels to get access to them.  They were a sub-class of Fighter.  Fighters didn't have much to save them from being less cool than Rangers or Paladins as I remember and those classes were pretty much "better" overall than fighter.  Later editions did things to beef up the fighter and make him worth playing.  Ultimately, the fighter needs to be able to deal more damage, more often and take more damage, more often, than the other classes.  He can stand to not be cool in other areas, because that's the class's niche.  Give them whatever mechanic or weapon and armor choices you need to to make that happen and you succeed.You can do whatever you need to do with Ranger and Paladin to make them a strong thematic choice that makes a player want to play them; but they can't do what the fighter does.  If that means the Ranger isn't the best archer or the best swordsman, but they have spell-like abilities that allow them to supernaturally track or detect poison or whatever great.  That's the choice of the player.  Really, when it's thought about through to the end; there's no functional difference between any character and any other character on the sliding power scale.. it's just what the theme gives the character and where the character's focus is.  But at the point where you've got spell-like abilities that can be used a certain number of times a day.. just call them spells and be done with it.  Generally, I think that's where they're going with first-level spells for Pally and Ranger.On Pally and alignment typesI'm glad they've separated the term Paladin from Cavalier, Warden and Blackguard.  Honestly, I wish they'd have reversed that and made Cavalier the source with Paladin, Warden and Blackguard the descriptors because there's a lot of history and vibe to the Paladin name that should be retained and the Cavalier core class is more like the 1e UA approach.  Still it's semantics.For me: I'll make sure the Paladin is the holy knight, the Warden is the druidic champion and the Blackguard is the infernal bastard they need to be and I doubt highly that they'll be anything like each other in terms of vibe when met in game such that anyone calls them "hey neutral pally" or "hey evil pally".. cause to me that's wrong.I think the direction they're going is a solid one and I'll be sure to un-fubar whatever the community at large decides to fubar when the game system gets to my table. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification